# Art Rules?



## Kopatropa (Jan 18, 2017)

It's common for beginners to think they can just produce great art in a short time, only to give up completely when they find out they can't. Those who don't give up there usually ask for help on how to draw.

The most common answers they receive are "STUDY ANATOMY!! DRAW FROM LIFE!! PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE!! YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING FUN UNTIL YOU LEARN THIS STUFF!! FUNDAMENTALS FIRST!!" Anatomy, especially, since everyone nitpicks about it and seems to think that poor anatomy = bad art.

Beginners who take this advice will either A) get used to the process, or more commonly B) find it extremely boring and time-consuming, and thus, hate it. Those who choose B will usually skip the necessities or just quit altogether.

Some people will tell beginners not to do any of the above and just do their own thing, probably to prevent them from giving up. But lots of other people tend to get very furious when they hear this, and argue that studying is the only way to have good art, whether they like it or not.

So what I'm asking is, what's your view on all this? Should artists be allowed to draw how they like, regardless of what anyone says?


----------



## Khazius (Jan 18, 2017)

Kopatropa said:


> It's common for beginners to think they can just produce great art in a short time, only to give up completely when they find out they can't. Those who don't give up there usually ask for help on how to draw.
> 
> The most common answers they receive are "STUDY ANATOMY!! DRAW FROM LIFE!! PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE!! YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING FUN UNTIL YOU LEARN THIS STUFF!! FUNDAMENTALS FIRST!!" Anatomy, especially, since everyone nitpicks about it and seems to think that poor anatomy = bad art.
> 
> ...


While im no artist myself, I think art is about expression. There is not "Wrong way to draw" because artists have their own styles, and it takes time to learn your own. The only "Rules" that should be followed is dont copy peoples shit.


----------



## Alex K (Jan 18, 2017)

Arts nice when you get to see it painted all over the tablet


----------



## Xaroin (Jan 18, 2017)

I just started drawing shit and looked at pictures of what the shit I didn't know how to draw. My tip is (I'm using these a lot now) DRAWING SKELETONS are great for the stuff you're bad at.


----------



## Mobius (Jan 19, 2017)

Doesn't matter how they got there if the art's dope. I'd still recommend the boring methodical process for quick improvement.


----------



## scet (Jan 19, 2017)

Copy other artists, trace if you need to. this is super helpful and nothing to be ashamed of but its widely thought of as bad but its not. NEVER claim that art as your own but just get use to drawing the styles you admire most. (this is more of an in private practice style and not promoting art theft) The best way to find your style is to do this technique with all the art you think looks cool, your style will come from a mix of it all and common imperfections in your abilities, accept imperfection and keep moving forward


----------



## Revous (Jan 19, 2017)

Proportion > anatomy. However, very solid anatomy knowledge = godly proportion.
Don't believe it? For example, check out what Tim Burton (cartoon artist), Alexander McQueen (fashion designer) and Dali (painter) have in common.
They work(ed) in completely different fields, all deal with very deformed and exaggerated anatomy and proportion, yet their work is highly popular and they're considered masters of their respective areas.

Studying anatomy is THE easiest way to learn -biological- proportion, however some people might find other fields work for them too, such as studying industrial design, architecture, etc.

Since we're all drawing animals, using anatomy to learn proportion is easily the best option for going from "filthy casual deviantart cringe artist" to "okay this is acceptable" and beyond.

Proportion is the base of literally -every single form of art and design- and I can't stress this enough. The human eye and mind is naturally drawn to well proportioned things, and once you learn how to reproduce the real deal, you can deform it all you want while maintaining proportion and developing your personal style. 

TL;DR: bad PROPORTION = bad art.


----------



## Yarik (Jan 19, 2017)

"B) find it extremely boring and time-consuming, and thus, hate it."
Oh boy, I'd love to play the piano! But man, just hammering on the keys as what I’d consider fun will make everyone complain that it sounds horrible. I guess I’d have to, dunno, actually spend hundreds of hours on PRACTICE and KNOWLEDGE before I can do anything that anyone but me and friends could enjoy, eh? Man the world is mean :/
That said – nothing stops you from randomly playing the piano without a plan and perhaps you just figure out some tricks yourself and improve over time!
…it’s just not that efficient and any professional will facepalm that you’d rather try to invent the wheel anew (and take decades to do so) than just do whatever everyone else does to become better (Studying the subject).
Okay to be fair, averagely good drawing is a bit more than wanting to play the piano averagly good.
We’re more like piano players that also want to write the songs... and if possible of every genre in existence. No surprise there is an overload on stuff you have to learn.
Or… do you? Do you have to learn EVERYTHING?

No you don’t. When a friend of mine asked how to go about art I asked what he wanted to do.
Do you want to draw scifi sceneries? Fantasy war-illustrations? Your grandmas dog? Or just your cartoon character in some neat poses without much background?
Because you totally can just have fun and repeat drawing the same thing, then correct stuff, do again and again and again (and perhaps look at some reference form time to time ?) and improve on this one thing. There are plenty of furry artists who did this and now became great & famous! Do you know how you  can tell the difference between those and somebody who studied the stuff a lot more fundamentally? It’s the people that draw complex dragons but collapse when somebody asks them to draw something with either an unusual anatomy or a car.

You don’t have to learn those things! But you have to understand what you want to do and what you can skip.

Maybe explaining myself helps (Does anybody even read this? PFFFF) : I’m a hobbyist, I never studied anything regarding art in any professional way. I started with drawing some Pokémon, tracing some color books and created some characters that always faced the same way. I moved on and showed stuff to the internet much later and was told to improve the “anatomy” – which I never heard of before that point. I didn’t care much, just drew stuff and hope it was right. I never looked at photos. NEVER. DeviantArt taught me that references are SHAMEFUL. It’s like CHEATING. (F*ck deviantArts creature-artists-community, sorry)

I actually improved. Four years of “art” – mostly Digimon knights – and I kept improving! I also had much more fun drawing back then than nowadays, I won’t lie. Having no rules, goals or expectations when drawing was really nice and fun!
As I distanced myself from dA and all its frustrations I started to read articles of professionals.
I decided I wanted the hard way: Started with straight lines, circles then boxes and cylinders. I drew plants, insects – I’m currently at drawing animals just with the help of cylinders and boxes. Construction, construction, CONSTRUCTION.
Frustrating and man drawing Digimon back then was more fun than this struggle but I improved more in the recent year than 5 years counted together. Or more. There is just is no comparison between "trial and error" and actually understanding what you're doing and actually aiming at certain results.


*SHORT*: You can have fun, you don’t have to listen to advices. You don’t have to study photos or spend 1 hour a day drawing 3d boxes in various angles. You can just draw whatever you want and enjoy it! YOU WILL IMPROVE! Anyone who tells you otherwise lies. Practcie –of any type- makes you become better as long as you aim to become better. (This lats part is important though... kicking the ball and never hitting the goal will not make you better if you never aim for it.)
But it’ll be slow and no “real progress”. You’ll only become better at the stuff you already drew a hundred times – meanwhile somebody who does it the “”hard way”” becomes better much faster and can draw anything equally well.
But I can see why people would pick the fun way. You can do that. It's no crime. There are people that became good this way! But I promise you that if you're a perosn with eagerness you'll sooner or later burry your face into anatomy-lesson books and stock photos anyways because you'll discover the magic of studying references. And this is what "anatomy practice" is all about after all. Everyone who became good did it somehow. Even if you're copying other artworks - you do the same thing. Look, indetify, trying to reproduce it on paper.

Either way: If you hate to recive critique just write into your description you're just drawing for fun/relaxing and don't want to hear it. You'll get those comments more rarely then.


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Jan 19, 2017)

Kopatropa said:


> So what I'm asking is, what's your view on all this? Should artists be allowed to draw how they like, regardless of what anyone says?


Yes, but keep in mind that artists give that sort of advice because they know what they're talking about. if an artist you like or who's subjectively GOOD, then you should heed the advice that they give. Nobody wakes up one morning with talent. it's something that you have to build, something you have to work on. Admittedly similar to losing weight, sometimes it comes easier to some and harder to others. But the practice of "gittin' gud" is fundamentally the same. in short, the people who give you advice (no matter how boring those practice techniques might sound!!) are _speaking from experience, not superiority_.

if an artist wants to give critic and advice FOR FREE, just take it. Use it.

Ultimately, _*you learn however you want to learn*_, be that drawing figures and practicing pencil control or simply tracing over studying the art styles you like, but keep in mind that in order to _grow_ in your art, you have to be willing to put in the work. Because, let's be honest, if you just don't want to draw circles, you don't want to practice drawing 3D shapes, you don't want a work on your shading, coloring or rendering then...well...maybe it turns out that art just isn't your thing. if you don't want to practice or learn then what are you even doing? Basketball players don't just play their sport on TV; they practice multiple times a week and run drills to get better or keep from getting stale. Olympians don't just sprint and jump once or twice every 4 years when the games are televised; they work hard at their craft all year and run trials to earn their place AT the games. Professional singers don't just belt out their lyrics on stage; they're coached and hone their voices for hours so they can hit the high notes. Bob Ross didn't just paint on PBS; he painted in his home on his time for years before he earned his TV show.

What i'm trying to say is, _*it's not a waste of time*_ if it's something you really want. if you want to "git gud", you have to put in the effort. Simple as that.


----------



## nerdbat (Jan 19, 2017)

scet said:


> Copy other artists, trace if you need to. this is super helpful and nothing to be ashamed of but its widely thought of as bad but its not. NEVER claim that art as your own but just get use to drawing the styles you admire most. (this is more of an in private practice style and not promoting art theft) The best way to find your style is to do this technique with all the art you think looks cool, your style will come from a mix of it all and common imperfections in your abilities, accept imperfection and keep moving forward


I would say that blind, direct retracing _is_ a kind of a bad habit, though. Retracing works can be useful for undestanding how exactly they were put together - the best approach I see is to retrace the work several times while also applying various figures and shapes to it first, to "visualise the pattern", then try to do the same thing without retracing, then do that again while switching some elements and slightly shifting the pose and see what happens.


----------



## Keeroh (Jan 19, 2017)

nerdbat said:


> I would say that blind, direct retracing _is_ a kind of a bad habit, though. Retracing works can be useful for undestanding how exactly they were put together - the best approach I see is to retrace the work several times while also applying various figures and shapes to it first, to "visualise the pattern", then try to do the same thing without retracing, then do that again while switching some elements and slightly shifting the pose and see what happens.


That's a good point, I do have another thing to tack on:
My suggestion is to, when tracing, *DO NOT trace outlines*- that's useless to you. It doesn't teach you form. HOWEVER! Take a picture, a drawing, whatever- and using it as a guideline, find the_ inner structures_. Basically, work backwards. Take a finished piece, and break it down into the stick figure ball-and-joint style sketch. Easiest done with nude or minimal clothing pictures, since the flow of the limbs is easier, but finding the gesture beneath clothing is a good challenge.

I whipped up a lil' example because I think I explained that really weirdly:





(Referenced: www.deviantart.com: Lee Warrior-275 )

But doing this can help you figure out structures a lot easier, since you aren't trying to eyeball proportions. Then, when you do go to draw from scratch, you have a much better grasp on what you're tackling.


But to address the OP, at the end of the day there is no wrong way to Art™. There is no wrong way to practice. I champion the idea of avoiding the draw-only-from-memory method, because I believe references are not a crutch but a tool- and one that almost all working professional artists employ. But, you are not my student. You are not my employee. I have no authority over you, just suggestion- and you have the freedom to practice whatever you wish. 

People who harp on the anatomical practice are not doing so because they hate looking at beginners shoddy proportioned art, but instead because they themselves most likely put off studying the basics and had to trudge through hundreds of hours of study to learn the fundamentals after they had already pursued art for a long time. They're trying to teach others from their own mis-steps. If you want to put off anatomical study, fine. But I think a balance of doodles and study is a great path. If you do NOTHING but still life, anatomical study, perspective study, etc, you will burn out your interest. But mix it in. Maybe once a week, maybe every other piece you do, maybe an hour a day? Whatever works for you. 

Anywho I'm rambling so TL;DR- It's your life, you do you boo boo.


----------



## scet (Jan 19, 2017)

nerdbat said:


> I would say that blind, direct retracing _is_ a kind of a bad habit, though. Retracing works can be useful for undestanding how exactly they were put together - the best approach I see is to retrace the work several times while also applying various figures and shapes to it first, to "visualise the pattern", then try to do the same thing without retracing, then do that again while switching some elements and slightly shifting the pose and see what happens.





Keeroh said:


> That's a good point, I do have another thing to tack on:
> My suggestion is to, when tracing, *DO NOT trace outlines*- that's useless to you. It doesn't teach you form. HOWEVER! Take a picture, a drawing, whatever- and using it as a guideline, find the_ inner structures_. Basically, work backwards. Take a finished piece, and break it down into the stick figure ball-and-joint style sketch. Easiest done with nude or minimal clothing pictures, since the flow of the limbs is easier, but finding the gesture beneath clothing is a good challenge.
> 
> I whipped up a lil' example because I think I explained that really weirdly:
> ...



yes this is the more in depth tracing practice that work best i guess i should have been more specific about the differences

everyone listen to this peoples they smert


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Jan 20, 2017)

nerdbat said:


> I would say that blind, direct retracing _is_ a kind of a bad habit, though.


Sure, tracing over the outline to produce the same work is ONE thing, but i like (and advise to) bubbling or otherwise sketching out individual anatomical parts to understand the composition. At least that way you'll have a better understanding of how the figure was probably planned, like reverse engineering or tearing down the layers.

There's no harm in tracing. i feel it's just like covering a song. What you DO with that traced work that's important. Like reposting it as your OWN work without credit to the original artist...or AT LEAST the inspiration.


----------



## nerdbat (Jan 20, 2017)

PlusThirtyOne said:


> Sure, tracing over the outline to produce the same work is ONE thing, but i like (and advise to) bubbling or otherwise sketching out individual anatomical parts to understand the composition. At least that way you'll have a better understanding of how the figure was probably planned, like reverse engineering or tearing down the layers.
> 
> There's no harm in tracing. i feel it's just like covering a song. What you DO with that traced work that's important. Like reposting it as your OWN work without credit to the original artist...or AT LEAST the inspiration.


That's pretty much what I explained in my post, as well as several users after me, but yeah, thanks anyway ^^'


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Jan 20, 2017)

nerdbat said:


> That's pretty much what I explained in my post, as well as several users after me, but yeah, thanks anyway ^^'


i don't think i explained my post very well. What i'm trying to suggest isn't to TRACE exactly, but rather draw geometric shapes over the original art. i would argue said method isn't really tracing. Either way, we're probably both reiterating the same technique in different words. Understood.
At least no one can say we disagree that tracing and claiming ownership is no bueno.


----------



## scet (Jan 20, 2017)

PlusThirtyOne said:


> i don't think i explained my post very well. What i'm trying to suggest isn't to TRACE exactly, but rather draw geometric shapes over the original art. i would argue said method isn't really tracing. Either way, we're probably both reiterating the same technique in different words. Understood.
> At least no one can say we disagree that tracing and claiming ownership is no bueno.


That's tracing


----------



## PlusThirtyOne (Jan 20, 2017)

scet said:


> That's tracing


i think of tracing as literally tracing (following) lineart to reproduce or otherwise lift a copy of a work's outline. Drawing bubbles around body parts and connecting them like a figure drawing doesn't constitute copying or literal tracing because you're not intentionally reproducing the same details or props. The intent is to dissect the lineart not copy it.

Like Keeroh's example above. That's not tracing.

...as i define it.


----------



## Revous (Jan 20, 2017)

Guys and girls: Academic art classes regularly use _photography_ tracing as a way of training hands and brain. It helps -a lot-. There are multiple other awesome techniques too, that only involve observation instead of tracing, such as: 
negative space drawing (drawing only the "void" around objects), light and shade drawing (not doing the body of the object, only highlights and shadows), geometric simplification (drawing object as 3d shapes), etc.

~However~ tracing art is *wrong because you're jumping a stage by copying someone else's style and work.* 
You're not effectively learning because you're only teaching yourself to draw in that very artist(s) style, so unless you're a pro tracer doing hundreds of tracings a week, you'll barely see improvement besides learning how to draw a grinning sparkledog a hundred times.

Funny fact: tracers are often caught because they can't reproduce volume (shade/light) or paws and hands, while the rest of the pic is on point. If you wanna judge someone's art level (in a very shallow and shitty way, but still effectively) look at the paws. If they're flat, overly simple or deformed, the artist either skipped anatomy practice or is tracing.

Sauce: irl I just graduated in Fashion Design, which means I got yelled at in public if I didn't deliver good art.


----------



## Alex K (Jan 21, 2017)

Well just be like Mona Lisa. She was a great artist. I'm sure you can research what she created


----------



## nerdbat (Jan 21, 2017)

Revous said:


> Guys and girls: Academic art classes regularly use _photography_ tracing as a way of training hands and brain. It helps -a lot-. There are multiple other awesome techniques too, that only involve observation instead of tracing, such as:
> negative space drawing (drawing only the "void" around objects), light and shade drawing (not doing the body of the object, only highlights and shadows), geometric simplification (drawing object as 3d shapes), etc.
> 
> ~However~ tracing art is *wrong because you're jumping a stage by copying someone else's style and work.*
> You're not effectively learning because you're only teaching yourself to draw in that very artist(s) style, so unless you're a pro tracer doing hundreds of tracings a week, you'll barely see improvement besides learning how to draw a grinning sparkledog a hundred times.


I can see your point, but that's assuming that a) every artist is aiming at rather traditional, academic skillset by default, and b) folks in the thread recommend art tracing as primary technique. As much as tracing can be useful, it's obviously not a substitute for proper studying, and it would be naive to deny that. But on the other side, while overrelying on tracing from other's artwork can be harmful in a long run, it's actually quite a helpful tool in expanding your style, as well as learn some unorthodox, unseen techniques and ways to draw stuff (for example, I experimented with deconstructing Tealful's proportions for a while to analyze his way of making vibrant and lively "kinda-but-not-fully-cartoonish" characters). "Teaching yourself to draw in that very artist(s) style" isn't a bad thing per se, as long as you stay self-aware and don't rely on recreating the way things are drawn as much as try to comprehend it to use obtained knowledge along with what you already know. Not to mention there are whole art-related mediums and styles that aren't properly documented or studied as of now (doodling, graffiti, pixel/grid-based artwork), so the only way to excel in those, aside of sparse online tutorials, is to replicate a lot and see what sticks . Again, I see where you're going with your argument, and I agree there are at least some fundamental basics and rules that should be learned and followed, but in a way it sounds like you're discouraging being influenced by other artists and developing yourself on their (often untold) techniques, which isn't something I find right either.


----------



## Kopatropa (Jan 21, 2017)

Revous said:


> Proportion > anatomy. However, very solid anatomy knowledge = godly proportion.
> Don't believe it? For example, check out what Tim Burton (cartoon artist), Alexander McQueen (fashion designer) and Dali (painter) have in common.
> They work(ed) in completely different fields, all deal with very deformed and exaggerated anatomy and proportion, yet their work is highly popular and they're considered masters of their respective areas.
> 
> ...


But what exactly IS proportion? This is the first time I've heard about it in art.


----------



## insomniverse (Jan 21, 2017)

I feel like regardless of your overall intent, you'll still need to study art fundies. If you want to create great art, you have to figure out what makes art great. And I think a good way to start figuring out how to study is to research different methods that people've used over the centuries. 

Tracing, as others have mentioned, is completely viable. Historically, many great artists have used it as their key technique (Davinci, Rembrandt, etc.), and it was a major component of renaissance painting. However, they traced purely through projectors (never other people's work), and there was a certain way they traced. 

Master studies are also pretty helpful, and they DO involve copying other people's art. Mostly only ever old master's art tho (i.e. make sure the person's dead beforehand). Historically, old masters would take on apprentices and tell them to copy their paintings as practice. It's why there's several off-looking Mona Lisa paintings that were made within Davinci's lifetime. 

Plus learning about color theory, breaking down form, composition, value blocking, etc just makes everything easier later on. You need to figure out the components of art if you want to do it well. If you don't like studying, you either aren't into art all that much, or you need to find something that works for you. Studying shouldn't be the part you're stressing over. Studying should just be an automatic response to not understanding something.


----------



## Revous (Jan 21, 2017)

nerdbat said:


> I can see your point, but that's assuming that a) every artist is aiming at rather traditional, academic skillset by default, and b) folks in the thread recommend art tracing as primary technique. As much as tracing can be useful, it's obviously not a substitute for proper studying, and it would be naive to deny that. But on the other side, while overrelying on tracing from other's artwork can be harmful in a long run, it's actually quite a helpful tool in expanding your style, as well as learn some unorthodox, unseen techniques and ways to draw stuff (for example, I experimented with deconstructing Tealful's proportions for a while to analyze his way of making vibrant and lively "kinda-but-not-fully-cartoonish" characters). "Teaching yourself to draw in that very artist(s) style" isn't a bad thing per se, as long as you stay self-aware and don't rely on recreating the way things are drawn as much as try to comprehend it to use obtained knowledge along with what you already know. Again, I see where you're going with your argument, and I agree there are at least some fundamental basics and rules that should be learned and followed, but in a way it sounds like you're discouraging being influenced by other artists and developing yourself on their (often untold) techniques, which isn't something I find right either. I think there's a golden mean between "ironing your own set of skills" (professional/technician) and "taking inspiration from established artists" (hobbyist/performer).



Absolutely, academic skillset isn't (by far) the only way to go. I just wanted to provide some insight because not everyone has the means to study art academically, and that is a high-success rate path considering how different art courses use those approaches. However, as much as tracing/deconstructing other people's work helps in developing style, it doesn't exactly teach basic technique. It's the same predicament that many realism artists face when they advance too fast, they can draw a photorealistic eye but cannot construct an entire face if their life depended on it. For artists who already have a nice base on anatomy, fluidity, etc it can be very beneficial, but for the average hobby rookie artist it can be a crutch (or worse). 
Obviously this all depends on the personal aims of each individual: some people wanna be Blizzard/Riot Games level renderers, some people wanna draw furry/yiff as a job (my case) and some people wanna just reproduce their beloved characters and friends. Some furs wanna git gud, and some wanna reach a cozy little stage where they don't care about raising their skill level. Each and every person's aims are important and valuable~
But this thread specifically asked about raising the bar and developing skills, so... I'd say, as a whole, that one should take it slow and build a solid base before developing personal style. 




Kopatropa said:


> But what exactly IS proportion? This is the first time I've heard about it in art.



Proportion is (in sum) the study of how one part of the pic relates to the other. Anatomy can be altered and deformed while still retaining proportion (think Jack Skellington from Nightmare Before Christmas, or anime characters with huge eyes). Mastering proportion has to do with scaling and building a picture where all of the shapes and parts (and shading, lights and colors) are harmonious. 
Proportion, in pretty much every form of visual art, is also related to the psychological perception of beauty (through the golden ratio or similar calculations) but it can even influence parts of a pic that aren't related to the actual character. To people who are seriously into "omg I must master this thing called art" there's the study of Gestalt, color and shape symbolism, empathy and cognitivism in art, and many others.

Disclaimer: english is not my first language so please excuse any confusing bits


----------



## Kopatropa (Jan 21, 2017)

insomniverse said:


> I feel like regardless of your overall intent, you'll still need to study art fundies. If you want to create great art, you have to figure out what makes art great. And I think a good way to start figuring out how to study is to research different methods that people've used over the centuries.
> 
> Tracing, as others have mentioned, is completely viable. Historically, many great artists have used it as their key technique (Davinci, Rembrandt, etc.), and it was a major component of renaissance painting. However, they traced purely through projectors (never other people's work), and there was a certain way they traced.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, I hate studying. It's a time-consuming thing that isn't fun in the slightest. I just wanna learn some techniques in an hour in a half or less so I can get to the fun stuff. I have honestly considered quitting countless times for me to hate art, but I can't stop drawing. I guess I just hate how long it takes.


----------



## insomniverse (Jan 22, 2017)

Kopatropa said:


> Unfortunately, I hate studying. It's a time-consuming thing that isn't fun in the slightest. I just wanna learn some techniques in an hour in a half or less so I can get to the fun stuff. I have honestly considered quitting countless times for me to hate art, but I can't stop drawing. I guess I just hate how long it takes.



What sort of exercises have you practiced in the past? Impatience is a common thing that artists face. At this point, you've just gotta find something that works for you.

For a bunch of exercises you can look at this, although it's a bit technical and boring at times. Check it out, and if you don't like it you can come back to it later. 

You could also try analyzing your favorite artists' work and pinpointing exactly what you like about them. That way, you aren't analyzing stuffy old paintings, and you can look for stuff to 'borrow' for your own paintings.

Maybe try out a 30 days challenge? So you can practice churning out ideas and keeping a drawing schedule 

These might be good to watch too: x x
Also, check out some sycra and cgcookie videos. They talk about stuff like this pretty frequently in their videos.

It might also be that you're either too attached or detached to what you draw. If you're too attached, it can be difficult to fix mistakes and move onto another drawing, whereas if you're too detached, it's hard to get invested and you won't really absorb any new information. In order to counter this, some artists just distract themselves lol. They chew gum, listen to music, play movies in the bg, etc. That way, their minds just go into auto-pilot and they aren't actively thinking about how bored or worried they are.


----------



## Kopatropa (Jan 22, 2017)

insomniverse said:


> What sort of exercises have you practiced in the past? Impatience is a common thing that artists face. At this point, you've just gotta find something that works for you.
> 
> For a bunch of exercises you can look at this, although it's a bit technical and boring at times. Check it out, and if you don't like it you can come back to it later.
> 
> ...


I've tried drawing 3D shapes before to see if it would improve my art. I stopped doing it because it was boring, but maybe I should do it more often? I don't really challenge myself as much as I should.

The reason I'm stressing is because I'm trying to shade a drawing without using any filters. I know my light source, but I'm not sure where to even start, but I'll continue with that on a different thread.

The point of this thread was to see what people think should be a good way to make good art. I've been doing my own thing for a while and I wanted to know if the most recommended path is really the best way to go.


----------



## pidge (Jan 24, 2017)

Kopatropa said:


> I've tried drawing 3D shapes before to see if it would improve my art. I stopped doing it because it was boring, but maybe I should do it more often? I don't really challenge myself as much as I should.
> 
> The reason I'm stressing is because I'm trying to shade a drawing without using any filters. I know my light source, but I'm not sure where to even start, but I'll continue with that on a different thread.
> 
> The point of this thread was to see what people think should be a good way to make good art. I've been doing my own thing for a while and I wanted to know if the most recommended path is really the best way to go.


Honestly drawing 3D shapes does seem quite boring, I don't think many artists would actually enjoy drawing just drawing a bunch of shapes.

So if you don't like drawing shapes then what *do *you like to draw? And what do you need to *improve* on?

For example, I like to draw pretty girls, but my art isn't as good as I'd like it to be. I need to study female anatomy and draw realistic women more often so I can learn how to draw better looking girls. Drawing 3D shapes isn't going to help me much.

Figure out what you want to draw and want you need to improve on. I can't tell you a good way to make good way to make art because I don't know what kind of art you want to make. And what practice you need depends on what you're drawing.


----------

