How do you achieve this level of soul. I've attempted but i just can't do it
>>7942226
>>7942227.
>>7942229..
What have you tried so far to achieve it?
>>7942231yes, but this is leagues above what i've been trying to do.
Oh it's just Crumb again.Well the thing is the guy's actually quite skilled and has a good sense of form, he just intentionally draws "badly". So it's unironically the "before you can do this you must first be able to do this" meme.Get good at the fundies, then lower your standards and allow yourself to put out rough looking shite like him.
>>7942261i think his early stuff was better actually. He probably didn't even 'study' the fundies, he just copied artists he liked and got really really good. What you call his shite work is still allot better than mine
>>7942262That's how most people learned back in the day I think. Hoarding "resources" and studying from them is an internet age thing, mostly, even if a lot of those books are 100 years old by now.Some of them went to fancy schools but that was mostly just copying things from real life, and teachers who told them stealing is alright as long as you don't get caught.
>>7942263i guess being a kid in the 50s with nothing to do but draw makes you really really good. Look at this really amazing early drawing of his. I guess i need to start copying stuff to develop better form cause my shit is flat
>>7942273If you want depth, use hatching the way he does. Notice how the lines wrap around the forms? That works exactly the same way as construction lines. But then they serve double duty to communicate value and shading. That's how you get the 3D look.
>>7942284i actually have tried to copy his way hatching before since i hated how cross hatching looked, lines that went one direction looked much more cleaner. Here is an actual drawing of me mine so tell how it is. You can clearly tell its a little bit of a rip-off
>>7942298here is one more
>>7942298Quite nice anon keep going. In response to your OP, I would look into the illustration concept of "storytelling" - Crumb's doing a lot more interaction between his characters, doing a lot more to emphasize the relationship between whoever happens to be in the composition, emphasizing *what* it is they're doing (see the soulless look in the pigs eyes in the first drawing, or the look of scorn on the frog, the grumpy harried unbothered look of characters like the clerk or the lady in the headdress, see how in the bathing drawing with the girl the frog only has his head visible and looks upward to emphasize the size difference, meanwhile the girl looks at him nonchalantly to invoke a sense of effortlessness on her part to size mog the frog without even trying, or look at how the frog curls up under the leaf and how cozy and snug he looks, he's very small, small enough to fit under a leaf, and he's got a convincing smile of satisfaction and comfort on his face)In contrast while your pieces look nice, you obviously have an eye for composition and color, I like the water color looking strokes you do in your first piece. If I had a single thing to say I'd say push your expressions more. Everyone in your piece with the animals looks like they're only moderately expressing their emotions, the frog is slightly concerned, the crocodile is slightly bothered, the zhesp is slightly depressed, the Chewbacca wookie looking dude is only slightly annoyed. Sell it more! Not just with their faces but with their bodies. Even if they're just walking and not emoting physically see how in Crumbs piece theyre going all in different directions
>>7942352love this response, appreciate it a bunch. Yes, crumb often draws densely populated illustrations with small interactions with great expressions. I'll try amp it up. Thanks allot anon
