What are your unpopular art opinions?Mine is that I think that you should always begin a portrait drawing with a skull or it should be drawn at some point during the process, and I think any other method that doesn’t include the skull will end up anatomically inaccurate
Here's my unpoopular take:People that think that likeness accuracy is the absolute peak of art are no fun at parties. Its a valid goal, sure, but if it means you have a take like OP, you need to get your head checked. How could you possibly accurately draw a fucking skull that you cannot see? Do you think everyone's skull is identical?
>>7427076Drawing a skull in general will attain more accuracy than not drawing one at all. That’s the point. Same way if you draw a figure and start with a skeleton (which you also can’t see), it’ll be more accurate because it’s something every human has. It’s not that difficult of a concept to comprehend
>>7427100Ok, if you're talking about drawing construction lines, thats acceptable if you want to get precise alignments based on general relationships. Its not an unpopular take at all.But thats different to "drawing the skull first". If you're actually drawing the skull before drawing in the muscle, fat and skin etc... this is something NOBODY should do unless they're drawing a zombie or studying.
>>7427115Why would you not draw the skull before drawing muscles, when the muscles attach to the skull?
>>7427064Anatomical accuracy isn't that important.
>>7427119It is extremely Important
>>7427118Because im drawing a face?! All I need is basic anatomical knowledge to INFORM my decisions. I don't need to actually draw them. Am I crazy here?
>>7427121no anon, you're not crazy
>>7427121You form the foundation of that basic anatomical knowledge by drawing a skull first, and then laying features ATOP that skull. It is how you make a portrait as accurate as possible, you simply CAN’T do that without the skull. I think drawing it is necessary, more so than “knowledge”, because it’s easier to make mistakes if the skull is not visually present.
>>7427120Its really not. "Looking right" is more important than being right.
>>7427064>any other method that doesn’t include the skull will end up anatomically inaccuratepeople draw accurate heads without drawing a skull all the time, probably most of the time
>>7427123This is 100% just bait or you're conflating "skull" with "rough guidelines".
>>7427123Right, so do you then draw the skull at every possible angle? Y'know, for accuracy?Alright, you win. Carry on wasting time drawing stuff that doesn't make the final cut. The worst thing is if I saw your work and compared it to the subject, I GUARANTEE I would find inaccuracies.
>>7427126How can something “look right” without “being right?” >>7427129That’s fine, good for them. I will never subscribe to the idea that you should start a portrait without the skull because that’s how you end up making anatomical mistakes
>>7427133>How can something “look right” without “being right?” I can't wait for you to encounter your first optical illusion
>>7427131It’s not conflation. I didn’t say you had to draw a super complex skull, even a rough sketch of a skull would be better than NOTHING. >>7427132You’d see inaccuracies in any portrait because it’s impossible to make anything 100% accurate. However, if you want the most accuracy, it’s ideal to draw the skull, even if roughly
>>7427133
Like why is this so controversial???
>>7427137Because there is a massive difference between studying the skull to to understand how it works, and to draw it in every single picture with a head
>>7427135I don't need to draw any skull at all to know where shit goes on a head. It's a complete waste of time. If you don't know the anatomy of a head, how the fuck are you even going to draw a decent skull in the first place?
>>7427137Like I said, this has to be bait It's working though, so good job
>>7427139If you want the most ideal results, doing the latter would probably be best. >>7427140It’s not a waste of time. The skull is literally the most important component of the head. The skull IS the head. What are you on about?
I hate these "unpopular opinions" threads because you get stuck in the same tired nonsenses every time. Look at you, babbling about skulls as opposed to share other opinions.Here's mine: Conveying emotions through your art is an important skill one must strive to develop, doesn't matter what kind of emotion it is or if you're drawing for yourself or you're the only one that sees your works. In fact, you should be able to make yourself feel something, anything, for what you do.
>>7427143What do you mean by "most ideal result"? Photorealistic? Use a camera
>>7427142Not bait. Some of us on this board actually value anatomical accuracy in our drawings, which is why I think you should draw the skull first
>>7427135Thats fricking construction! Its a simplified skull, not an accurate one.>>7427115I even mentioned this and you carried on spewing.
>>7427148A simplified skull is better than NO skull at all. That’s my point. Draw the SKULL to SOME degree
Op:
>>7427147Pyw
>>7427064My unpopular art opinion is that anime art is the worst thing to happen to art. Not even in a "it looks bad" way, but in a "every 21st century beginner artist starts to draw because of it and they all end up having the same bad habits and frequent mistakes" way.>>7427145I would agree or disagree, depending on what your stance on lust is.
>>7427154Okay. Here’s some SKULL studies. Notice how the skull is drawn before the one on the right
>>7427155I agree wholeheartedly. The problem lies in that people who study anime don’t understand that it’s an abstraction of reality, so they don’t learn their fundies as effectively
>>7427064>>7427100you're unironically a midwit
>>7427158Okay anon. Keep drawing your anatomically inaccurate portraits that don’t have the skull, I’ll keep studying the skull and using it as the basis for my art, because that’s what actual artists do. Whatever the fuck you consider yourself, you do what you want
>>7427160>words words wordsClassic midwit
>>7427160>because that’s what actual artists doCounterpoint: Picasso
>this makes /ic/ seethe
>>7427160You will not find a single professional artist that draws a skull or any skeletal structure before drawing a character. Not one.
>>7427155>I would agree or disagree, depending on what your stance on lust is.Lust is a valid emotion to convey through your works, albeit a low-hanging-fruit one that people neglect to make the most of because they only reach out to the carnal aspect of lust, as opposed to the spiritual aspect of it, which is a shame.
>>7427167How do you know? You standing over the shoulder of every pro while they draw? You Santa Claus or some shit?
>>7427171Yes, and I know you're a retard, thats why I didn't give you anything last year.
>>7427064Accuracy in general is not that important.
>>7427174What is art without accuracy, if art imitates life?
>>7427156And you do this every single time you draw a head?
>>7427177Yes. It’s the only way I can make sense of the head. Any other method causes mistakes
>>7427176Please stop trying to sound deep you fucking buffoon.
>>7427145Especially when OP is a faggot troll bitch.> Conveying emotions through your art I agree, I only recently started using art to reflect emotions/stuff on my mind. Its valuless to anyone but me, so I don't have to make it appeal too much. Picrel ar emy thoughts on lies. As cringe and edgy as that sounds, I enjoy making a story out of it.
>>7427180Why would you say some bullshit like “accuracy in general is not that important?”, anyways? That’s fucking dumb. You think this would look halfway as good as it does without accuracy? What the fuck.
>>7427181Not trolling. You are all proving my opinion as unpopular based on how fucking uptight you have all gotten about this, so go figure.
>>7427185It's not an opinion you actually have. Thus trolling.
>>7427187It is. Who the fuck are you to tell me my opinions?
>>7427188No it's not. No one is this stupid.
>>7427190How is what I’m saying stupid? Draw the skull first. Whether it be simply or complex, it should be drawn. It isn’t fucking rocket science, it isn’t complex, it isn’t that ridiculous of a thing to say. Maybe you’re the stupid one.
https://youtube.com/shorts/LoIsRVw66fs?si=r59OMg3-yw4UaGni>this makes /ic/ seethe.
>>7427192It's a complete waste of time that won't make your drawing any better.If you can accurately draw a skull, you can accurately draw a head without the skull.
>>7427196So you think >>7427193 would be just as good, had he not drawn the skull?
>>7427200Yes. You're really confusing a shitty parlor trick for youtube with actual practices people do?
>>7427176The point of art is to achieve verisimility, not to copy life. Basically, is like when movie character talk in a way that no one talks, yet it sounds true.To focus on accuracy is to deliberatly try to make your art make the jump between imitation and equality. It's a fools' errant, because a photo is better at doing that (and not even well)>>7427182That wasn't me. But, yes, I think it would.
>>7427201It is an actual practice that people do, as indicated by the video. Don’t discard it just because it is a YouTube short
>>7427185Your unpopular opinion comes down to your conflation of the terms "construction" and "skull". You're hellbent on MAKING it unpopular, like a pretentious retard troll bitch. Im only going ad hominem because you're not listening to anyone.
>>7427203https://youtu.be/qyW12gDeWPI?si=INtK4uk7SZtG4eNNAgain, it's just a parlor trick to amuse retards like (you)
>>7427204I’m not conflating the two. Doing a constructive drawing, like the Loomis picture I posted, IS drawing the skull. That’s what I’m saying- draw it to SOME degree. I’m not trying to MAKE it unpopular, it’s how I feel. I am listening to others, and I disagree with them
>>7427205So I prove that drawing a skull first can lead to a successful and accurate drawing, as shown by that YouTube short, yet here you are, saying that some random drawing of will smith discredits that. I won.
>>7427208Unpopular opinion: you should draw things line by line like a printer does.>>7427205Proof that it's a totally real practice people do and not just a worthless skill only learned to impress monkeys.
>>7427206Construction is not an unpopular opinion though. It's quite literally the most popular opinion. So is your opinion just that constructing the head helps?
>>7427211No, my opinion is that constructing the head using a skull is the best method. It is not the same thing
>>7427213Why are you bringing up loomis then?
>>7427211Also, drawing the skull first is not congruent with construction
>>7427215Because I posted his skull drawings earlier in the thread
>>7427218Yeah, a drawing of a skull. Notice how when he is drawing anything that isn't just a skull, he isn't drawing it underneath?
>>7427220That’s good for him, but I think that it is best that you do.
>>7427222I mean, I guess it's an unpopular opinion cause most people think it's a waste of time. But honestly, as long as you're having fun, whatever, I don't really care, I just wanted to figure out what your actual position is
>>7427064i don't feel like being controversial right now.
>>7427064talent exists
>>7427222I think you're a retard
>>7427229I think you can blow the black off of my dick.
>>7427213>>7427206IS IT THE SAME OR NOT?!
Notice how nobody in this thread has provided a better way to draw portraits.
>>7427233>>7427215
>>7427234That isn’t better .
>>7427235op didn't claim that skull method was factually better
>>7427235Why not?
>>7427240Because it doesn’t include the skull
>>7427241perhaps you need to book an appointment with an emotional management therapist that specialises in autism, or find better bait
>>7427241You seem to have caught me in a tautology. Excellent work sir, I surrender. You're trolling is immaculate
>>7427243You need to learn some logic and reason
>>7427242The skull is the best method imo. That’s final >>7427243Not trolling. >>7427246Right
>>7427246>Drawing the skull is the best option for drawing faces, because it is the only one that includes a skull.That is, in fact, the definition of a tautology.
>>7427249See, now you’re getting it
>>7427249Look at the OP and realize that it was, in the first place, presented as an opinion, and therefore is not subject to this kind of debate.
>>7427251We aren't talking about op though, we are talking about >>7427233 this one
>>7427064Fuckable furries are the lifeblood of modern art.
>>7427253A better method than what?
>>7427255Drawing the skull first
>>7427256As in the OP?
>>7427255As opposed to >>7427241, you need to work on your trolling, it's weak
>>7427251How is an opinion not able to be scrutinized under the lens of formal logic?
>>7427258Nobody is trolling. If it doesn’t start with the skull, it is an inferior method of drawing a portrait. I said what I said . It’s not about if it includes the skull, which literally every portrait does, it’s about if it STARTS with the skull…THE MOST IMPORTANT CONPONENT OF THE HEAD. YOU DONT HAVE A HEAD WITHOUT THE SKULL
>>7427064>this makes /ic/ seethe
>>7427262I wasn't referring to that, but the most obvious gotcha ever>OP is just an opinion>we aren't talking about OP, but someone that implied that there is no better method than op>Aha, but OP is just an opinion
>>7427226Agree and I think a big part of talent is having an innate understanding of 3d and form. That's why some people can draw convincing cartoons without studying the body or anatomy. Other parts of talent are understanding color and appeal. All can be trained of course. But natural talent gives you a huge leg up.
This makes OP seethe
Leave some room for the rest of us fucking schizo. The level of ego to take 100 of the bump limit to yourself is fucking wild
>>7427268?
>>7427269Then add something to the discussion you fucking faggot. >>7427268Ignore the “?”, I see what you mean. That isn’t a portrait though.
>>7427133which is it? did those people not draw not draw accurate heads without a skull, or is a skull necessary to draw an accurate head. You can't have it both ways.
>>7427261A preference can't be falsified. Belief in a concept has no relevance to whether or not the concept is real. You cannot demonstrate that the opinion is not.
>>7427272>That isn’t a portrait thoughhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyedaD4uH2U
>talentif you cant understand that alent is just the time it takes you to master a skill you are retarded or just putting excuses>software/hardwarepeople that complain about tablets not having surgery precision or that they need a special brush that cost 20 dollars to be able to paint well are coping, even in the perfect artstation setting they will fail because they lack the skill>stylization is more important than the fundamentalsyou need fundies, im not saying they are something you should avoid, but i dont like realistic proportions or perfect anatomy, specially if make a drawing look stiff. since cameras there is no point on becoming a human copier and i would prefer to put pic related in my wall than a pixel perfect recreation of real life.
>>7427278That’s Kim Jung gi, he doesn’t count.
>>7427276Where am I falsifying it? I'm just saying it's not logically sound
>>7427279Good tools is exactly like talent, it's not that you can't do it without, but you can do more and faster with.
>>7427282you arent because you cant
>>7427280https://www.youtube.com/shorts/H__QGU0GKNw>>7427279How can one anon be so based and correct?
>>7427286Bet if I drew a skull underneath that I would find plenty of mistakes. Plus, anime.
>>7427285>you arentexactly, now you're getting it anon. Proud of you.
>>7427286Let me add this: you can draw a fine portrait without the skull. I didn’t say you can’t. I just said without it, I think you will fall into inaccuracies
>>7427285tl;dr, OP was baiting from the start.It can be invalidated on other grounds though.OP's opinion is that constructing a head by drawing a skull first is the most accurate way to draw a head.Fine, that opinion is fine.OP introduces the contradiction to the pretense that this is even a controversial take, when OP states that drawing a head by drawing a skull first TO SOME DEGREE is imperative to drawing heads accurately. NOW we have an issue. Because OP is describing regular head construction performed by the majority of artists for accuracy. His opinion is not unpopular, however, his stubborn attitude and poor use of words to conceal this FACT, is.
>>7427339Drawing the skull to some degree isn’t regular head construction. Take the Loomis drawing shown recently. No skull was shown in that photo
>>7427345Ok. Carry on. Im enjoying this as much as you are. No better way to spend the day.
Many of the best artists will start the head with a simplified shape to orientate themselves; it's functionally the same as drawing "the skull." I don't draw a "skull" thats analogous to the human one every time but it's really great to do sometimes especially when your stuck or struggling or something isn't working. The structure of the brows and high cheekbone is money for this. typically a simple sphere and a mark for where the corner of the form is is good enough after a while. I dont know why you guys are so dogmatic and cunty on here. If you dont do construction underneath and it works for you, then great, no one says you have to do it. not everyone does. Eliza Ivanova draws pretty realistically and she just draws directly. Pretty sure she said she started out with full construction though so it makes sense to start with construction heavy skulls until you start to get things and then just drawing directly if its funner for you.>>7427165I went to school with this professor and many of the people working here were my classmates. She's a hack imo.
>>7427357There’s a lot of disagreement regarding1. The necessity of drawing a skull at all. Some think it’s unnecessary and you’ll yield the same results 2. If drawing the skull lightly/roughly is considered “construction”, or if drawing the skull itself is a completely different process I just think that, somewhere along the way in a portrait, a skull ideally should’ve been present…and that’s just me. I value heavy anatomical accuracy in my work so that process works for me. There are just too many different ways of going about portrait drawing so this was a controversial thing to say
Self taught "Artists" are lazy pieces of shit that should go to school.
>>7427381How are self taught artists lazy? It’s quite the opposite. We don’t have the benefit of having a teacher or fellow students to work/grow with so anything so any hard work is purely self motivated.
>>7427385Its just my opinion man, I didn't post it on the internet to discuss it OK. Self taught artists are LAZY, ok? thats just my opinion.
>>7427390I get you. Just interested in what motivated you to feel that way
>>7427391Well its the fact that they are lazy and don't study in an ordered way. Thats how I came to think this opinion of mine.
My impopular opinion as someone who don't draw a skull when I draw a head is that OP is right and everyone here is coping hard, I would do better accurate and proportioned faces and head if I've draw this way, and from now on, I'll give it a try (and maybe stick with it because it feels easier to do than the "traditional way")
>>7427064I really think it's okay to use AI to help you sort and publish more of your ideas, and I really do mean it. There isn't anything wrong if you are using it with your own art and doing your own things with it. I just really don't like how people are going around completely brushing off this new tech when it could be used for something that empowers us.
>>7427422The fact you just said this has solidified this idea ive had that, just like digital art, all this hum-drum over AI art will certainly culminate in gen alpha artists using it widely. They wont give a shit.
>>7427425Is it really that bad? Come on, anon. You sound like one of those old artists who hated working with digital. This can go both ways, and it's a good thing people are going to grow up with these new tools, only because they are going to help create move inspiration to others but they are going to help in general with giving and making more powerful tools.But that is just my two cents about it
>>7427422As you mentioned AI (this thread will 100% derail to that) I came across an old ass blog from Marshall Vandruff that aged well:
>>7427499>Is it really that bad? It was a neutral observation.Its just the human side of Moore's law and cycle of consumerism in general. Popular advancement typically brings growth, but not all industries are effected positively. As an ancient 30-year-old, my advice is for you to use every trick in the book to get ahead. That's what normal is for us humans, unfortunately, and only a select few succeed by holding on to the old ways.I hope you enjoy the SWANKY new world!
>>7427422I kind of agree, but AI currently isn't powerful enough to do that, and I'm not really sure it ever will be. What it can do right now is still about as limited in application as it was in 2021. It's gotten arguably prettier over the years sure, but it hasn't improved it's ability to do complex or consistent generation whatsoever.
>>7427064Your opinion is not unpopular, it's just ridiculous, why the hell do you want to bother making a shitty skull? That's to teach beginners to understand the basic shape of the human face, but unless you draw the skull as a fantasy character it's useless.
>>7427064the character favorite of OP
>>7427540Does it even matter now? More and more people aren't really doing anything themselves because there is always a tool to make it for them. With that point of view, isn't strange to see people not care about how the sausage is done
>>7427620Well, there is a big ass difference between someone wanting something and someone wanting to make something. The former can be satisfied with not knowing how it gets made, the latter, can't.
>>7427422I don't see anything wrong with using AI either, as long as you don't try to trick people. But honestly, as someone that has used AI for more than a year at this point and actually experimented a lot with training and workflows using multistage composition, it's still not really useful for anything other than gathering ideas and inspiration or maybe backgrounds or a base to paint over if you're good enough to recognize errors. As >>7427567said, it's just not powerful enough yet to do anything groundbreaking.It does look very pretty, it's just not anywhere near the level of control just drawing gives you
>>7427064
>>7427614Lmfao
>>7427678What do you mean by 3d references?
>>7427181gotdamn!!! thats some really nice work anon, i can definitely feel a certain malice being represented thru it
Apparently this is? https://strawpoll.com/XOgOV4vdon3 I always thought, if made by human -> you give credit.
>>7427181This is amazing. Do you have a blog or social media accounts you post art on? I'd like to see more.
>>7427064Can you post your portraits?
>>7427064silly&bizzare >>>> cool&badass
There is no teaching but self-teaching. All teachers do is facilitate your discovery of your own innate abilities.Also, all you need to do is keep drawing and observe what works and what doesn't. It also helps to notice what works and doesn't on other people's art.
>>7428092
>>7427064People with loose view on terminology should be flogged
>>7428246Why does he have hairy cheeks?
>>7428255It’s called hatching, anon. If you actually look at the picture, you’ll notice the actual hair has a completely different texture than the hatching on his cheek. I’d say I expected ppl on here to know that, but you probably don’t even draw.
All French art except maybe Poussin's are bad. Worse than bad, degenerate.
>>7427064>What are your unpopular art opinions?Americans can't paint. that is all.
>>7427064Some AI art is pretty good.
>>7428396>Not all shit tastes bad
>>7428396>"You like your shit lumpy or soft?"
>>7428505>>7428455>I just gotta samefag over and over
>>7428396artists are coping. AI can do great work and have more soul than any of those lazy clichéd drawings that those tumbleristas create
>>7428555There's maybe one artist on this board that can draw like this. Everyone else is in absolute denial or think manga art is the pinnacle of creation.
>>7428555>Pretty art is good artI present to you; the midwit.
>>7427064In the age of AI, using liquify is A-OK.
>>7428592Are you retarded or something? Do you only look at political cartoons or artwork about colonialism being bad? Or maybe some super deep social issues about how hard asian people have it or how wise a black women is. No, I bet manga is your top tier art that's unmatched narrative artwork. or do you think the difficulty of producing the art is what matters, so you only like art where someone uses the tiniest brush they can find to paint a mural.Art is visual. It's meant to be pretty. Mastering color, composition, form, and design takes just as much intellect as your shitty "deep" art. AI sometimes produces some interesting results. Most of it is slop, but there are some really good shit out there.
>>7428924"Really good shit" is still shit that came out of someone's asshole, ranjeet.
>>7428939And it's still better than anything you can do. You're pathetic.
>>7428949What a lowly subhuman you are. How dare you compare drawing art to generating slop?
>>7428950Is funny to me that you call what you make "art". It's amateurs like you that like to call themselves artists that make me embarrassed to say I'm an artist when people ask what I do for a living. I always have to preface it with "but I'm good and actually make money designing costumes, props, and architecture."Every mother fucker thinks they are an artist. It would be like saying you're an athlete because you play basketball with your friends on the weekends. People like you just need to stop.
>>7428985You value art upon commercial value and compare those who care about their expression on the same level as a machine that spits out stolen amalgamations of the best. You are the least qualified artist here.
>>7428989Duchamp is smarter than you'll ever be and his ideology shits over your entire being. You are not intelligent enough to be an artist and need to just stop.
>>7428993Keep flaunting your shitty generic concept art work, I'm sure an exec will love to throw it into their next gen model so they can displace you.
>>7427064The old masters are overrated
>>7428998You keep digging your hole deeper I really don't have to say anything anymore.>>7429169Michaelangelo really is. David is a true masterwork but his paintings have the ugliest depictions of human beings I have ever seen, especially his women. They are just men with fake tits, like he predicted what plastic surgery boobies would look like in the future.
>>7427064If you can't support your opinion without using the word "overrated", you have a weak opinion you subconsciously know you can't support, hence you using that word.
There's nothing new or interesting to say with art anymore. Everything has practically been doneArtists growing up now do not have the personal experiences or literacy to make moving pieces of work since they've grown up on a diet of bad media, social media, and seclusion from the physical world
Technical accuracy has stopped being impressive long ago. While I can acknowledge it takes skill and patience to achieve it's not more impressive or moving to me than those Mario 64 nerds who complete the game only pressing one button or whatever.Something like pic related is much more beautiful and impressive than even the most autistically accurate anatomical drawing
>>7429462>There's nothing new or interesting to say with art anymore.It's called post modernism. This idea has existed since the 60s. And yet people still make great art.>Technical accuracy has stopped being impressive long ago.No, it hasn't.
>>7429462I dunno, graffiti artist do a pretty good job of this still.'d say it's is less that artists lack the mental framework and more that the modern consumeristic audience in general lacks the interest in anything that isn't hot and new, partly due to social programming. It doesn't help that most "artists" today are trying to make a buck without having to toil for it, though this is true of everyone really, at least in the west. Also, technological advancements have brought people closer to the "real" (cameras and video , games, memes, etc.). We're no longer required to say anything interesting anymore. Anyone can do that now.
>>7429539>raffiti artist do a pretty good job of this stillreaallllyyyy. Graffiti is some of the most limited art there is. It all looks the same. It's like saying death metal art is all unique when you couldn't tell one band from the next by their logo. Graffiti is essentially just noise, you see it but your brain doesn't register it as anything.
>>7428924Have you considered that by making this post you had all of those thoughts in your head?
>>7429539>I dunno, graffiti artist do a pretty good job of this still.lmao you must be 18 years or older to use this site
>>7429584Take your pills and go to sleep gramps
>>7429577Are you amazed that people are capable of actual thought unlike yourself?
>>7429565Graffiti is not just “noise.” This tells me you haven’t seen high quality graffiti art, or don’t live somewhere that it’s common
>>7429565First of all, the graffiti comment was tongue in cheek, but the context of someone taking 30 seconds to spray "Kill The Rich" on a wall in a rich neighbourhood during troubled times is, TO ME, very artistic and interesting.>the modern consumeristic audience in general lacks the interest in anything that isn't hot and newYou're comment exemplifies this, people can't seem to slow down enough nowadays to take in the world with a finer comb or look find the significance of something visual from other people's perspective. Its all either "Me, Me, Me!" or "Memes, Memes, Memes!".Art is a translation of the artists own experience, its shouldn't be about finding generalised truths. Its up to the viewer to make their own interpretation of something an artist offers - that is when it becomes art ... in my opinion.>>7429584Im 30, but I get what you mean.
>>7429618>someone taking 30 seconds to spray "Kill The Rich" on a wall in a rich neighbourhood during troubled times is, TO ME, very artistic and interesting.you sound like a really pretentious faggot
>>7429674Please. I identify as a Pretentious Cunt.
>>7429584You are the same idiot boomer who in every thread accuses others of being minors, even for using SpongeBob memes, go to sleep grandpa.
Anatomy is a scam
>>7429594I'm amazed you can't tell your thoughts apart from other people's thoughts.
>>7429603yes, it is. anti-social vandalism is not art>>7429618>the context of someone taking 30 seconds to spray "Kill The Rich" on a wall in a rich neighbourhood during troubled times is, TO ME, very artistic and interesting.>Im 30,embarrassing and you no doubt have egregiously shit aesthetic taste
>>7429800and even more japanese, baki had no decent way to be read in most of the western world until a few years ago, the series has been going for over 30 years because japs love it
>>7429795>thinks taste is objective.Don't go outside man.
>>7429739Is a piece of shit, yellow micro dicks style.
>>7427179I don't know what strain of autism to call this
>>7429803It is when it comes to graffiti
>>7429795>anti-social vandalismYou do realize some building owners ALLOW graffiti on the buildings, right? What do you think about murals?
>>7429739There’s a lot of anatomical knowledge here, it’s just bent very heavily. It looks more human than anything else
>>7429893>You do realize some building owners ALLOW graffiti on the buildings, right?yes? are you 12 years old and think only you know that? still looks like shit>What do you think about murals?generally absolute shit. none of them are interesting or pushing art forward at all. they tend to be extremely kitschy and poorly "drawn," often bad pop art, references to local geography/buildings, and portraits of local figures.
>>7429924How do you feel about contemporary art? Jackson Pollock? Andy Warhol?
>>7429924At this point, what DO you like?
>>7429894>It looks more human than anything elsethe character got surgery to extend his arms and legs. he's supposed to look unhuman you fucking retard>>7429739also no one looks at grappler baki for its stellar art. when will you guys learn that books are first and foremost about storytelling? Isn't that something you learn by the time you're like 6?
>>7429942Anatomy isn't just proportions
>>7429814There’s nothing wrong with needing the skull to understand the head. At a certain point, sure, I may not need to draw it. But until the anatomy, proportions, and forms of the skull are ingrained into MY skull, yes, I will be drawing them.
>>7429924>are you 12 years old and think only you know that No, I think that it’s weird that you consider it vandalism when it’s ALLOWED sometimes, when the definition of vandalism is “the destruction of or damaging of property.” Property is not being damaged if the building owner desires that
>>7429924>none of them are interesting or push art forwardHow does exposing people to art in a public, outdoor setting not push it forward? If anything, I could argue that murals and graffiti push art forward because they regularly expose people to high quality art where they wouldn’t generally see/expect it, making it more likely that they’d consider engaging in the craft
>>7429966This is what everyone was trying to tell you man... holy shit.
>>7429974No it wasn’t. People were saying you shouldn’t be drawing the skull for portraits at all
>>7429977Ofc. You only do it for animation duh.
>>7429977Im not an autist btw. Im just eager to show you what cognitive dissonance looks like.
>>7430006Drawing skulls for a portrait is kind of austistic. But their reasoning on why is dumb.Why would you draw the skull for a portrait? Especially if you're doing a portrait of a real person. Do you know what people's skulls look like? Are you doing portraits from people's X-Rays?Unless you're doing a CSI crime solving montage and trying to remake some mystery skull, I really don't see the practical use case here.
>>7430023All you need is a circle, a midline and some cross lines. To draw the full skull is excessive.Honestly, its not worth arguing. It really is just their opinion. I've given too much time to it already.
>>7430033It's a pretty common /beg/trap thing. Learn about anatomy and suddenly they have to draw every single bone to prove they're cool smart guys who know all the big doctor words.
>>7430023>why would you draw the skull for a portraitso you can get the most accurate depiction of the proportions of the human face. Yes, people have different skulls. Yes, it is impossible to know what’s actually under people’s faces. We know that. However, that doesn’t change the fact that trying to draw a skull will make lots of things in the picture clearer, such as how to place facial features, how specific parts of the skull change in relation to one another (such as, in pic rel, how the jaw changes because his mouth is opening), and to create accurate head shapes based on the bones of the skull. It’s a lot easier to stylize the forehead when you know what bones it consists and how they were drawn (because you drew it) as opposed to just thinking about it
>>7430039Ignore the bit about his mouth being opened, that was for a different pic
>>7430033I wouldn’t even say I’m trying to argue it necessarily. Just trying to provide my perspective, and I’m interested in seeing how others think portraits should be approached instead
>/ic/ finally stops seething about synthetic image generation Never thought I'd see the day. Let's keep it up. Hopefully soon we'll have an /ai/ general to contain it all (with the added benefit of pushing the medium forward as tech bros know next to nothing about aesthetics).
>>7429763I wouldn't have to be a fucking psychic if you weren't retarded and actually used your words. if all you make are petty insults and don't explain why you made said insult then people have to assume why.Again, are you retarded or something?
>>7429928i like pollock, no feelings on warhol. have seen both of their works irldon't really know much about contemporary art. last time i was checking out trad portraits a few years ago, the main gimmick was "make a regular portrait then do le zany controlled random paint splatters after" which was always terrible>>7429969you're being a retard arguing over a definition which is different than what was originally being discussed. it ceases to be graffiti by common definition if it's authorized, and you're hung up on it being called vandalism as if it somehow magically transforms into ART if there's permission. permitted or not doesn't change my view on "graffiti" allowed or otherwise being art>>7429972forcing people to unwillingly see your childish scribbles on a wall is not pushing art forward. please show some of these "high quality art" pieces that people can expect to see in their local cities
>>7430157Here’s a mural of Selena in Dallas, Trxas. Does this look like a childish scribble?
>>7429924Why do you think that art must always "push forward"? Do we need to invent new words every time we have something to say? Is painting on a wall somehow different than painting on a canvas?It really feels like you're just retroactively justifying not liking a thing by calling it low brow.
>>7430171yes lmao. that's exactly the awful work i'm talking about, looks like a botched tattoo likeness
>>7430171I would expect the parking meter to pay me to park there honestly
>>7427064>What are your unpopular art opinions?You shouldn't get into aniem art styles if you're not east Asian. Some influence is fine but if that's all you got going for then please reconsider. All westoids that put Japanese art on a pedestal are insufferable too.Ideally you should at least look into your own culture's art, hell, narrow it down to your region or see what your ancestors drew.
>>7427064Don't really need to draw the skull when you can already visualize it in your head. Furthermore, you can reduce the skull to just the dome and jawline (+the guide lines for the center line of the face and the eye guides) to be accurate, but this requires int or post-beg skills.
>>7430979>when you can already visualize it Why visualize it when you can just put it on the paper?
>>7430990Why bother putting it on paper when you're gonna erase it anyways?
>>7430039>so you can get the most accurate depiction of the proportions of the human faceAnd why would you want that for every single portrait?You really aren't beating the autist accusations with this>You don't understand, the portrait NEEDS to be perfect
>>7430999Because you can draw atop it >>7431029Who said it needs to be perfect? I just said anatomically accurate. If that translates to “perfect” in your eyes, that’s your problem. My point is that the skull being drawn will give the artist the most lifelike, realistic depiction of the human face, with the muscles and features drawn atop. I can’t believe this is such a controversial thing to say on here. Holy fuck.
>>7427064I think it's okay to stop and learn from AI. For example, rendering and basic forms because AI now does an AMAZING job at making those things, the render is actually pretty impressive and how some forms are really appealing and quite interesting to look at, I think it should be okay to study and learn from whatever slop is being gennered by AI, since it does mesh a bunch of artists into the mix and it creates something interesting.
>>7427064Thing is that people are arguing because they are looking are things from two different angles.One is that you need absolute knowledge of anatomy to know and draw accurately. The other is that you need basic knowledge but you do not need to be absolute in knowledge of it. Thing is it's only controversial because there are two group of people - one group of people like me who likes to learn art by actually nerding out everything to know how things works from A to Z and then there is another who is fine with just about to draw whatever they need however it doesn't mean one will look worst then the other since there is a variety in a skill.
>>7431632Anatomically inaccurate isn’t equivalent to looking “worse.” It’s just not accurate.
>>7427064AI art is equally as "shit" as digital art. There is 0 difference between slop A and B besides the amount of time you've wasted doing it manually.Human art is done by hand, not by mouse and whatever software you picked to do the work for you.
>>7428264It's a really, really bad example of hatching that's way too heavily done to the point it looks like he has hair on his cheeks and forehead, or like you're trying to portray vitiligo or something
>>7435320not them, but the light source makes absolutely no sense in that image along with awful hatching
>>7427064realism is a /begtrap
Digital feels more like knowing how to use a tool than actually developing your drawing skills
>>7427381People that go to school are faggots.
>>7430092>Hopefully soon we'll have an /ai/ general to contain it allNah, I say just ban it outright.
>getting rid of india would only be a positive for art community and the world
>>7427076You are aware that your facial structure and landmarks are your skull?
90% of the time pixel art is a crutch for people who can't paint as well as they want to at higher resolutions.>t. pixel artist who definitely uses it as a crutch
>>7427064Rendering is a crutch for bad drawing skills, anime girls on a white void is fine, the face is the hardest part of the body to get right.
People who shit on rendering are actually incapable of rendering at a high level so they attack it as a cope for their inability.
>>7441444That's not a hot take that's a fact
>>7441444Faggot
Digital is much harder than traditional
