Welcome to Gaia! :: Posts By User Unknown User | Forum

Hmm, okay. That makes a lot more sense. If you were talking strictly of drawing lines over, then I was frankly a little appalled by your earlier statement about skills not being essential.

Personally (and again, strictly my opinion here), I prefer critiques that don't entirely make immediate sense. I like having to work a little to figure out what's wrong. It's like getting a hint without getting an outright answer. I learn better that way, when I'm taking active part in the search.

But I can certainly understand why others would prefer more explicit/clear methods. And when I give critiques, I do try to be as clear as I can. To each his own.

20+ years, and I still make frequent anatomy mistakes. I figure it'll probably take me my whole life to learn to do it truly well. 3nodding

devils I know, I think it's fine if someone wants red-lining. That's their prerogative. My main objection (disregarding my negative opinion of it in general) is to having something red-lined when unasked for. If someone becomes angry because a critiquer red-lined without permission, I feel that it's a justified reason to be upset.

I agree that written critiques are just as often wrong. However, I do feel that having an incorrect red-line is generally worse.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree as far as red-lining critics who don't know how to draw well themselves. On that, I strongly disagree with you. I feel that only people who have a decent grasp of anatomy should be doing something like that. I think a non-artist or a less advanced artist is perfectly capable of giving in-depth written critique. Because a critique is not just about the anatomy. It can be about a multitude of other aspects of art. And most people are quite capable of seeing and recognizing that something is wrong, even if they don't know exactly how to fix it.

But red-lining is specifically aiming to show a person where to place the lines correctly. And if an artist's technical skills are lacking, and he doesn't even know how to draw anatomy correctly himself, I think he really has no business demonstrating such flawed anatomy in a red-line. He'd be showing the person to place lines in the wrong place. I see no point in replacing the original set of flawed lines with yet another set of flawed lines.

Edit: And I agree with others here in that the conversation in this thread (at least in these later pages) doesn't seem particularly ridiculous to me. It's always nice to find polite and reasonable discussion.

Touché. ^_^ You've got me there. Although I still think it'd be proper to ask first.

BTW, nice to see you again.

If you're doing something that is potentially offensive, I think it's up to the critiquer to ask for permission, not for the artist to have to list a bunch of Do's and Don't Do's in their first post. I realize that posting in Picture Post automatically means that critiques should be accepted. But many artists view red-lining as a step beyond that.

In everyday society, if you want to do something that might cause offense, you ask first. "Mind if I smoke?" "Mind if I answer this call really quickly?" "Should I take my shoes off in your house?" You don't meet someone and expect them to say upfront, "Hello! Just a few rules first..." I just view it simply as an act of courtesy.



Oh, I'd agree with you there. The artist has to want to think critically, absolutely.

But say I was an artist who did want to try to figure things out for myself. And someone comes and red-lines my work without me asking for it. I see the red-line. And it's too late. They've shown me the solution before I could work it out on my own. They've just taken the choice away from me.

Most sites I've been to, it's been standard to ask before doing anything like red-lining. It used to be that way at Pic Post too, but I haven't been there in forever, so I don't know if things have changed.



Do you mean kinda inevitable with red-lining or critique in general? I think it's more apparent in red-lining, which is why I don't like it and would never ask for it at Gaia. And it's why I'd be angry if someone did want to red-line my work without asking.

As for whether or not an artist can ignore stylistic choices, that depends in part on the skill of the artist. I think beginners are less likely to be able to see the difference since they haven't developed their artist's eye just yet.

-------




I agree with you.

Unfortunately, while it's true in theory, it often doesn't happen in practice. Especially at a place like Pic Post in which many of the artists (and a few of the critiquers) are at a beginner level. All too often I see kids taking critiquers' word as ultimately correct. Even when the critiquers are flat out wrong. They trust the critiquer and they don't yet have the skills they need to actually see the errors just yet.

IMO (and I admit it's just my opinion) a red-line tends to show the critiquer's biases and errors much more than a written critique would. It's why I really don't think an artist should red-line unless they're at an advanced level themselves.

As for learning in a class, that's a different situation. The person doing the red-lining is a professional teacher. I would assume they have the skills. And they would be more aware of imposing style onto the work and try to avoid that. And the people learning from them are serious about their art and hopefully have learned to trust in their own eyes first and evaluate whether or not their teacher is giving good advice or not. Pic Post is a far cry from a proper art class, I would think.

And even if one feels that red-lining is a great way to learn, IMO, one should still ask before doing it to someone else's work. That was my main point, really, that people should simply ask.

Wow. I haven't posted here in a very long time. Didn't bother to read the entire conversation. Just catching the last page or two....

The attitudes here sure have changed a great deal, it seems. Especially regarding red-lining. It used to be considered incredibly rude to do it if unasked for. The courteous thing to do is to ask the artist for permission before doing it. IMO (and obviously many here seem to disagree, but I feel pretty strongly about it), red-lining crosses the (excuse the pun please) line from helpful suggestion to vandalism. It has nothing to do with whether or not the original is destroyed. That's not the point. You're still drawing over someone else's work, possibly against their wishes.

But then again, I've always felt that red-lining is a poor way to learn. It's a very lazy way to critique. It does not engage the artist in critical thinking in the way a written critique will. It doesn't allow the artist a chance to figure things out by trying to See for themselves. Learning to See with an artist's eyes is a huge part of learning how to draw. By red-lining, you harm that process.

Even if you disagree and feel that red-lining is a good learning tool, there are still potential problems. The person doing the redlining is often imposing (whether they realize it or not) their own stylistic choices onto the "correction". I've seen that more often than I'd like, and these stylistic choices don't always mesh with the style of the artwork being critiqued. Also, many red-lines I've seen are anatomically flawed. If an artist is going to go so far as to red-line, then he should at least make sure that his own anatomy skills are up to snuff. It's irritating to see red-lines with obvious mistakes in them. Those do far more harm than good.

I'm afraid I'm also confused. The portrait you linked to isn't dynamic.

Are you talking about the color adjustments? It looks like it's been dodged/burned and run through a few filters.

1. What size canvas do you typically work on?
Depends on what I'm doing the picture for. If it's a polished work, and I plan on making a large print out of it, then I'll go up to 5000pixels on the longer side. If I'm creating an image for a website or video, I usually work at 2 or 3 times the size that the final image needs to be.

2. On that canvas, what brush size/sizes do you usually use?
Depends on the canvas and on the size of whatever object I'm working on.

3. Do you zoom in to detail your lines or just ink it using the same percentage through out the entire image?
Not applicable. I do lineless paintings, so there's no lineart to ink. On the rare occasion when I do use a line sketch, I don't bother ever cleaning the sketch. I leave it incredibly messy and just paint over the lines.

4. Is there a tool you use to get your lines so smooth, or do you just free-hand them?
Again, not applicable.

5. What's your favorite program to use?
Photoshop.

6. How long does it take you to finish a piece?
Sketches and speedpaints: 0-3 hours.
Polished paintings: Anywhere from 4-20+ hours depending on the complexity of the scene.

7. How do you arrange your workspace? Layers? Ect?

Workspace: http://hakubaikou.com/hb/photoshopworkspace.jpg
Docked: Brushes, History, Navigator, Character, Channels, and Layers.
I access brushes by clicking on my tablet pen button.
I access colors by double clicking on the foreground color for the Color Picker. I don't use swatches.

Layers:
I usually separate my layers into backgrounds, figures, and foreground elements. My layers are separated by objects, not by lines, colors, tints, lighting, etc. I do color, shading, and texture all on the same layer. For personal pieces, I usually use 2-20 layers depending on the complexity of the picture. For commissions, though, I'll often use much more so that if the client wants changes made, I can easily do so without having to re-paint too much.

I think that could certainly be true for many people. And I also agree with what Lavonia said.

But for me, I think it's because when I visualize something in my head, I'm not really just seeing an image. I'm feeling it as well. And no matter how closely I get to that image in my head when I paint something, the final picture still can't quite compare because I'm unable to feel it like I did when I was just imagining it. For example, if I picture a vast and sprawling landscape of some sort, I can usually see it quite clearly in my head. So clearly, in fact, that I can't help but associate the image with feelings of grand empty space, of depth, of being surrounded by it, of the wind whipping about, of feelings of being tiny and insignificant in such a grand setting. I also very frequently associate the image with motion.

It also happens with people. I can capture the pose and the clothes. I can visualize things down to fairly intricate patterns. But the feelings and emotional tone are a little harder to pin down for me. Admittedly, it's partly because I don't yet have the skills to pull off what I want to do.

Over the years, I've gotten closer to the images in my head. But I still can't draw exactly what I'm imagining. And while the ability to visualize something in detail definitely is a large part of the process, I suspect it might not be the only factor.

I generally don't care what others think, and I do what I like because I just love to draw.

Some of my favorite artists are many years younger than me. But it doesn't really bother me that my skills pale in comparison to theirs. I've come a long way, and just because they're amazing, it doesn't mean my own skills are lessened or cheapened in any way because of it. What I've accomplished is still worthwhile. And given the time and effort, I know I'll improve. I may never catch up to my art heroes, but catching up isn't what's important because frankly, I'll never be the absolute best. Someone else will always be better. So whether or not I ever catch up isn't important. It's the effort I make that matters more.

It's nice having people around who are better. I find it inspiring. It gives me beautiful things to look at, and it makes me want to improve. Ultimately, the only person I'm really competing against is myself. As long as I continue to grow as an artist, I'll be happy. Other people's skills don't factor into that at all.

If it helps any, artists of all skill levels sometimes feel intimidated. I've seen far better artists than myself publicly state that they sometimes feel like their own art is inadequate. I think a lot of artists feel that way sometimes, even the amazing ones.