7 ms·

> draw from imagination rather than copying or tracing photos Well, I'd argue that the more important skill from a technical perspective is in between that-- l

> draw from imagination rather than copying or tracing photos Well, I'd argue that the more important skill from a technical perspective is in between that-- life drawing. Being able to translate 3d scenes into a 2d image is the primary technical drawing skill emphasized in art school drawing classes, and for good reason: it forces you to reason about physical space and the structure of objects in ways that neither drawing from imagination nor drawing from a photo reference does. Using a photo reference for drawing in art school is usually disallowed because you simply don't build up that skill, and drawing from imagination is generally taught in classes like Character Design and Illustration after students have learned the fundamentals because there are tons of intellectual considerations there that don't have a lot to do with making marks and reasoning about space that warrant their own subjects. Among the long-time artists I know that started drawing from imagination exclusively, I don't know a single one that doesn't lament not focusing on the comparatively dry life drawing earlier in their practice. Doing the traditional foundational things like pencil line drawing accurate complex still life can be really frustrating, as can figure drawing, though I found it a lot more rewarding. But if you're looking to develop the best possible artistic eye, there is absolutely no substitute.

b450 3y ago
I agree that life drawing is of tremendous importance, but your characterization here disagrees with my experience: > [life drawing] forces you to reason about physical space and the structure of objects in ways that neither drawing from imagination nor drawing from a photo reference does. Now this may be because I am, at best, an intermediate artist, but in my experience, beginner drawing courses (rightly) focus on unlearning the natural tendency towards "symbol drawing". A bunch of beginner drawing exercises like (a) copying Picasso's Stravinsky portrait upside down, (b) overlaying a picture with a grid to copy it, (c) life drawing with various physical aids (holding out a pencil to "visually measure", drawing a scene visible through a cardboard frame) are all focused on learning to draw what you "really see" instead of what you think you see. To me, this early learning process involves learning _not_ to reason about what you see, but to instead simply copy what's in your "visual field". Instead of "oh, a nose is sort of a pyramid shape, so it should look like this", it's, "I see a darker value in that spot" (it just so happens to be the shadow cast under the nose, but you don't even need to recognize that). In my own drawing journey, I actually think my life drawing started getting much better once I started learning to draw from imagination, because the latter _does_ require that level of understanding - using perspective, simplifying forms into primitive shapes, types of shadows, planning where the darkest and lightest values in the image will be, and so on. In particular, since practicing illustration, I'm much more capable of sketching things that aren't posing, like the geese permanently milling around in front of my house - I can quickly copy a silhouette, and then use my knowledge to fill out what it should look like. I didn't really learn to do that in all my life drawing classes, because I could just fall back on what I was seeing.
- chefandy 3y ago
  I'm not an art educator, but I am a fairly recent graduate from art school, and am familiar with the curricula of other art programs-- and that's the perspective that I'm speaking from. YMMV of course. Reasoning about objects symbolically is very different than reasoning about the way real world space and forms present themselves in 2d. The "copy the portrait upside down" type of exercises are great for casual self-paced learners: they help break naive habits, get people excited because they see the composition and intent that other people created coming out in their work, there's built-in guard rails to make sure they don't stray too far, and the references are commonly available and therefore easy to get crit on online, or just evaluate it yourself... but I think they take up a lot of time for what you get out of them, and it's really easy for people to plateau taking that approach. I also went to culinary school some time ago and worked as a chef-- there's a similar split in culinary art. If someone told me they were sick of making boring weeknight dinners, then sure, finding and following fun recipes and maybe doing some creative experimentation is a good place to start, and surely some people that start that way end up really learning how to cook eventually. Exposure to variety is also helpful in developing aesthetic sophistication. But without deliberate guidance towards theory-focused information, most hit a hard plateau with that approach, and there's a good chance they'll stay there. If they'd read a beginner-friendly technique-focused book like Michael Ruhlman's "Ratio" instead of trawling recipe sites for aspirational dinners, they might have seen less improvement in the quality of their dinners for a week, but in a few weeks they'd be miles beyond the first cargo-culting cook because rather than knowing a handful of recipes that work, they'd know how they worked. If someone said they were looking to get into art, generally, then there's no way I'd recommend even touching still life for a while. If they're like "I want to learn oil painting on canvas" then I absolutely would. P.S. > Now this may be because I am, at best, an intermediate artist So you're probably a pretty competent artist. ;-) Genuinely mediocre artists talk about their capability like they're Van Eyck.
  - sandspar 3y ago
    Interesting! A couple of years ago, I attempted to begin "learning to draw well" (technique focus). I did the first couple of lessons on the Watts Atelier online course and attended several life drawing sittings. It didn't stick, though! Do you have any recommendations for the initial phases of "learning to draw well"? I think I focused too much on rigor, too soon, and didn't give myself enough chances to sink my teeth into it with initial easy wins.
Snigelmannen 3y ago
Well, life drawing is a great way to get work on storing things in your brain you can draw on (!) when you want to construct things from your imagination esp. if anatomical likeness is your goal. However: What I was talking about in my comment was not to recommend any one path to get to drawing from from imagination, it was a lament that the book just does not talk at all about what I am personally getting the most excitement from in drawing: the thrill of the skill of getting things from your head to the page. And you definitely don't need to do classical life drawing to get there. If you look at the Lynda Barry/Ivan Brunetti style of having fun and drawing things from your head where anatomical likeness is not the ultimate goal you clearly can do that without doing a whole lot of life drawing.

b450 3y ago

I agree that life drawing is of tremendous importance, but your characterization here disagrees with my experience: > [life drawing] forces you to reason about physical space and the structure of objects in ways that neither drawing from imagination nor drawing from a photo reference does. Now this may be because I am, at best, an intermediate artist, but in my experience, beginner drawing courses (rightly) focus on unlearning the natural tendency towards "symbol drawing". A bunch of beginner drawing exercises like (a) copying Picasso's Stravinsky portrait upside down, (b) overlaying a picture with a grid to copy it, (c) life drawing with various physical aids (holding out a pencil to "visually measure", drawing a scene visible through a cardboard frame) are all focused on learning to draw what you "really see" instead of what you think you see. To me, this early learning process involves learning _not_ to reason about what you see, but to instead simply copy what's in your "visual field". Instead of "oh, a nose is sort of a pyramid shape, so it should look like this", it's, "I see a darker value in that spot" (it just so happens to be the shadow cast under the nose, but you don't even need to recognize that). In my own drawing journey, I actually think my life drawing started getting much better once I started learning to draw from imagination, because the latter _does_ require that level of understanding - using perspective, simplifying forms into primitive shapes, types of shadows, planning where the darkest and lightest values in the image will be, and so on. In particular, since practicing illustration, I'm much more capable of sketching things that aren't posing, like the geese permanently milling around in front of my house - I can quickly copy a silhouette, and then use my knowledge to fill out what it should look like. I didn't really learn to do that in all my life drawing classes, because I could just fall back on what I was seeing.

chefandy 3y ago
I'm not an art educator, but I am a fairly recent graduate from art school, and am familiar with the curricula of other art programs-- and that's the perspective that I'm speaking from. YMMV of course. Reasoning about objects symbolically is very different than reasoning about the way real world space and forms present themselves in 2d. The "copy the portrait upside down" type of exercises are great for casual self-paced learners: they help break naive habits, get people excited because they see the composition and intent that other people created coming out in their work, there's built-in guard rails to make sure they don't stray too far, and the references are commonly available and therefore easy to get crit on online, or just evaluate it yourself... but I think they take up a lot of time for what you get out of them, and it's really easy for people to plateau taking that approach. I also went to culinary school some time ago and worked as a chef-- there's a similar split in culinary art. If someone told me they were sick of making boring weeknight dinners, then sure, finding and following fun recipes and maybe doing some creative experimentation is a good place to start, and surely some people that start that way end up really learning how to cook eventually. Exposure to variety is also helpful in developing aesthetic sophistication. But without deliberate guidance towards theory-focused information, most hit a hard plateau with that approach, and there's a good chance they'll stay there. If they'd read a beginner-friendly technique-focused book like Michael Ruhlman's "Ratio" instead of trawling recipe sites for aspirational dinners, they might have seen less improvement in the quality of their dinners for a week, but in a few weeks they'd be miles beyond the first cargo-culting cook because rather than knowing a handful of recipes that work, they'd know how they worked. If someone said they were looking to get into art, generally, then there's no way I'd recommend even touching still life for a while. If they're like "I want to learn oil painting on canvas" then I absolutely would. P.S. > Now this may be because I am, at best, an intermediate artist So you're probably a pretty competent artist. ;-) Genuinely mediocre artists talk about their capability like they're Van Eyck.
- sandspar 3y ago
  Interesting! A couple of years ago, I attempted to begin "learning to draw well" (technique focus). I did the first couple of lessons on the Watts Atelier online course and attended several life drawing sittings. It didn't stick, though! Do you have any recommendations for the initial phases of "learning to draw well"? I think I focused too much on rigor, too soon, and didn't give myself enough chances to sink my teeth into it with initial easy wins.

Snigelmannen 3y ago

Well, life drawing is a great way to get work on storing things in your brain you can draw on (!) when you want to construct things from your imagination esp. if anatomical likeness is your goal. However: What I was talking about in my comment was not to recommend any one path to get to drawing from from imagination, it was a lament that the book just does not talk at all about what I am personally getting the most excitement from in drawing: the thrill of the skill of getting things from your head to the page. And you definitely don't need to do classical life drawing to get there. If you look at the Lynda Barry/Ivan Brunetti style of having fun and drawing things from your head where anatomical likeness is not the ultimate goal you clearly can do that without doing a whole lot of life drawing.