PDA

View Full Version : Dispelling Artist Myths: Talent and Tracing



QT Melon
02-09-2014, 12:52 PM
I always found some great wisdom in books like Art & Fear, Undressed Art, Why we Draw and from other hard working artists as well.

First of which is when is tracing good or bad. Often you hear artists say "don't trace, it's bad" but don't elaborate on when tracing is ok, and good. There are times when it is acceptable and a good way to learn. http://muddycolors.blogspot.com/2012/07/10-things-i-rememberabout-tracing.html

The other is about the age old debate of talent. I am in with Manchess' reasoning that talent doesn't really exist. Hard work does. For many that will argue there's people who end up being better than others, so what? I don't recall cavemen being talented on ideas that haven't existed. Thousands of years back was someone talented in playing video games? It was inherent? Why weren't caveman paintings like portraits back in the1400's? We learn and develop through experience and our will. Believing that it is only reserved for certain people is self defeating. http://muddycolors.blogspot.com/2012/10/10-thingsabout-talent.html

Sammacha
02-12-2014, 03:20 AM
Some people are better at observing certain things, shapes colours etc, however that is is all useless unless you concentrate on building on it. When you dont have those things... You learn it.
Its like muscles if you ask me,
Something to think about :)

Tiamat
02-12-2014, 06:47 AM
I'm actually part of the group that believes some people have innate talents that need to be developed.

Medical Meccanica
02-12-2014, 06:57 AM
I honestly do believe that talent is a thing - yes, hard work will get you further than anyone else, but from personal experience... well, my spatial reasoning isn't so good. I have a lot of difficulty seeing 2-d images as 3d. it's very difficult for me to work from references even if I'm very directly copying them. I don't know if you'd call that a lack of talent, but it does make learning things like anatomy and perspective harder for me to learn than most people. Maybe "talent" is the wrong word. Some people have more of less difficulty in certain aspects of art because of how our brains work. (I have autism, so maybe I'm not the prime example - though I have heard from several other pixel artists on the autism spectrum that they find pixel art easier because it's more "rigid" in nature.)

100% agree on tracing being helpful for learning, as long as it's used as a learning exercise and not theft.

Hewge
02-12-2014, 07:22 AM
Chances are if you ask a "talented" person how long they been drawing, pretty much all of them will say something like "I don't know, I think since I was just a kid?"
So, yeah. Even if it was never serious for them, the time spent was always there for them. So it ends up seeming like "Ermahgerd! Such talent!" When they actually become more serious about the draws.

To be honest, in my opinion, the only thing that would relate most to talent is maybe people that are just more naturally intuitive, or something. Easier to figure things some things out.

QT Melon
02-12-2014, 10:02 AM
I honestly do believe that talent is a thing - yes, hard work will get you further than anyone else, but from personal experience... well, my spatial reasoning isn't so good. I have a lot of difficulty seeing 2-d images as 3d. it's very difficult for me to work from references even if I'm very directly copying them. I don't know if you'd call that a lack of talent, but it does make learning things like anatomy and perspective harder for me to learn than most people. Maybe "talent" is the wrong word. Some people have more of less difficulty in certain aspects of art because of how our brains work. (I have autism, so maybe I'm not the prime example - though I have heard from several other pixel artists on the autism spectrum that they find pixel art easier because it's more "rigid" in nature.)


There is a person who is using his eyeballs to draw because he has ALS. So would being disabled mean that other people are more talented?

Zeitzbach
02-12-2014, 10:49 AM
Talents don't exist. Hard work does. It's true.

Some people were considered to be talented because they were exposed to said topic in the early stage of their birth. How exactly do you become so fluent in speaking 7-8 languages like it's nothing? Talent? Nah. Just make sure your uncle aunt blah blah speak their language in their right accent around you since when you were a kid. If it sticks on to you, it's much easier to recall than trying to learn when your body is trying its best to just get used to what it is capable of, and the sleep schedule.

Same goes for art. If the parents support you to draw and shit ever since you were a child, of course you're going to do well in the future if you keep at it and never stop learning.

And yeh, tracing is good as long as you avoid using it for everything. Trace is good for learning but after that, you should just stick to eye referencing at most, IMO.

lorenith
02-12-2014, 12:19 PM
Those who have it a little easier are the ones that are described as "talented". Time and effort are the great equalizer, but I'd be hard pressed to say that talent (aptitude) is not a thing that exists. Because no one starts on the same level.

I've been drawing since before I can remember and was always encouraged to engage with my creative urges, but I'm only a middling artist at best. It'll take me much longer to reach a high level of art like someone who has the intuition for it. It doesn't make me feel bad to say that I lack something that other better artists have.

I suppose a simpler way to say what I think, is talent is only a head start in the grand scheme of things.

Infestissumam
02-12-2014, 12:27 PM
I once had to get my talent back from aliens by playing an intergalactic game of basketball. Yes. That's why I haven't posted anything in weeks.

I don't think tracing is ever really bad. If an "artist" spends their time tracing things, chances are it'll be a sloppier recreation of whatever you drew. They are only hurting themselves, too. It isn't as if they can develop drawing skills if they constantly trace. It's just wasting their time.

As far as talent goes, I guess it depends on how intuitive a person is with certain things. But no one will be good right off the bat. Being bad at something is the first step to being good at it.

Damian
02-12-2014, 12:33 PM
I think people are getting the wrong ideas of "talent". Talent doesn't mean "pick up a pencil and instant artist" any more than starting anything else. It just means that they understand faster than someone else. It's simply how fast they are able to pick it up and/or how much learning they put in to it to get the same result.

Vae
02-12-2014, 12:49 PM
I think tracing has its use in trying to get a "feel" for what you're drawing.
A pose. A certain style. Etc.
You should never pass over a trace as your own work, but it is helpful in getting your hands to figure out "Yes, this is how the thing works. Please cooperate with me. Thank you." Because, sometimes (especially for me, who relies HEAVILY on how something "feels"), eyeballing just does not cut it.

Also, yes, I do believe in innate talent. It is something that can be overcome with practice, but I think execution and creativity come easier to certain individuals than others.
The brain has a wide variety of chemistry behind it, and I do think that things can just "click" better with some people.

tooiebird
02-12-2014, 01:01 PM
I think people are getting the wrong ideas of "talent". Talent doesn't mean "pick up a pencil and instant artist" any more than starting anything else. It just means that they understand faster than someone else. It's simply how fast they are able to pick it up and/or how much learning they put in to it to get the same result.

I agree with this. Someone who is considered talented is just able to learn and understand something faster than others.
It's like if you give someone a guitar, no one is going to automatically know everything about chords and rhythm and technique their first time playing. But with some people it just might "click" easier and they can advance much faster than others.

As for tracing stuff. I think the only time it's okay to do is for learning how somethings looks, rather than say, tracing a picture and claiming it was all your idea. If you're going to trace, you should at least use your own photo for reference. It's not okay to use photos by others as well as artwork by others. however, I believe that if you're not going to sell, claim ownership, etc something, you might as well use it for learning how to draw. Copying a picture is a good way of learning either how something may look, or if you want to try to see and learn how an artist did something. I dunno, it's complicated and I think every artist will have a different opinion based on whether their artwork has been stolen/traced/copied in the past .

Medical Meccanica
02-12-2014, 04:02 PM
That's not what I'm saying at all - whether or not my poor visual-spatial skills have to do with being autistic, they're still poor visual-spatial skills, and they're still crippling to my ability to do things like work from reference and imagine people and objects from different angles. I was just saying there's the possibility that they're related and my experiences are not the norm for neurotypical people.

And regarding the "drawing from a young age" thing: I've been drawing ever since I discovered Pokemon, when I was 5 years old or so. I have a close friend (http://shira-kaeru.deviantart.com/) who drew as a kid then stopped, then picked it back up again when she was 12, at my recommendation, and was immediately better than me, and has consistently been a better artist than me even before things like her going to art school and taking live drawing classes came into the picture.

I try to explain the spatial reasoning thing to her, but she doesn't understand my difficulty with it, because it comes firsthand to her.

She is why I believe in talent - not that hard work isn't a part of it. My hard work has gotten me further than I ever though I could go as a kid - but hers has gotten her much further than I ever could -ever-.

QT Melon
02-12-2014, 04:06 PM
I am curious as to how many have read the links posted in this thread?

Sammacha
02-12-2014, 04:36 PM
I am curious as to how many have read the links posted in this thread?

I did...
I've read similar things but its always interesting to see the input that others have imo.

In fact I used to tell people that tracing was just another way of learning, its when it becomes copying that its bad.
I also sit somewhere in between with the talent thing but I already said that in my first post

lorenith
02-12-2014, 04:57 PM
I did read it, I just happen to disagree with the assertion that "talent doesn't exist" because if you take two people who have never picked up a pencil, and asked them to draw yeah they'd both be bad, but they wouldn't be the same level of bad. Both are going to grow with time, but not at the same rate.

The better rate of growth is where "talent" comes in. It's probably better to say that those people have a better intuition for certain things that give them a leg up in growth.

Matt Conner
02-12-2014, 05:51 PM
Although it's true that hard work trumps "talent", it's a stretch to say that everybody starts on equal ground. Some people have a certain aptitude for things, and they might progress faster and with less work in certain fields than others. For instance, Magnus carlsen (sp?) is the current reigning world chess champ if I'm not mistaken. He was amazing at the game the day he started, and even drew a game with Garry Kasparov when he was just a little kid. He can also play ten chess games and win them all...without looking at any of them once (he just memorizes the positions for each board). You can't learn that shit. Another good example might be ginger baker, the drummer for cream. Although he did practice, he seems pretty insistent that he was born with perfect natural time, something you can't teach or learn. That being said, you can't count on being born speshul, and hard work can take normal folks to amazing places!

Tica
02-12-2014, 06:58 PM
I've definitely used tracing to help improve my art and give me a sense of proportion etc. sometimes I will trace part of an image I'm having trouble with, say the shape of a bird's beak, or the shape of roots in a background picture, and incorporate the traced lines into a larger piece of work original to me. I don't see a huge difference between using a reference photo and tracing pieces of it... as long as you apply your own style in the end and don't make an exact copy of the piece in question.

tl;dr I heartily agree with link #1.

EDIT

didn't read link #2, but I did want to say I that have a (mild) nonverbal learning disorder which involves fine motor control, visual spatial skills, etc. Art is lots of hard work but there is some talent involved. I chose to pursue a very simplified, cartoony style because I believe certain styles are actually beyond me entirely, no matter how hard I might work at them. I don't know how this applies to the non-disabled though?

MadMeeper
02-14-2014, 01:12 AM
I'm actually part of the group that believes some people have innate talents that need to be developed.

I agree with this. Not sure how to explain my position, but I believe that there are some people who are just naturally better at some things than others. And a lot of things factor into it.

I guess on the videogame argument, you could argue people who are better at videogames have better hand/eye coordination. That would have served useful in ALL time periods. It's just just videogame specific, it's a natural skill that was developed into being useful for videogames specifically.

Likewise I think that you CAN have a natural affinity for observing, which lends itself to drawing. Apparently when i was about 5 or 6 my teacher(who happened to be an art major herself) noted that I had a natural ability to decipher color theory(aka I was p good at picking out colors and I was very particular), and I stood out from other kids in my class. I also knew how to create things that looked more or less like their irl counterparts, like instead of a big blob and claiming it was a tiger I could at least make the blob into a cat-like shape. This was a natural ability that I had, just observing and being able to apply it to a situation such as drawing.

Now does that automatically mean I'm good at art? HEEEEEEELL NO MAN, anywhere I've gotten so far is all about the hard work I've been putting in. I think it's stupid to discount the amount of hard work that goes into art, but I also think some people take to it faster than others. I know a guy who only JUST started drawing a year and a half ago and he got accepted into Art Center for Illustration last semester, whereas there's my other friends who have been drawing for aaaaaages and they're stuck in community college like me haha. Now does that mean we can't draw? Not really, but that guy had some natural talent to be able to pick that stuff up as well as he did.

I think in the end talent just comes down to some basic skills that you may or may not have an affinity for, and it's up to you to develop it.

insanejoker
02-14-2014, 08:59 PM
I love you posted these links, I really do.

I've always thought tracing wasn't bad if used for learning. Tracing, claiming as yours and selling that trace with no change from the original is what's bad. People often confuse that with tracing to learn. Copying from another's drawing to understand the pose and such isn't bad for practice purposes either. I've told others struggling they're more then welcome to use some of my anatomy sketches to learn from, even telling them to copy it if that have to. Tracing can be used to learn if you know the right ways to do it. :)

I also completely agree with the second link. If I practice hard enough I can get good at something, but it doesn't mean I enjoy it or want to continue with it. A lot of us here have been drawing forever, including me. I've only just gotten better at Anthro figures, and have been drawing them for...2 years now? My early drawings of anthro faces and the like were, pardon my language, just shit. I didn't stop, and with the encouragement of a friend I've gotten so much better. If I had refused to try to get better my skill level would have barely budged and it'd still look bad. I still have a long ways to go, but the progress is being made.

If you have the will, there is always a way. You don't need a fancy school or digital program or pen or pencil. I've seen someone model a Weeping Willow-like tree out of plain sticky tack. You just have to want to get better and not be afraid to fail.


QT, you are honestly not just a person with resources, but a critical thinker and talented artist who is able to not only tell us how to do things, but show us as well.

EDIT: I forgot to say, the article about talent reminds me of the entire premise of Ratatouille: "Anyone can cook".

FishNChips
02-16-2014, 01:28 PM
I think to be "talented" is nothing more than having a simple knack for something. It's a multiplier, essentially. The hard work will always beat the talent, so having a simple knack for it isn't really enough at the end of the day.

The hard worker will always beat the talented one.

Dmitry
02-17-2014, 12:25 PM
Agreed, I don't believe in talent one bit. It's the skills we choose to work on that make us as good or bad as we are. Someone who is better at observing has practiced that skill just as much as someone who is really good at climbing trees. It has nothing to do with talent.

I would also agree that tracing is a great way to learn. You can get a feel for the lines and how to illustrate details if you trace things. Subtle nuances in the lines and curves are the best way to portray life and energy, which tracing can help you learn. Some people even make an entire art career out of copying other artists exactly. The art world isn't a place for opinions on what is and isn't art because at the first mention of "that's not real art", someone will go ahead and prove that they can make it art.

wwretched
02-18-2014, 08:51 PM
I'm not gonna lie, when I do studies of things I first trace them to get a better idea of how the form is supposed to be. Then, I do my own drawing referencing the source. I then put my drawing over the source and sort of re-line it with a different color and then see where I was wrong. Then I draw it again and that result is a lot better than my first one. There's nothing wrong with tracing to learn or to reference, the problem comes in when you're tracing another artist's work or not tracing to learn. Just simply following the outlines will only hinder you--you're not learning the form.

I actually have seen one artist that recommended tracing the basic shapes of a picture you're trying to reference and then fill in the rest. I think that might be a neat solution as well to learn how to do things! There's a lot you can do with tracing, you just have to do it the right way.

Damian
02-18-2014, 09:02 PM
For anyone that says talent doesn't exist, do you also believe that IQ also does not exist?

TeenageAngst
02-18-2014, 09:31 PM
Talent exists but can be learned. A person who's gifted at something and is lazy is gonna be overtaken by the guy who sucks but works at it. On the other hand, sometimes people are just terrible at something naturally, and learn to enjoy sucking at those things until eventually they're "okay".

Damian
02-18-2014, 09:35 PM
Talent exists but can be learned. A person who's gifted at something and is lazy is gonna be overtaken by the guy who sucks but works at it. On the other hand, sometimes people are just terrible at something naturally, and learn to enjoy sucking at those things until eventually they're "okay".

If it's learned then it's not talent :I

Skill is learned. Talent is inherent

QT Melon
02-18-2014, 10:33 PM
Talent isn't something as measurable as IQ.
What is mostly being stated isn't that there is a specific talent for art itself. You may have certain abilities, that can be utilized towards how you approach but that still needs to be trained, and given that art isn't linear...or even as specific as an intelligence qoutient

Damian
02-18-2014, 11:38 PM
Except it is. There's different types of intelligence that can factor into someone's ability to understand and think creatively. Of course everything needs to be trained. No one is disputing that. Talent only acts as a sort "multiplier" to effort much like IQ does for certain things. It's the reason why some students need math tutors whereas others can simply read and understand. It's the same with artistic talent. Some people just understand what colors would work well even if they don't understand why.

QT Melon
02-19-2014, 12:17 AM
Ok, then do you have tests that show that talent was the exact factor for art?

Art isn't really that linear, maybe you can prove some kind of "talent" for a guy able to copy something to precision, but it can also be argued that it isn't exactly artistic because it isn't considered creative.

Someone is good at cartooning, what can you exactly extract was talent involved?

So can you look at two pieces of artwork from different people and tell me which was talent and which was hard work?

Damian
02-19-2014, 12:35 AM
:I

That's like asking someone to do a math problem and trying to garner intelligence from that. That's not how it works.

IQ isn't the only intelligence that people have. There are roughly eight different intelligences according to Howard Gardner's Theory.

Visual/Spatial - Involves visual perception of the environment, the ability to create and manipulate mental images, and the orientation of the body in space.
Verbal/Linguistic - Involves reading, writing, speaking, and conversing in one's own or foreign languages.
Logical/Mathematical - Involves number and computing skills, recognizing patterns and relationships, timeliness and order, and the ability to solve different kinds of problems through logic.
Bodily/Kinesthetic - Involves physical coordination and dexterity, using fine and gross motor skills, and expressing oneself or learning through physical activities.
Musical - Involves understanding and expressing oneself through music and rhythmic movements or dance, or composing, playing, or conducting music.
Interpersonal - Involves understanding how to communicate with and understand other people and how to work collaboratively.
Intrapersonal - Involves understanding one's inner world of emotions and thoughts, and growing in the ability to control them and work with them consciously.
Naturalist - Involves understanding the natural world of plants and animals, noticing their characteristics, and categorizing them; it generally involves keen observation and the ability to classify other things as well.

QT Melon
02-19-2014, 12:54 AM
:I

Visual/Spatial - Involves visual perception of the environment, the ability to create and manipulate mental images, and the orientation of the body in space.



Did you know that most artists don't really have a clear image of a piece they will create? They have an idea. There's art that purposely distorts spacial relationships, and it's not because one is particularly aware of it.



Verbal/Linguistic - Involves reading, writing, speaking, and conversing in one's own or foreign languages.


Which can help but still needs to be developed for creative writing. It still takes a lot of research at times to write a good story.



Logical/Mathematical - Involves number and computing skills, recognizing patterns and relationships, timeliness and order, and the ability to solve different kinds of problems through logic.


Oddly enough, music which is considered creative is also very logical mathematical. So is the talent attributed to a musician who can logically figure out a score, or is it the person that creates one? It may be easy to say both, but then put people up who already trained to understand things, you can no longer measure this accurately, because the person who may contain the ability may be outdone by someone who just practiced more.



Bodily/Kinesthetic - Involves physical coordination and dexterity, using fine and gross motor skills, and expressing oneself or learning through physical activities.


There is actual evidence about high responders being genetic. But what levels of coordination and dexterity are measured for art? What I mean is people were looking for correlation between handwriting and artmaking, and finding ...a lot of it wasn't even related.


Musical - Involves understanding and expressing oneself through music and rhythmic movements or dance, or composing, playing, or conducting music.

Which music is also mathematical...



Interpersonal - Involves understanding how to communicate with and understand other people and how to work collaboratively.

Intrapersonal - Involves understanding one's inner world of emotions and thoughts, and growing in the ability to control them and work with them consciously.


Which may be good for?? Being more patient with your mistakes??



Naturalist - Involves understanding the natural world of plants and animals, noticing their characteristics, and categorizing them; it generally involves keen observation and the ability to classify other things as well.

Which is all well and good for possibly a visual library, but it still is a lot of work to translate that on paper.

See again art isn't some simple thing that you have talent for. You can't really measure these as a way for a "Talented" artist
I guess to make it simple, is that's all well and good but because there's a lot more to the art making process it becomes particularly useless in wondering whether or not it is attributed to talent in the long run, because Solving a math problem is a specific task.

Art making (especially if we narrow it down to visual art like illustration) can be attributed to many things, cartooning, portraits and not all successful illustrators or musicians can be called such but it can be either hard work, lightning in a bottle type of success (dumb luck), or just promotion by political forces/economic ones.

Damian
02-19-2014, 01:22 AM
I never said all of those were attributed to art. Just that those are different intelligences :I I'm also not saying that work doesn't factor in either. Everything requires work. Just that to some it comes easier to others. I don't know why you're trying to argue that talent doesn't exist when certain intelligences to which include artistic intelligence.

Tica
02-19-2014, 08:16 AM
Music is only mathematical if you're composing via sheet music... improvising by ear is a whole different beast methinks.

Things like fine motor control, visual spatial skills, and hand-eye coordination *are* important to the artistic process. And truth is some people are better at these things than others.

QT Melon
02-19-2014, 10:02 AM
I never said all of those were attributed to art. Just that those are different intelligences :I I'm also not saying that work doesn't factor in either. Everything requires work. Just that to some it comes easier to others. I don't know why you're trying to argue that talent doesn't exist when certain intelligences to which include artistic intelligence.

I said that the abilities don't matter. They aren't measurable in the long run. You can't tell if someone's result was due to those attributes or hard work. You aren't the other person, you need to worry about your own progress. Most of the time you wouldn't even know anyways because you're not sitting there on a daily basis seeing if someone caught on to it faster, or they practiced it a bit more. So why worry about it? It's still all hard work that really triumphs. There's too many factors to learn to wonder if a particular attribute is a factor to a successful piece of work.


Music is only mathematical if you're composing via sheet music... improvising by ear is a whole different beast methinks.

Things like fine motor control, visual spatial skills, and hand-eye coordination *are* important to the artistic process. And truth is some people are better at these things than others.

It's more than that. You keep note of beats when working by ear. You're still doing math to keep track of rhythm. This also helps if you don't have a bass drum that is usually around to keep the beat. Now it may not be entirely math when you're trying to work with tones. But math is still important whether by ear or sheet music.

Not exactly. You work in large brush strokes if you're a painter. There are people out there that don't even paint with their hands anymore. When Frazetta had a stroke, he worked with his other hand. When Francis Tsai could no longer use his hands, he kept switching from feet, to eventually his eyes. Whether someone has better motor control doesn't matter because there are different types of painting techniques.

FishNChips
02-19-2014, 11:36 AM
I don't think one can deny that if you put two people together in the same room and make them work for the same amount of time on the same subject on the same point in their progression, their progress will vary.

But it's still work.

Work isn't a factor, it's pretty much the core component to progression. To say that you have no "talent" is more of an excuse. If your attributes are lacking, you just work a bit harder than the other guy depending on what your problem is.

QT Melon
02-19-2014, 11:49 AM
Work isn't a factor, it's pretty much the core component to progression. To say that you have no "talent" is more of an excuse. If your attributes are lacking, you just work a bit harder than the other guy depending on what your problem is.

Yes, and what is sad is that people will call creatives "Talented" and not use the word "work" or hard working. I think that's one of the reasons it creates the idea that it's "just something you have" rarely have other careers been called talented. You aren't a talented lawyer or fast food worker, but you may be a good or hard working one.

Damian
02-19-2014, 12:37 PM
Yes, and what is sad is that people will call creatives "Talented" and not use the word "work" or hard working. I think that's one of the reasons it creates the idea that it's "just something you have" rarely have other careers been called talented. You aren't a talented lawyer or fast food worker, but you may be a good or hard working one.

I still think you're just not grasping it.

It's not the work that is the talent. It's how fast someone is able to grasp an understanding of it. If someone works less than the other but achieves the same result, that is because they have talent.

QT Melon
02-19-2014, 01:06 PM
It doesn't matter because there are too many factors to art. So what you can draw a face faster or got it faster than someone else, there are plenty of other things that will slow you down.

Tica
02-19-2014, 02:21 PM
what about artistic vision?

inspiration?

insanejoker
02-19-2014, 02:53 PM
I think people are purely thinking about making nicely rendered pictures and such, which they see as requiring 'talent', which has been established is not 'real'.

If you look at a lot of modern art, especially sculptures, you don't necessarily need a true skill of making a beautifully rendered picture. In fact, it's more just letting yourself go and making whatever with paints, ink, etc. on the canvas. ANYONE can do this. ANYONE. It's just becoming comfortable with yourself enough to let yourself go, overcoming the fear that it's not meant to be perfect or follow a certain step by step process.

Found art also does not require 'talent' in what people are describing. You don't have to make something from scratch for it to be art. Some artists just find objects, put them together, and give it a meaning that is relative to the sculpture they've created. Sometimes it's just a bowl with fake bread in it (yes, I have see that in an art museum).

Video art: I wish I remembered his name, but he video taped himself holding his breath for as long as he can. The video was showcased in a dimly lit room with a bust sculpture of a greek man (or god). When the man in the video couldn't hold his breath any longer, he would let out a loud gasping sound for air. Scared the shit out of everyone. The purpose of this was to try and obtain longevity and become immortal, like the statue. This requires a basic editing and video recording skill. Another video was of a man being filmed from the waist down, falling back into a wall, repeatedly for over an hour. Again, this requires a basic editing and video recording skill, but this is still ART.


Inspiration / artistic vision is best described as the modern art I talked about above. It's nothing more than saying 'you know what, let's do this'. It's knowing not to follow a set of rules / boundaries that we usually come across in life, it's stepping out of a structure and cookie-cutter way of thinking. It doesn't even have to be related to art. It's called thinking outside the box. Some people are inspired by music to draw, to dance, or to make more music and sing. Some people are inspired to write, some people are inspired to go out on a walk, to do something in their lives that makes them happy, clean their room, redesign their bedroom, etc. It is not limited to artistic inspiration only. It's just what inspires someone to do something, and how (and if) they execute it.

Old people, young people, middle aged people, etc. all have creativity, can all make art, can do anything if they really try. There's places that offer party art classes or pottery classes. You aren't expected to have a perfect painting or pottery piece, but you learn how it's made, the techniques, etc., and if someone really likes it they might further their knowledge and increase their skill through PRACTICE, TRIAL AND ERROR.

I think people in this conversation are doing the thing art is not meant to do: limiting perspective. Stop thinking about that beautiful portrait someone painted. That's not the only aspect of art, and it does not require talent but skills. They made the decision to further those skills and learn. If they didn't, they wouldn't have made such a pretty picture. You do not need a specific set of skills to do art. You just need your mind, and to not be afraid to fail.

QT Melon
02-19-2014, 03:22 PM
what about artistic vision?

inspiration?

It is learned. It is developed.

Inspiration is found. Those movies where the guy is sitting around then gets an Aha! moment doesn't always happen.

Talk to a pro and I am sure you will realize a lot of art takes research and note taking. Spend hours through your morgue files, sculpting and talking with others if you are stuck.

This is why you will hear terms on building a visual library. Sure some may have a gift of memorizing places people and things, but they still have to learn how to draw and draw a lot so they can learn to use those tools. And it may be the opposite for another. Poor memory, great at learning tools. And both of them may have issues with learning other parts of the craft. It may also depend what kind of art they want to focus on that could be a boost or challenge.

So once again, why worry about it?

Getta
02-19-2014, 11:29 PM
Regarding "tracing", a lot of professional artists trace figures over photo references. You see this a lot in comic books where impossible deadlines and work expectations mean artists need to speed things up however they can just to keep their jobs.

Craziest deadline I ever had? Colours for 7 pages, due the same day they were assigned to me. Oh, and the day was already half over when they were assigned to me.

Still, even many professionals are split on the issue. I think fewer would do it if the deadlines were more reasonable.

Toshabi
02-20-2014, 02:28 AM
I am curious as to how many have read the links posted in this thread?

Reading through the first page, I can safely say that WF suffers from the same short-attention span that FAF does when it comes to linked materials.


Honestly, I never really considered tracing in the ways the author presented it. I might just have to engage in a few trace sessions over the weekend to better understand anatomy from the physical references I have. If anything, I feel like I could get over my fear of foreshortened figures this way on learning proper lengths. I especially loved what he said in regards to varying your pen/pencil strokes when tracing. I'll give you my input on these practice techniques once I've applied them.

Zeitzbach
02-20-2014, 05:09 AM
Reading through the first page, I can safely say that WF suffers from the same short-attention span that FAF does when it comes to linked materials.


It depends on the material. Most people including me will probably skim it at a speed of 50 pages per minute and only reading the part that really kicked in like

"Nothing is cheating."


Point about how traced is required to get certain done in time was brought up and it's right. Sometime, complaining that someone traced to get 10% of the picture done is like complaining that someone uses a texture pack. If it gets the work done, it gets the work done, especially if the result is close to the intended piece. Can't really complain that someone picks the choice to sell his/her soul to Satan for shortcut tools. (And who doesn't want to?)

Mayhem
02-20-2014, 12:03 PM
Stan Lee, one the greatest comic makers in america, said he used to trace all the time when he first began. I think it was during an interview he did back when you could get a vhs from Pizza hut. Yea I was pretty into comics back then. Tracing it just another way of learning. It can help teach you how your hand is supposed to move to do those lines. Just like when we were little kids and we Drew Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa over and over again. Also if you practice tracing it would help you learn how to make the same linewidth and where.

But there is a big difference no matter what about "Tracing for educational purposes" And "tracing and passing it off as your own"

I tell people to site there resources all the time when they put referenced used on things. "Oh you used a reference?" What does it look like. Then one can see what you did. Some times its a little picture that remotely looks like the drawing then other times its the same thing but they added a few stripes or colors too it.
Same goes for backgrounds, items and everything. Using reference is ok, but if you are COPYing it then you arent creating, your just scrapbooking.

Its all about how much the artist actually created. Somethings are considered tools: textures, brushes, and etc. Its all about how much gumption the artist themselves have.
I personally am proud when I post something and I know that I did it all on my own. I have met artists that trace and steal art. They my love the attention that they get from the art but they are not proud of their art. Mainly because they didnt make it. I have met plenty of people that grew up and realized that what they are doing isnt their art and suddenly they are posting their art and its horrible.....horrible but they made it though.

zhuria
02-21-2014, 07:16 AM
Let me explain you a little about talent...
I'm a pure logical person, I have an incredible ability at doing maths (the most abstract the better) and philosophy. I don't like physics though. When I was in highschool I chose the way of maths, and ended up in computer engineering. I spent two years there, till I finally understood I didn't want to be working with computers all my life (damn evil machines). But, as it was easier for me to study maths, I changed my career to maths teacher, and I spent 4 years there, without beign able to focus on the subjects, and not getting past the second year courses, but getting around As and Bs on every math subject without even studying a lot...
I decided last year it was enough, and I changed careers again, this time, an Art teacher course. It was hard as hell for me, even if I was studying art/drawing on my own before. Just recently I figured out how to give volume to my drawings and drawing one point perspective. Even if it was hard as hell to me, I ended up having the same grades, due to my own effort.
And let me tell you something, those who were "talented" (and believed in talent as in "can copy a painting identically") got the same or less grades than the ones that drew like 10 years old when got there.
I will say always TALENT IS NOTHING. And will get angry at anyone that says I'm talented, because talent denies hard work ("You have a gift", "I could never be like you because you're talented" "You can draw and I cannot") EVERYONE CAN DRAW, it just takes an interest in doing so...

Oh, and for the one that mentioned someone that stopped drawing and then got on again, sometimes it happens that due to the age you re-take on drawing, your approach is quite different and therefore also are the results.

I Believe Art can be learnt and taught by everyone, you just have to understand the processes it takes to do it...

Multiple inteligences only get you a little ahead, hard work trumps that by a hundred times.

jerry
02-28-2014, 01:53 PM
We all have our talents, because we are all more at ease with certain things. Personally I've never been quick when it comes to learning maths. I've got good skills with basic stuff and basic algebra, but man it was a real fight to learn it! It's just not a natural thing for me... Music on the other hand! I surprised myself when I saw I remembered almost everything I learned about musical notation more than 10 years ago! As if I learned it yesterday! Yet I forgot most of what I learned in maths from 10th grade on... I'm sure I could become a great mathematician eventually if I wanted, but it would take ENORMOUS amounts of work. I'm more drawn towards art, whether it's visual, music or writing. That's probably why it only took me 3 years to take everything I learned at school in English classes and bring it to a quite decent skill level of everyday usage.

It's not a magic pill, you still need to DEVELOP a talent to make it a skill. But it definitely helps to have one in a given field.

Flippy
02-28-2014, 04:53 PM
I believe using images of a subject is a good tool because I have a bad memory & am slow worker compared to my peers. In art classes we would have to go back to work on a piece after the model left or was moved. It was hard to work on certain details even with the blueprint I had drawn with my prelim sketches. I love looking at pictures for guidance. It's a great stepping stool. It gives one perspective to things though. Real life and your imagination can bring new complexities to a piece.

QT Melon
03-03-2014, 08:21 PM
I will leave this here.

http://willterrell.com/2013/08/20/how-to-get-good-at-drawing/

Moogle
03-03-2014, 08:38 PM
I will leave this here.

http://willterrell.com/2013/08/20/how-to-get-good-at-drawing/

Bookmarked this and am DEFINITELY sending to people who think poorly of their work. Thank you for the link, QT!

zhuria
03-05-2014, 09:05 AM
I will leave this here.

http://willterrell.com/2013/08/20/how-to-get-good-at-drawing/

That is awesome, I'm definitely using this for my classes!!!
Thanks a lot!