# Drawing With or Without References?



## LuxerHusku (Nov 17, 2017)

Do you use a reference or not? Why?

Honestly, I have mixed opinions with using references. I always feel uncomfortable using them because I'm using an image that's not mine to help me draw better and...it feels wrong. I feel as bad as tracing.

But many artist I've talked to told me to always use references. I'm still on the fences about it cause I don't see any other artists use references at all. Are they just feeling sorry for me or they don't want me to know their secret.

It's stuff like this that confuses me today. If it's okay to use references, then how come every other artist I see don't use references? I think references is more of a handicap option, but I dunno...


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 17, 2017)

On main work, no

Practice, most certainly. If I'm trying to do a specific look for eyes, as an example:

I'll find one I like, and keep drawing it in my way until I have a good grasp of the concept.  I'll eventually end up with my own personal balance of speed and style.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 17, 2017)

Referencing is absolutely encouraged in improving your art and finding your style. This especially goes for real life photos, since you have to learn realism before you can develop a proper style.

Now, the topic of referencing others' art is tricky and pretty controversial. If you want a style similar to theirs or if they use a pose you're having trouble with (or anything of the sort), referencing another person's art is fine. Just don't copy it line for line, that's tracing. Make it your own in the process by adding your own touch to it.

And if you're worried someone will chew you out for "stealing their style", don't be. Nobody can own a style. There are millions of artists and only so many ways to draw a dog, having a style nearly identical to yours is inevitable.

Also i, as an artist, use references. I reference primarily for poses, but will sometimes use real photos for anatomy purposes.


----------



## dragonnetstorm (Nov 17, 2017)

Hia! New to the forums and this topic stood out as I entered. And as I've often used references I felt like replying if that's OK:
Yes! Definitely use references! Worst case scenario they can teach you something you didn't know yet! In that regard I'm talking about you for example wanting to draw a lion but you're not sure how the mane is supposed to go. And when talking Original Characters references are almost obligatory as some, if not most, characters all have unique traits that are sometimes hard to do from memory. 
Though there are a few artists out there that can do just about anything from memory and natural skill, most if not almost all artists learn by finding real life examples and trying to copy that. Or find other artists to see how they handled a certain problem, like emotions on fursonas or how to make something look like fur.
Hope this helps.


----------



## W00lies (Nov 17, 2017)

I try as much as I can not to use references when I do commissions. I would say draw someone based on your knowledge first THEN use references to correct anatomy mistakes. Your picture is already sketched so you're not tracing or copying but you'll learn to spot your flaws and fix them in the future. For study, use references and try to put down shapes on based on the refs. Then you can rotate those around to avoid learning only how to draw a profile in a certain angle. You then put your references away and try to draw what you are practicing in different angles from memory, without looking at the ref or your previous sketches. Something looks really off then use reference again. Correct the shape where something looks wrong then repeat without references.

If you use a pose as a reference do that same thing using shapes. Try not to think of the outlines that you're looking at but rather the skeletal structure and overall shape of the limbs and body. Find these within your reference. Once you've got your naked skeleton down draw on it in your own style. Not only will it your yours but you'll have learn from it.

I currently doing that with wolves since I have in mind a personal project involving a werewolf.
www.furaffinity.net: Wolf study by Chinimasse
I try not to think of the outline and put down the shapes first but I still need to figure out different angles.  But you should make decent progress fast by doing that


----------



## W00lies (Nov 17, 2017)

I made a second one so maybe what I talked about makes more sense.
The two top wolves I shaped with references and the 3 bottoms ones are from imagination.

I could now easily put away the references on the two top ones and make them my own by drawing my own style over it + I learned from it.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 17, 2017)

Most artists use references. The artists that don't use references got there by... studying using a bunch of references. Artists you see drawing without references have drawn using some sort of reference before, pretty much guaranteed.

Use references, kids.

Also, there's no hidden secret to drawing. Everything you can possibly do or learn to improve is readily available. It's up to you to put the effort in.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 17, 2017)

Without, always.
I'll only ever use a reference if I'm struggling with a pose, and I will use a poser application for that, not copy a pose off an existing image.

Copying from existing images constantly will prevent you from learning the necessary skills to make any original work. If all you do is reference, that will be your limit.
Of course you should look up references if you're struggling with a particular thing, but you have to try and work it out yourself. If you don't you won't get very far.

You learn more from doing than looking if you understand what I am saying.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 17, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> You learn more from doing than looking if you understand what I am saying.



If you're doing one separate to the other, you're doing it *very* wrong. Unless your idea of using reference is trying to copy the image you're referencing 1:1. Outside of traditional painting/fine art classes, basically nobody is suggesting that when they say draw from reference.

Plainly put, if you're "trying to work it out yourself" without cross-checking with photo reference, you're further complicating it and you're not going to have a very good point of reference for how well you're doing, either.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 17, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> If you're doing one separate to the other, you're doing it *very* wrong. Unless your idea of using reference is trying to copy the image you're referencing 1:1. Outside of traditional painting/fine art classes, basically nobody is suggesting that when they say draw from reference.
> 
> Plainly put, if you're "trying to work it out yourself" without cross-checking with photo reference, you're further complicating it and you're not going to have a very good point of reference for how well you're doing, either.



Are you sure about that? A lot of people seem to think referencing is making a copy, many people on FA and DA directly copy poses from existing sources.

I disagree. I've been doing things myself for a long time and I seem to be doing just fine.
You don't really need photo references unless you live your entire life in a metal box with no contact to the outside world. I don't need to go to Google Images to figure out how clouds and the sky work, because I've seen them in real life.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 17, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Are you sure about that? A lot of people seem to think referencing is making a copy, many people on FA and DA directly copy poses from existing sources.


That's one use of referencing. There's like a billion others that don't involve 1:1 copying.



Inkblooded said:


> I disagree. I've been doing things myself for a long time and I seem to be doing just fine.
> You don't really need photo references unless you live your entire life in a metal box with no contact to the outside world. I don't need to go to Google Images to figure out how clouds and the sky work, because I've seen them in real life.


Yourself, huh? How'd you learn to draw faces? Honest question.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 17, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> Yourself, huh? How'd you learn to draw faces? Honest question.



By looking at faces.
Isn't that kind of obvious?

The only time I messed up was with hands. The hands I see the most often are my own and I have abnormally long, thin hands. Now most of my drawings have my weird hands. I can fix that though, it just takes time and practice


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 17, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> By looking at faces.
> Isn't that kind of obvious?


You draw in a stylized style, I'd figured maybe you'd learned the "circle with a cross through it" thing. Either way, can you articulate what would be wrong with checking photos of actual faces for mistakes/proportions? Unless you can find an actual negative to using reference your argument is "You can draw without using reference so you shouldn't". That's not much of an argument.
And if you're saying you're looking at things to learn how to draw them, you're basically doing it anyway. At that point, what's even the difference? You're trying to remember them instead of looking them up? You don't see how that just makes things more difficult? 
You don't get extra points for making things more difficult, and it's pretty unanimous that using reference is the easiest way to learn.

The reason I'm surprised to hear that people think referencing is copying is because there's no debate against referencing in most concept/professional art centered communities and using reference is pretty commonly accepted as a part of learning to draw new things. If we were to argue assuming that "using reference" means "copying a pose/image exactly" then I'd agree, that'll get you nowhere aside from being able to draw things from visual reference.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 17, 2017)

Speaking as a person who's mostly self-taught, my art is shitty. Look at my goddamn avatar, look at my non-writing FA images. I got, at best, 'decent', and even that was with occasional references. Last month, I went to Iowa after loading my phone up with some pictures I got off of FA so that I could freehand draw to the best of my ability what I saw in front of me, then re-drew without looking at it the entire time, then eventually from memory. *I got better.* Not by a whole lot, but there was a noticeable improvement because I copied what was in front of me. I'm still a long way away from where I want to be, and the only reason I haven't done it since is because NaNoWriMo came around. Once that's done, I'm going to do it more and more until I can make this derpy turd look like something actually nice and awesome.
The way to get better is to copy, from nature, from other artists, until you have the ability to take what you've learned through it and be able to create something new, until you are so used to making the necessary motions that you can make that detailed image in your brain, until you can apply what you know and understand and make the art that you want to without having to rely on multiple references. The end goal is that you don't rely on references, so much that you only use them as necessary every now and again.
The major thing to remember, though, is if you use someone else's art to better your own skills, that you don't claim your copy as your own art, that you don't take the exact same facial structure and style, add new details to 'personalize' it, and then pass it off as your own. I am currently heavily debating whether or not I should gather up what I'd copied and posting it _with proper links to the original artist as well as any other pertinent information_ just so I can show the process I went through to improve, and I stress what I typed in italics because I want people to know, 'This artist, indirectly, helped me get better, and thus they deserve your attention." That is if, and only if, I feel comfortable showing people such.


----------



## RhelArts (Nov 18, 2017)

Referencing is almost necessary to improve your art. Your brain cannot magically come up with a way for two pieces of anatomy to fit together if not observed. There's no shame in taking references from the real world and using them, it's a silly art stigma that needs to end.


----------



## RhelArts (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> A lot of people seem to think referencing is making a copy, many people on FA and DA directly copy poses from existing sources.



Those people are wrong, plain and simple. Not really an argument to be had.


----------



## Drayx (Nov 18, 2017)

Each artist has his own comfort-zone of using references and other materials. In the end you'll find the right balance for your drawings. But from my perspective - every artists who strives to improve needs a challenge - and refs, can be part of it. As some artist on Youtube said - only drawing day after day won't make you better - those who draw a lot of the same stickman won't become better after a year or two.    

I assume that as long as you are using several refs to achieve something - you'll come-up with an original art. Using  several references will make you question your artistic choices.  
Many people here paid attention to anatomy part - but you can use it for other purposes besides anatomy -  composition, colors, brush strokes, backgrounds, technical details etc. 

There is an interesting presentation from one of the artists of Cupheads, Jake Clark, - and he talks a lot about the way he used references:


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 18, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> You draw in a stylized style, I'd figured maybe you'd learned the "circle with a cross through it" thing.


???

Um... no. I don't think you can tell how someone draws just by looking at their art, anyway.
I start with the eyes. It's not wise to start with a circle because you'll probably end up with a tiny face and a massive anime forehead



Butt_Ghost said:


> Either way, can you articulate what would be wrong with checking photos of actual faces for mistakes/proportions? Unless you can find an actual negative to using reference your argument is "You can draw without using reference so you shouldn't". That's not much of an argument.
> And if you're saying you're looking at things to learn how to draw them, you're basically doing it anyway. At that point, what's even the difference? You're trying to remember them instead of looking them up? You don't see how that just makes things more difficult?
> You don't get extra points for making things more difficult, and it's pretty unanimous that using reference is the easiest way to learn.
> 
> The reason I'm surprised to hear that people think referencing is copying is because there's no debate against referencing in most concept/professional art centered communities and using reference is pretty commonly accepted as a part of learning to draw new things. If we were to argue assuming that "using reference" means "copying a pose/image exactly" then I'd agree, that'll get you nowhere aside from being able to draw things from visual reference.



Where did I say it's not wrong to check photos?
I just said it will limit your art skill if you *always copy *from photos. I have no issue of someone googling "human eye" and looking at pictures as a reminder of how eyelashes and eye structure works. But if you're relying on photo references 100% and can't draw something by yourself, that is a problem.

Anyone can learn to copy photos. It doesn't take much. But imagination and creativity is where the true skill of art is. Your technical art skills don't mean anything if you can't create anything original.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I just said it will limit your art skill if you *always copy *from photos. I have no issue of someone googling "human eye" and looking at pictures as a reminder of how eyelashes and eye structure works. But if you're relying on photo references 100% and can't draw something by yourself, that is a problem.
> 
> Anyone can learn to copy photos. It doesn't take much. But imagination and creativity is where the true skill of art is. Your technical art skills don't mean anything if you can't create anything original.



Well it's a good thing that's not what anyone's talking about doing when they say to use reference, then :\ At least in non-fine-art fields.

You words in regards to using reference were "Without, always." Not gonna sugar coat it, that's terrible advice.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 18, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> Well it's a good thing that's not what anyone's talking about doing when they say to use reference, then :\



Even if it's not a perfect copy, using references every time and not even trying to do it yourself will also negatively affect your art skill.
No matter what your definition of reference is, in my opinion you should only use it if you've tried and failed to do it yourself already.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I just said it will limit your art skill if you *always copy *from photos. I have no issue of someone googling "human eye" and looking at pictures as a reminder of how eyelashes and eye structure works. But if you're relying on photo references 100% and can't draw something by yourself, that is a problem.
> 
> Anyone can learn to copy photos. It doesn't take much. But imagination and creativity is where the true skill of art is. Your technical art skills don't mean anything if you can't create anything original.


That is why, in my example prior, it was not about copying exactly, but about weaning yourself off of using references. I learned two important things when I did what I did with one particular image, a more realistically proportioned head as well as a few more realistically rendered facial expressions, if I continue on with other things, get used to drawing different ways and different angles, taking vastly different art styles and applying them in new to me ways, then I learn how to draw in my own way, because these references are not a quick and dirty way to make good art, but guideposts toward finding my own way to draw. You copy, you alter, then you draw something completely different using what you learned, that is how it works. From that point on, references should only be used, at most, 10% of the time, and that's only if you are uncertain of how to draw something.
I take pictures of the mountains here in Oregon so I can learn how to draw mountains, I haven't done anything with them because I need more angles, more variations, but eventually I will come to a point where I can realistically render mountains that aren't ^^^^^^^.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Even if it's not a perfect copy, using references every time and not even trying to do it yourself will also negatively affect your art skill.
> No matter what your definition of reference is, in my opinion you should only use it if you've tried and failed to do it yourself already.


It's weird, then, that the general consensus in the _entire art community_ is pretty much exactly the opposite to what you're trying to suggest and there's a tonne of different tried and tested teaching methods for learning creative drawing that involve using reference to get better, faster.
Gesture drawing, for example. Most of the methods for drawing creatively from any acclaimed instructor, art school or learning resource tend to involve extensive use of reference.
This is for drawing creatively, mind, and there are "fine art" life drawing methods like grid method and pencil measuring that do absolutely focus on reproducing images. They're not useful for drawing creatively, but I've never heard anyone suggesting their use in learning to draw creatively either.



Inkblooded said:


> Even if it's not a perfect copy, using references every time and not even trying to do it yourself will also negatively affect your art skill.



I'd argue it's the opposite. If you start from a base of trying to work out absolutely everything you're doing from scratch then you set yourself up to make more mistakes than you would making appropriate use of reference, and both learn slower and potentially open yourself up to _learning to make mistakes_. If your only way of drawing poses and gestures, for example, is using constructive method without any reference or a floating pose doll, you're not going to pick up how muscles move about in the real world, how gravity effects natural gesture, any of that stuff.
I'll refer to something you said in your first post, "You learn more from doing than looking". This applies to memorization, as well: you'll learn more from _looking _at human anatomy _and _trying to draw it in the same process than you would trying to memorize anatomy separately and then drawing it later. Either way, you're memorizing anatomy - the latter method's just a _worse way of doing it_.

edit: typo


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 18, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> It's weird, then, that the general consensus in the _entire art community_ is pretty much exactly the opposite to what you're trying to suggest and there's a tonne of different tried and tested teaching methods for learning creative drawing that involve using reference to get better, faster.
> Gesture drawing, for example. Most of the methods for drawing creatively from any acclaimed instructor, art school or learning resource tend to involve extensive use of reference.
> This is for drawing creatively, mind, and there are "fine art" life drawing methods like grid method and pencil measuring that do absolutely focus on reproducing images. They're not useful for drawing creatively, but I've never heard anyone suggesting their use in learning to draw creatively either.



General consensus doesn't mean it's the right answer. 
Learning is also a different process for different people so there really isn't one "tried and tested method" that everyone should adapt.




Butt_Ghost said:


> I'd argue it's the opposite. If you start from a base of trying to work out absolutely everything you're doing from scratch then you set yourself up to make more mistakes than you would making appropriate use of reference, and both learn slower and potentially open yourself up to _learning to make mistakes_. If your only way of drawing poses and gestures, for example, is using constructive method without any reference or a floating pose doll, you're not going to pick up how muscles move about in the real world, how gravity effects natural gesture, any of that stuff.
> I'll refer to something you said in your first post, "You learn more from doing than looking". This applies to memorization, as well: you'll learn more from _looking _at human anatomy _and _trying to draw it in the same process than you would trying to memorize anatomy separately and then drawing it later. Either way, you're memorizing anatomy - the latter method's just a _worse way of doing it_.



Maybe that's your experience, but that's not how it worked out for me.
Just having eyes gives you all the reference you need to understand how things work. It's better to experience things in real time than rely on photos.
If you want to understand how water looks, go to a pool or the beach, don't just google image it. It will make more sense if it moves and you can interact with it.
Most things can be understood logically. It's really not difficult to understand how muscles work as you draw.

It's also not just about learning, it's about viewing, and the end result of your art.
If everything you do is heavily referenced or copied, it's probably boring.
That's why still life paintings, even if the artist is stilled, are uninteresting.

I think art is supposed to be self expression. I don't see the point in being the artist if your art style and content is identical to everyone else.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> It's also not just about learning, it's about viewing, and the end result of your art.
> If everything you do is heavily referenced or copied, it's probably boring.


The thing is, the end point of learing creative art through reference _isn't "_copying or referencing everything you draw", I don't even draw most of my work from reference. It's another way of getting to the end point of working out how to draw independently, and there's enough data on its use to say that it's _decisively better_ for learning and teaching creative art to most people than the method you're describing. The list of highly skilled creatives that learned using reference and make fantastic, original imagery is _staggering_ and the general experience is that it's easier to learn with it than without it. It's a consensus for a reason.
While we're on this train of thought: I _do _learn by interacting with/logically deconstructing things like you're describing. You can do that while learning with reference, the two aren't mutually exclusive. 



Inkblooded said:


> I think art is supposed to be self expression. I don't see the point in being the artist if your art style and content is identical to everyone else.


You've got to do a lot of mental gymnastics to arrive at "learning from reference = your stuff's going to look the same as everyone else's", considering the sheer amount of people that learned using reference that all have different styles.


----------



## W00lies (Nov 18, 2017)




----------



## Diretooth (Nov 18, 2017)

@Inkblooded: I learned how to draw just by using my eyes and what I saw in my brain. I can attest that after _sixteen years_ of using very few references out of fear of reprisal, the method of not using references to learn art is absolutely fucking stupid. Maybe it works for you, but that's because it _only_ works for you. I've been drawing the same shitty bean-head for every shitty character I've ever drawn, and the _only_time I have _ever_ drawn anything even _remotely decent_ has been through reference. I've sat and _stagnated_ on my art style because I could never progress beyond the bullshit left of this text. Then I started using references, and I've gotten better because of it, that shitty bean head looks less like a bean and more like something I can be proud of, and I'm going to keep going, copying and learning different techniques through mimicry until I know enough to make something that is my own art style.
Your professed method of growth will not and cannot work for everybody, I've tried it for most of my life, and it fucking sucks. And the only reason why I'm writing like this is because you keep _repeating the same thing over and over again, not taking into account that everyone does things differently, references or not._


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 18, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> The thing is, the end point of learing creative art through reference _isn't "_copying or referencing everything you draw", I don't even draw most of my work from reference. It's another way of getting to the end point of working out how to draw independently, and there's enough data on its use to say that it's _decisively better_ for learning and teaching creative art to most people than the method you're describing. The list of highly skilled creatives that learned using reference and make fantastic, original imagery is _staggering_ and the general experience is that it's easier to learn with it than without it. It's a consensus for a reason.
> While we're on this train of thought: I _do _learn by interacting with/logically deconstructing things like you're describing. You can do that while learning with reference, the two aren't mutually exclusive.



If you don't draw most of your work from reference, then doesn't that kind of prove my point?



Butt_Ghost said:


> You've got to do a lot of mental gymnastics to arrive at "learning from reference = your stuff's going to look the same as everyone else's", considering the sheer amount of people that learned using reference that all have different styles.



If you use references occasionally, sure. But if you rely on copying from photos or someone else's art, that's all you will learn to do, and you will lack a personal style as a result. That's probably why there are so many "generic styles" in furry art, probably because people are either referencing constantly from other artists in the fandom, or deliberately trying to imitate someone else's work.

Two examples of this:

That Silverfox artist (I don't remember the rest of their username, it might be a string of numbers) who draws overly-cute anthros with big, shiny eyes. 
Their signature style was cartoon and anime proportioned animals with realistic shading and texture.
But there are so many copies of them. I have seen many submissions I thought were made by them, only to find that it was made by someone else.

Second example is Hensa / Waitress on FA. She does stylized anthros with bold lines, kind of in an anime style, and is known for making bases.
Everyone copies her style now and tries to draw the same way she does. It's very common among the sub-group of anthro fans that I'm in, and it's so common that I have even started to worry that my art might end up looking like a copy of hers accidentally.

In these cases I don't think referencing is to blame.
I'm pretty sure these artists are deliberately trying to make their art look like their idols because they are popular and they think they can make a career out of being a "Discount silverfox" or "Discount hensa"

But my point is that if you reference a lot, especially if you reference off of other people's art, your art will end up looking like what you're referencing instead of your own style, even if you don't intend it to. I know a lot of artists who started out drawing Sonic the Hedgehog or anime when they were young, and when they became "serious" artists, they struggled to change their art style into something unique because of it.

I don't mean to say elitist. I am no expert myself, I like my art style now but I still struggle with it and it look me a lot of effort to get something I actually like. And even now there are so many things that look objectively bad in my style because they are areas I don't touch. I don't remember if I have any pictures of long-snouted anthros left in my gallery or if I deleted them all, but believe me when I say that they look bad. I don't think I'm even an anthro artist at the core of it, I find it easier and more enjoyable to draw humanoid faces.

But I am just trying to give some advice, because I know what it's like to get stuck with an art style you don't like and can't easily get out of.
And not everyone's okay with having their stuff referenced, if you're using someone's art instead of photos.



Diretooth said:


> @Inkblooded: I learned how to draw just by using my eyes and what I saw in my brain. I can attest that after _sixteen years_ of using very few references out of fear of reprisal, the method of not using references to learn art is absolutely fucking stupid. Maybe it works for you, but that's because it _only_ works for you.



If it only worked for me that would mean I somehow possess an ability of perception that no one else has. And while it would be nice to be an artistic genius I can tell that is not true. if it were true I would also be able to draw the things I do not like/never draw when commissioned to but I can't.





Diretooth said:


> I've been drawing the same shitty bean-head for every shitty character I've ever drawn, and the _only_time I have _ever_ drawn anything even _remotely decent_ has been through reference.



This isn't meant to sound rude, and I don't know the full story of your art progress obviously, but it sounds like the problem here is using a cartoon style method instead of anything to do with references. I've never heard of anyone using a bean shape to draw heads, to me that sounds like a very stylized cartoon thing.

If you're using references, that means you are at least trying to go for semi-realism, right? Correct me if I'm wrong. So personally I think the problem there is technique, not reference. Trust me, the way you start to build a drawing through shapes is very important, it's why I was talking trash about the "Circle with a line" method earlier.

I can't tell you what method to use because everyone's different, it's a pain in the ass but you've basically got to experiment. My method is to  draw the eyes first, but some people find that weird and difficult so I don't think it works for everyone.



Diretooth said:


> I've sat and _stagnated_ on my art style because I could never progress beyond the bullshit left of this text. Then I started using references, and I've gotten better because of it, that shitty bean head looks less like a bean and more like something I can be proud of, and I'm going to keep going, copying and learning different techniques through mimicry until I know enough to make something that is my own art style.
> Your professed method of growth will not and cannot work for everybody, I've tried it for most of my life, and it fucking sucks. And the only reason why I'm writing like this is because you keep _repeating the same thing over and over again, not taking into account that everyone does things differently, references or not._



The fact that people do things differently is exactly why telling everyone to rely on references isn't a good idea.
I'm repeating myself because people don't seem to be getting it.

I've struggled with my art style too. I even delete art from my gallery thats more than a few months old because of this. But I don't think that has nothing to do with references really.

I'm just saying that relying on references is detrimental over time. It might be fine to use a lot of references at the beginning.
But when you do it for a long time, it will start to show. People will notice.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If you don't draw most of your work from reference, then doesn't that kind of prove my point?


No, not really. I learn with reference. That's still using reference. The common process is to learn constructive methods of drawing through reference, using those methods to work out exactly what forms make up the object you're drawing and then applying them to draw the object in any situation. You can abstract it as much or as little as you want while doing this, that's just a thing your brain can do, the ability to recognize and create abstract forms is the reason we can see symbolism at all, the reason stuff like  looks like a face to us to begin with. You can do this without the reference but having it right in front of you makes the process much easier, most people's visual memory isn't as great as they think it is and anyone with that perfect visual memory is an outlier. You *could* be naturally gifted with photographic memory, but most people aren't so when giving art advice the assumption is that the person you're giving it to is, typically, average in all regards. Everyone's different, but there's a baseline of things that, without a doubt, could never be harmful. Reference is considered to be one of them.
You can dispute using reference to completely copy life or other works with no regard to what you're learning to do, and if you're talking about doing nothing but still life ad nauseam I'll probably agree that approaching art like that won't get you far, but "Don't reference at all" is a stretch. Again, consider that when I say "Reference" I'm referring to using it in studying processes like gesture drawing. Part of the learning process, but not things you typically make finished work out of. If someone's only using reference as a way of just copying and nothing else, the correction you should be making is "Don't use reference _like that_", not "Don't use reference _at all_". 



Inkblooded said:


> If you use references occasionally, sure. But if you rely on copying from photos or someone else's art, that's all you will learn to do, and you will lack a personal style as a result. That's probably why there are so many "generic styles" in furry art, probably because people are either referencing constantly from other artists in the fandom, or deliberately trying to imitate someone else's work.


It's probably mostly deliberate. Can you honestly say you've never seen something another artist has done and imitated it? Not a whole style, just an element of it. Consciously or not, pretty much everyone does it and nobody honestly cares, ripping off other styles wholesale is the hot-button issue.

On the subject of "If everyone copied life, everyone would draw the same", I don't really agree. First off, everything but the most abstract non-representational styles copy life to some degree. I'd like to make another hypothetical, though: An artist does a lineart based entirely on a real life photo, completely accurate to the photo, but lines only. Even in this situation, where the artist is indisputably copying something, the image produced is nothing like real life just by way of being lineart. At some point, the artist has had to choose which lines to include and which lines to omit. Outside of hyperrealism, a style is going to form no matter what and even while referring directly to real life you choose which elements to abstract, how to abstract them etc.



Inkblooded said:


> If it only worked for me that would mean I somehow possess an ability of perception that no one else has. And while it would be nice to be an artistic genius I can tell that is not true. if it were true I would also be able to draw the things I do not like/never draw when commissioned to but I can't.


Some people are naturally gifted in that fashion, but considering you've noted that you've had struggles with anything outside of your comfort zone, even though you like your own work, do you really think your current method is working for you as well as it could be? You can get to alright going about things without any structure at all. I'd imagine your friends who went into sonic or anime were alright in that niche before they found out learning that way didn't really prepare them for drawing anything else. The appeal of working from life reference, or shooting for creative realism, is that you learn most of the genuinely useful drawing techniques you can get along the way, and technique isn't restricted to one style or another. This includes most of the stuff you notice or commit to memory when working from reference. Not even getting into stuff that you can't possibly see or form an accurate image of through life experience. You're not going to go outside and casually see animals from a different continent often enough to be familiar enough with them to accurately draw them, for example.



Inkblooded said:


> This isn't meant to sound rude, and I don't know the full story of your art progress obviously, but it sounds like the problem here is using a cartoon style method instead of anything to do with references. I've never heard of anyone using a bean shape to draw heads, to me that sounds like a very stylized cartoon thing.


Constructive methods like that can be used with anything between completely cartoony styles and realistically proportioned, true-to-life artstyles. I work with measurements and guidelines when I can but ultimately come up with my own idea of what the form is based on what I can get through reference. I use the same constructive method I would for a realistically proportioned image as I would for a cartoon.



Inkblooded said:


> I'm just saying that relying on references is detrimental over time. It might be fine to use a lot of references at the beginning.
> But when you do it for a long time, it will start to show. People will notice.


And I'm saying that's totally at odds with reality. There's no "tell" indicating whether someone uses references or not, which is why the idea that great artists don't use reference or that not using reference could possibly be beneficial is even a thing. Yes, you could get away with not doing it, yes, the degree to which you use it and can find use in it is completely subjective. There's absolutely zero evidence to say that use of reference, provided you know what your goal is, could possibly _ever_ be detrimental, though, and a tonne of evidence to the contrary.
There's no downside to using it aside from a bunch of anxieties that I think you've, honestly, made up and chosen to believe. And I'm saying that because it's not a rare thing to do at all. Especially with the prevalence of fine art teaching methods in highschools it's easy to get the idea that people that use reference are into fine art and draw nothing but nude models, log cabins and bowls of fruit all day long, because that's the only use you get exposed to.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 18, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> No, not really. I learn with reference. That's still using reference. The common process is to learn constructive methods of drawing through reference, using those methods to work out exactly what forms make up the object you're drawing and then applying them to draw the object in any situation. You can abstract it as much or as little as you want while doing this, that's just a thing your brain can do, the ability to recognize and create abstract forms is the reason we can see symbolism at all, the reason stuff like  looks like a face to us to begin with. You can do this without the reference but having it right in front of you makes the process much easier, most people's visual memory isn't as great as they think it is and anyone with that perfect visual memory is an outlier. You *could* be naturally gifted with photographic memory, but most people aren't so when giving art advice the assumption is that the person you're giving it to is, typically, average in all regards. Everyone's different, but there's a baseline of things that, without a doubt, could never be harmful. Reference is considered to be one of them.
> You can dispute using reference to completely copy life or other works with no regard to what you're learning to do, and if you're talking about doing nothing but still life ad nauseam I'll probably agree that approaching art like that won't get you far, but "Don't reference at all" is a stretch. Again, consider that when I say "Reference" I'm referring to using it in studying processes like gesture drawing. Part of the learning process, but not things you typically make finished work out of. If someone's only using reference as a way of just copying and nothing else, the correction you should be making is "Don't use reference _like that_", not "Don't use reference _at all_".



I don't think I have photographic memory. I have no recollection of anything that happened to me before a certain age. I do not think I am gifted.

And once again - I never said "don't reference at all." I said "Don't rely on referencing" which is completely different. You can reference - but in my opinion only as a last resort. 



Butt_Ghost said:


> It's probably mostly deliberate. Can you honestly say you've never seen something another artist has done and imitated it? Not a whole style, just an element of it. Consciously or not, pretty much everyone does it and nobody honestly cares, ripping off other styles wholesale is the hot-button issue.



No, I have not done that. Why would I do that?



Butt_Ghost said:


> On the subject of "If everyone copied life, everyone would draw the same", I don't really agree. First off, everything but the most abstract non-representational styles copy life to some degree. I'd like to make another hypothetical, though: An artist does a lineart based entirely on a real life photo, completely accurate to the photo, but lines only. Even in this situation, where the artist is indisputably copying something, the image produced is nothing like real life just by way of being lineart. At some point, the artist has had to choose which lines to include and which lines to omit. Outside of hyperrealism, a style is going to form no matter what and even while referring directly to real life you choose which elements to abstract, how to abstract them etc.



I was mostly talking about still life paintings. Anyone can learn to replicate an image of some apples in front of them, and if you look at a collection of skilled still life paintings of fruit, you're probably not going to be tell if it's by one artist or multiple. There's only so much you can do with a boring picture of apples.



Butt_Ghost said:


> Some people are naturally gifted in that fashion, but considering you've noted that you've had struggles with anything outside of your comfort zone, even though you like your own work, do you really think your current method is working for you as well as it could be?



Yes. I am rather confident that this is the best method, and relying on references would only be negative to my skill.

Let's take my inability to draw long-snouted anthro characters, for example.
Currently I am working on improving it, and I do this by visualizing 3D shapes. 

But if I hypothetically started to look up images of real life canines and copied those, what would happen? 
I would copy the photo, and it would probably remove traces of my own art style, because I'm trying to replicate a generic, normal dog.

It is irritating when I have to draw long snouts. But I would rather learn the process of it myself and retain my own approach instead of losing individuality.
Besides, referencing is too easy. It's not really fun if there's no challenge to succeed in.

The reason why I struggle to draw these kind of things is because I have no interest in them. It is as simple as that.
I do not have any long snouted anthro characters of my own (I usually convert them to something that works better for me) and I do not have experience with long snouted animals like dogs. It's pretty safe to assume that most canine artists have real life experience with dogs, I don't.

I can't draw masculine features for the same reason. I don't have any desire to and no visual appreciation for men.



Butt_Ghost said:


> You can get to alright going about things without any structure at all. I'd imagine your friends who went into sonic or anime were alright in that niche before they found out learning that way didn't really prepare them for drawing anything else. The appeal of working from life reference, or shooting for creative realism, is that you learn most of the genuinely useful drawing techniques you can get along the way, and technique isn't restricted to one style or another. This includes most of the stuff you notice or commit to memory when working from reference. Not even getting into stuff that you can't possibly see or form an accurate image of through life experience. You're not going to go outside and casually see animals from a different continent often enough to be familiar enough with them to accurately draw them, for example.



Why do you assume I am friends with the sonic and anime fans? I am not.

There's an easy solution to that. It's called sculpting. You can do it with real life clay or virtually.



Butt_Ghost said:


> Constructive methods like that can be used with anything between completely cartoony styles and realistically proportioned, true-to-life artstyles. I work with measurements and guidelines when I can but ultimately come up with my own idea of what the form is based on what I can get through reference. I use the same constructive method I would for a realistically proportioned image as I would for a cartoon.



That seems like a technique that would be doomed to fail, but I guess whatever suits you.



Butt_Ghost said:


> And I'm saying that's totally at odds with reality. There's no "tell" indicating whether someone uses references or not, which is why the idea that great artists don't use reference or that not using reference could possibly be beneficial is even a thing. Yes, you could get away with not doing it, yes, the degree to which you use it and can find use in it is completely subjective. There's absolutely zero evidence to say that use of reference, provided you know what your goal is, could possibly _ever_ be detrimental, though, and a tonne of evidence to the contrary.
> There's no downside to using it aside from a bunch of anxieties that I think you've, honestly, made up and chosen to believe. And I'm saying that because it's not a rare thing to do at all. Especially with the prevalence of fine art teaching methods in highschools it's easy to get the idea that people that use reference are into fine art and draw nothing but nude models, log cabins and bowls of fruit all day long, because that's the only use you get exposed to.



There is a "tell" when you start to see a background that looks like it was traced. Or a pose you've seen before in another 20 drawings.
Why would I make it up? What possible reason would I have to do that?

It's not to make myself look good, that's for sure. I have already explained I am no expert, and if this was about ego boosting, there's a million different ways to do that in a better and more effective way.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> No, I have not done that. Why would I do that?


I could relate plenty of elements of your style to plenty of other people's styles. You're saying that you came up with every part of your style completely independently with no outside influence? The way you wanted to draw just popped into your head one day and was influenced by zero other artists?



Inkblooded said:


> That seems like a technique that would be doomed to fail, but I guess whatever suits you.


I didn't describe the technique outside of hinting that it's using construction and that it's similar to other pretty common techniques. That you think even a vague description of a technique that could _easily describe many skilled artists' techniques _is "doomed to fail" gives me the feeling that you're really out of touch when it comes to this sort of thing. You go on to say that you're learning to visualize 3D shapes. Well, that's the secret thing that I apply to all things, the thing that I use to _learn through reference_. I crosscheck construction with real life and I make what I take from real life fit my purposes. Which is more or less what you're saying you do, just I don't take extra steps to make it difficult.



Inkblooded said:


> Yes. I am rather confident that this is the best method, and relying on references would only be negative to my skill.
> --
> But if I hypothetically started to look up images of real life canines and copied those, what would happen?
> I would copy the photo, and it would probably remove traces of my own art style, because I'm trying to replicate a generic, normal dog.


This is the anxiety I'm talking about. What reason do you have to think that, what concrete evidence? Yeah, I'd imagine I'd have a hard time stomaching working from reference if I thought it'd compromise my style but the reference isn't gonna jump out of your screen and suck the style out of you, it doesn't take control of your style, that's an irrational fear. Do you use this excuse to not engage in art books or learning resources, as well? Real talk, I used to do that too and it fucking sucked.



Inkblooded said:


> Besides, referencing is too easy. It's not really fun if there's no challenge to succeed in.


Nobody's going to pin a medal on you that says "Inconvenienced themselves the most at art" when you finally work out how to draw a snout this way. It's a really bizarre thing to get hung up on and referencing doesn't "Remove the challenge" or whatever the fuck.



Inkblooded said:


> The reason why I struggle to draw these kind of things is because I have no interest in them. It is as simple as that.
> I do not have any long snouted anthro characters of my own (I usually convert them to something that works better for me) and I do not have experience with long snouted animals like dogs. It's pretty safe to assume that most canine artists have real life experience with dogs, I don't.


Consider, then, that the way you draw might only be suited to the limited scope of subjects that you draw. That it's possible that you're going through a variation of the same thing the anime and sonic fans you described are going through: you draw only feminine features, you draw only stylized human-like faces and so far your way of working suits that fine. And how couldn't it? You've done it a lot.
Then what? You try anything else and it doesn't meet your standard. You think it's out of disinterest?



Inkblooded said:


> There is a "tell" when you start to see a background that looks like it was traced. Or a pose you've seen before in another 20 drawings.
> Why would I make it up? What possible reason would I have to do that?


You're describing blatant copying, not any and all use of reference. For the ones you notice there's a thousand you don't. Mountains out of molehills.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 18, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> I could relate plenty of elements of your style to plenty of other people's styles. You're saying that you came up with every part of your style completely independently with no outside influence? The way you wanted to draw just popped into your head one day and was influenced by zero other artists?



Yes. I have no desire to copy anyone else.
There are no artists I idolize or look up to. I do not aspire to be like any other kind of artist, I want to become skilled as myself, because I know I can't be anyone else.

I'm sure you could find some art style that vaguely looks like mine. But that doesn't mean I copied them. I probably never even heard of them or seen their work before.

But it didn't just happen suddenly, no. It took me a long time to develop this style, it happened naturally as I found better ways to draw things. It's different from when I first started drawing, but it's always had similar traits in it.



Butt_Ghost said:


> I didn't describe the technique outside of hinting that it's using construction and that it's similar to other pretty common techniques. That you think even a vague description of a technique that could _easily describe many skilled artists' techniques _is "doomed to fail" gives me the feeling that you're really out of touch when it comes to this sort of thing. You go on to say that you're learning to visualize 3D shapes. Well, that's the secret thing that I apply to all things, the thing that I use to _learn through reference_. I crosscheck construction with real life and I make what I take from real life fit my purposes. Which is more or less what you're saying you do, just I don't take extra steps to make it difficult.



Then maybe you should've described it better. If you give me a vague description with things missing, of course I am going to fill in the blanks myself.

How do you learn how 3D things work from photos? Like you said earlier, especially from things that you can't find on your continent.



Butt_Ghost said:


> This is the anxiety I'm talking about. What reason do you have to think that, what concrete evidence? Yeah, I'd imagine I'd have a hard time stomaching working from reference if I thought it'd compromise my style but the reference isn't gonna jump out of your screen and suck the style out of you, it doesn't take control of your style, that's an irrational fear. Do you use this excuse to not engage in art books or learning resources, as well? Real talk, I used to do that too and it fucking sucked.



Either there is a separate definition of anxiety I am not aware of or you are making a bullshit out of your mouth right here.
I am not anxious about my art. I am not "afraid" of referencing. I just know it's no good, it's cheap and lazy to rely on it, so I don't do it. There's no fear. I have far more serious and real things to be constantly afraid of.

That depends on the art book. Some art books are shit.

I also studied art for a while and I can say that was probably the biggest waste of time, money, and resources I have ever done.
Perhaps it would be helpful to someone who's never progressed beyond crayon scribbles of a child, but it's basically useless. We were basically told to copy some moldy fruit and forget about our original ideas and creativity. You had to draw or paint what you were instructed to. That is, if it's one of the rare days you actually did any art, the rest was "researching."



Butt_Ghost said:


> Nobody's going to pin a medal on you that says "Inconvenienced themselves the most at art" when you finally work out how to draw a snout this way. It's a really bizarre thing to get hung up on and referencing doesn't "Remove the challenge" or whatever the fuck.



I don't inconvenience myself. I think that the progress I've made with my art in the last few years is surprisingly fast.
There's nothing inconvenient about my method. Just because you can't draw without a photo in front of you doesn't mean my way is deliberately making things hard for myself.



Butt_Ghost said:


> Consider, then, that the way you draw might only be suited to the limited scope of subjects that you draw. That it's possible that you're going through a variation of the same thing the anime and sonic fans you described are going through: you draw only feminine features, you draw only stylized human-like faces and so far your way of working suits that fine. And how couldn't it? You've done it a lot.
> Then what? You try anything else and it doesn't meet your standard. You think it's out of disinterest?



I don't think that's comparable. I mean, getting stuck on aesthetically pleasant things doesn't seem like a problem compared to forever being bound to only draw shitty anime and sonic OCs.

It is out of disinterest. 
I don't particularly care for dogs, probably because they were never in my life.  I don't have an interest in them, I don't interact with them, I don't draw them, that's why I can't draw them.

I don't have any interest in men, not sexually, not aesthetically. I do not find them pleasing to the eyes. I do not know any masculine men.
I have no interest in drawing them, so of course, I have no experience in drawing them.

There is no need to learn to draw everything. Why waste time on something you don't enjoy?
I would rather refine my skills in my fields of interest than spend time on things that I don't like drawing.



Butt_Ghost said:


> You're describing blatant copying, not any and all use of reference. For the ones you notice there's a thousand you don't. Mountains out of molehills.



I was explaining what happens if you rely on reference. Not using it on occasion. I mean constantly.


----------



## wolvykasu (Nov 18, 2017)

I'm trying so much art styles that I cannot even say that I can copy one


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> No, I have not done that. Why would I do that?


The entire basis of this is that you, personally, have not and will not use references. You're saying that using them is bad if being relied on as more than a last resort, that using another person's art as a vessel upon which to improve is bad because you are reliant on it as something other than a last resort. These are the words you keep repeating, this is the meaning you put forth every single time. Referencing, beyond _the most_ _desperate_ times of drawing is bad. We both, I and Butt_Ghost, state otherwise, that using references, at the very least for improving one's artistic level, is perfectly good and should be encouraged in much the same way that my crazy awesome art teachers in high school taught me to do.
I have these detailed images of the characters I write, I could give you an in-depth description of how each character looks, I could give you the exact measurements of every bone in their body, he exact angle at which their joints are at when they are at rest. I can see them clearly in my brain, but the moment I put my pencil to paper, my brain cannot process taking that image and putting it on paper. I end up with <- that over there, every time. I'm going to post an example of what freehand drawing has done for me, from one reference.



 
This is an image where the top picture is how I normally draw. The bottom is me freehand copying something in front of me. The image in question is this: www.furaffinity.net: Koviell by Caindra by Koviell


 
That is the result of using that one reference as practice, that is the result of spending time using one reference to learn how to better do one specific thing, that being making an actually proportionally decent head. I drew that in pen because I wanted my mistakes to remain, to show where I still need improvement, and those mistakes are clear. There will be different styles, different images, different positions, different anatomy, all being collected in my brain and melded into something that is closer to the way I see my characters. That tippy top image is what I've only ever been able to draw for literal _years_, imagine that without the spikes, put in a wolf nose, put some wolf ears, and you'll have one of my wolf characters. I'm fucking _proud_ that I've been able to break my artistic stagnation and improve in at least _one_ thing. Maybe that's the most desperate time, or maybe I've crossed your line of not using references, maybe I'm just another shitball copy paster tracer in everyone's eyes, but dammit I fucking did something to improve myself.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> How do you learn how 3D things work from photos? Like you said earlier, especially from things that you can't find on your continent.


I've got eyes and a working concept of what depth is.



Inkblooded said:


> Yes. I have no desire to copy anyone else.
> There are no artists I idolize or look up to. I do not aspire to be like any other kind of artist, I want to become skilled as myself, because I know I can't be anyone else.
> 
> I'm sure you could find some art style that vaguely looks like mine. But that doesn't mean I copied them. I probably never even heard of them or seen their work before.
> ...





Inkblooded said:


> just know it's no good, it's cheap and lazy to rely on it, so I don't do it





Inkblooded said:


> There's nothing inconvenient about my method. Just because you can't draw without a photo in front of you doesn't mean my way is deliberately making things hard for myself.


You know how you wheeled out some lines about not being elitist before anyone had the opportunity to call you elitist? Well, just gonna say it's not a very convincing argument.


Inkblooded said:


> I mean, getting stuck on aesthetically pleasant things doesn't seem like a problem compared to forever being bound to only draw shitty anime and sonic OCs.


Here's a one line horror story for you: Shitty anime and sonic OCs are "aesthetically pleasant" to the people that draw them. And yeah, I'd fucking rate not getting stuck higher than getting stuck on anything, personally.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 18, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> You know how you wheeled out some lines about not being elitist before anyone had the opportunity to call you elitist? Well, just gonna say it's not a very convincing argument.



Why? I am just pointing it out. I am not saying I am better for not doing it.



Butt_Ghost said:


> Here's a one line horror story for you: Shitty anime and sonic OCs are "aesthetically pleasant" to the people that draw them. And yeah, I'd fucking rate not getting stuck higher than getting stuck on anything, personally.



But why draw anything you have no interest in? And where do you draw the line?
Should I draw fetish porn just so I don't get "stuck" with things that don't make me uncomfortable?


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 18, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> The entire basis of this is that you, personally, have not and will not use references. You're saying that using them is bad if being relied on as more than a last resort, that using another person's art as a vessel upon which to improve is bad because you are reliant on it as something other than a last resort. These are the words you keep repeating, this is the meaning you put forth every single time. Referencing, beyond _the most_ _desperate_ times of drawing is bad. We both, I and Butt_Ghost, state otherwise, that using references, at the very least for improving one's artistic level, is perfectly good and should be encouraged in much the same way that my crazy awesome art teachers in high school taught me to do.



But that's not a way to teach. It is okay to use references on occasion. But encouraging to use them, especially as often as possible, like they are something you should heavily focus on is bad advice. Just because people are advising it doesn't mean it's the best way.

It is as bad advice as "trace other people's art to learn" or "you should only draw humans because that's all you need"


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Why? I am just pointing it out. I am not saying I am better for not doing it.





Inkblooded said:


> it's cheap and lazy to rely on it


Pffffffffffffffffffffffffffft


Inkblooded said:


> But why draw anything you have no interest in? And where do you draw the line?
> Should I draw fetish porn just so I don't get "stuck" with things that don't make me uncomfortable?


I'm not saying draw everything, I'm saying getting so stuck on something you're "disinterested" in that you've got to invent a new way to do it is unique to you so I doubt being disinterested is the problem.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Nov 18, 2017)

Pfft, snark aside, this is an interesting conversation because of the contrasting perspectives.Maybe I can sit in the middle and make away with the best ideas. :3


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 18, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> But that's not a way to teach. It is okay to use references on occasion. But encouraging to use them, especially as often as possible, like they are something you should heavily focus on is bad advice. Just because people are advising it doesn't mean it's the best way.


If you want to take a swing at a well established learning method used by a great deal of way more technically proficient artists than either you or me, then you're gonna need a much bigger bat. Unfounded postulation about how using reference might hurt your style isn't going to cut it.


----------



## Casey Fluffbat (Nov 18, 2017)

I never use references for exact poses, I just use them to estimate size and perspective of what I'm drawing, often when I find a certain part of my drawing difficult to visualize.


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 19, 2017)

The whole “reference is cheating” argument is ridiculous, and as a professional illustrator I’m here to tell you the stone cold fact that using reference is an essential tool to lean how to draw ANYTHING. Want to learn how to draw people? You draw nude models from life. Wanna draw cars? Go outside and draw your car, or buy a car magazine and copy the pictures. Want to learn how to draw a wolf? Go to the zoo and study wolves or watch a documentary on wolves, pause it randomly and sketch what you see.

This does two things: it helps you learn little things about your subject that no human memory can recall on its own, and it builds muscle memory for when you do step 2: putting that reference away and drawing with your mind. By this point you’ve drawn enough wolves or guns or dildos to roughly know how they work. So you take that knowledge and create a NEW wolf/gun/dildo from your imagination, based on your studies. If you get stuck, pull out the reference again, but the point is not to rely on it. Copying a reference photo of a wolf verbatim and then saying it’s your new wolf character is not really the idea.

The key step is taking your reference and _modifying it to fit the image in your head of what you want to create_. Push or alter a pose or gesture to make it your own. Start with a basic car shape you’ve referenced, but add other parts to it from your head. A great example is robots. You learn to draw robots by copying - yes COPYING - machine parts from cars, motorbikes, vacuum cleaners, planes etc. This is your REFERENCE. Then, you take that reference (your new knowledge of machine parts and how they fit together), and use it to construct your robot, like a Frankenstein’s monster. Try it yourself - design two robots, but do the first one totally out of your head without looking at any reference. Then draw (ie. study) a load of motorcycle parts for a while and design another robot. I guarantee the second one will be infinitely better.

Reference is a tool, nothing else. Copying someone else’s art style _as a way to learn_ is also a tool. There’s a reason artists do master copies of paintings, it’s to UNDERSTAND how someone else solves an artistic problem. Swiping someone else’s style is a road to nowhere, as it robs you of discovering your own potential style and is ethically frowned upon for obvious reasons.

In  short, art is difficult enough without worrying about what you’re doing is “cheating”. Hell, just look up “camera obscura” and witness old masters tracing real life onto canvas as a basis for a painting. Yes, there are rules (don’t trace unless it’s to learn something, don’t copy someone else’s work and claim it as your own etc.), but it’s sad to think how many young artists will never realise their full potential by listening to the deviantart mindset. You use reference first to understand your subject. In my opinion, not doing this important first step only handicaps you, it handicaps your art, and wastes a whole lot of time teaching you the wrong way to draw something.


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 19, 2017)

PS: Here are some fine articles about using reference, from the excellent Muddy Colors blog:

A Checklist for Using Photo Reference | Muddy Colors
Reference Manipulation-Pushing the Pose or Portrait | Muddy Colors
Artist Selfies: Everybody's Doing It | Muddy Colors
10 Things I Remember...About Tracing | Muddy Colors

That last one will provide particular food for thought.

A highly recommended website!


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> I'm not saying draw everything, I'm saying getting so stuck on something you're "disinterested" in that you've got to invent a new way to do it is unique to you so I doubt being disinterested is the problem.



I'm not "stuck on" things I don't like. I don't draw things I don't like (unless I'm commissioned to.)



Butt_Ghost said:


> If you want to take a swing at a well established learning method used by a great deal of way more technically proficient artists than either you or me, then you're gonna need a much bigger bat. Unfounded postulation about how using reference might hurt your style isn't going to cut it.



There are plenty of shitty artists with inflated egos calling themselves "professionals" and giving out flawed advice. This is nothing new.
If you're ignoring my point just because I'm not a famous artist, that's your problem.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> There are plenty of shitty artists with inflated egos calling themselves "professionals" and giving out flawed advice. This is nothing new.
> If you're ignoring my point just because I'm not a famous artist, that's your problem.



I'm ignoring your point because it ignores a couple hundred years worth of people figuring out how to do art and the "references will make u bad" argument makes zero fucking sense and goes against all evidence.

I'm tapping out, you can argue with this new guy now if you want.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> I'm ignoring your point because it ignores a couple hundred years worth of people figuring out how to do art and the "references will make u bad" argument makes zero fucking sense and goes against all evidence.
> 
> I'm tapping out, you can argue with this new guy now if you want.



I think you're just getting defensive because you know you can't draw without guides
o v o


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I don't draw things I don't like (unless I'm commissioned to.)



Just out of interest, do you use reference in that case? What’s your process?


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

redfox_81 said:


> Just out of interest, do you use reference in that case? What’s your process?



No.
I just figure it out like anything else.

Using a reference would be pointless, no furry dog I get commissioned to draw looks like a real dog. They don't look like real animals so you can't find an appropriate reference for it anyway. I just try to get the character to look as close as possible to the images they have given me.


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> They don't look like real animals so you can't find an appropriate reference for it anyway.



That’s the entire point of training with reference: you study real life - in this case by drawing real dogs - so you can then caricature the form to create your new piece, because despite it not needing to look like a real dog, it still needs to be grounded in some kind of reality. You know how the artists at Disney designed Bambi? They got in real deer and drew the hell out of them until they could cartoon it into the character, like any artist would.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I think you're just getting defensive because you know you can't draw without guides
> o v o


I think you're getting defensive because your argument amounts to the confirmation bias that your way "must be the right way to draw" because it got you as far as drawing the same thing over and over again and you're maybe starting to realize that it's the only thing you can do, if we want to get into bullshit armchair psychoanalysis.
You're describing the exact same problem Sonic and Anime fans go through when they decide they want to draw something other than Anime or Sonic, with the exact same arguments and excuses. The only difference being that the end point that you're stuck at is "totally not anime u guys" style stylized femboys.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

You've described a bunch of bizarre, dumb shit you've got to do to draw anything different with your style like "Make a sculpture of a thing" and you think it's working for you, when to anyone else that just sounds batshit crazy.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

redfox_81 said:


> That’s the entire point of training with reference: you study real life - in this case by drawing real dogs - so you can then caricature the form to create your new piece, because despite it not needing to look like a real dog, it still needs to be grounded in some kind of reality. You know how the artists at Disney designed Bambi? They got in real deer and drew the hell out of them until they could cartoon it into the character, like any artist would.



Or you can just skip that and do it yourself and get it done better and faster. Like the other guy said, no need to make things unnecessarily long and complicated



Butt_Ghost said:


> I think you're getting defensive because your argument amounts to the confirmation bias that your way "must be the right way to draw" because it got you as far as drawing the same thing over and over again and you're maybe starting to realize that it's the only thing you can do, if we want to get into bullshit armchair psychoanalysis.
> You're describing the exact same problem Sonic and Anime fans go through when they decide they want to draw something other than Anime or Sonic, with the exact same arguments and excuses. The only difference being that the end point that you're stuck at is "totally not anime u guys" style stylized femboys.



Ew, I don't draw femboys, I don't draw any gay content, in fact it's on my blacklisted themes.
Just because you don't like my method doesn't mean you can insult my work. Do not project your art insecurities onto others.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> You've described a bunch of bizarre, dumb shit you've got to do to draw anything different with your style like "Make a sculpture of a thing" and you think it's working for you, when to anyone else that just sounds batshit crazy.



Then maybe I really am a super talented art genius who can conjure up art from nothing like a magician.
(Note: this is called "sarcasm")


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Do not project your art insecurities onto others.



High talk from the guy who can't picture anyone using reference without compromising their style somehow.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> High talk from the guy who can't picture anyone using reference without compromising their style somehow.



That has nothing to do with anything. You are taking this way too emotionally.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Then maybe I really am a super talented art genius who can conjure up art from nothing like a magician.
> (Note: this is called "sarcasm")


You've described a load of junk you can't "conjure up like a magician". I'm not saying you've found a unique way to draw, you've found a totally normal one that sucks and gets people stuck in the exact same place constantly.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> You've described a load of junk you can't "conjure up like a magician". I'm not saying you've found a unique way to draw, you've found a totally normal one that sucks and gets people stuck in the exact same place constantly.



In your experience, maybe, but that is your problem.
It works for me and many other people.

And obviously if you insist on using references every time you won't be able to draw without them. The reason why you can't use my method is because you've become dependent on references.  That's what I was trying to warn people about.


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Or you can just skip that and do it yourself and get it done better and faster. Like the other guy said, no need to make things unnecessarily long and complicated



Faster? Certainly. Better? I guarantee you it isn’t. 

Do you really think a drawing of a furry dog, done with no research or reference, will be a more successful piece than if you take even an hour to sketch some dog heads from life first?


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Or you can just skip that and do it yourself and get it done better and faster. Like the other guy said, no need to make things unnecessarily long and complicated



Yknow i have to call you out for this, people who don't use references can often end up drawing everything the same. Say, a person who has drawn only canines their whole life wants to draw a feline? If they don't look at real photos of felines and reference it to learn feline anatomy, that cat's gonna look like a dog. Saying people who use references are wasting their time and hindering their ability is a very false way to look at it. *You have to learn realism before you can learn to stylize. You have to learn anatomy to make things look like what they're meant to be, and you don't do that by trying to imagine what it looks like.*


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> And obviously if you insist on using references every time you won't be able to draw without them. The reason why you can't use my method is because you've become dependent on references.  That's what I was trying to warn people about.


I'm not dependent on references, nor are most people who use them to learn. This is how your argument's busted, it doesn't solve a problem that actually exists, it solves one you've made up.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

redfox_81 said:


> Faster? Certainly. Better? I guarantee you it isn’t.
> 
> Do you really think a drawing of a furry dog, done with no research or reference, will be a more successful piece than if you take even an hour to sketch some dog heads from life first?



Yes, and even better, customers won't complain about it.

I hate toony dog anthros. I don't get why I keep being commissioned to draw someone's shitty neon colored cartoon dog fursona, when I'm not that kind of artist.
But furries get upset if you take any kind of artistic decision with their character. If I referenced from a real dog and made a more dog-looking dog, I'm sure I'd get yelled at and asked for a refund. I even get nasty notes for accidentally missing a small marking or making slight color adjustments so that it doesn't look as much of an eyesore.

That's why my commissioned work looks way worse than my personal art. With my own characters I can use my full abilities.
But, for commissions, I have to basically copy from the reference image and make the character look exactly the same or else people get irrationally upset about it.

So actually... referencing in this case... makes it bad.



silveredgreen said:


> Yknow i have to call you out for this, people who don't use references can often end up drawing everything the same. Say, a person who has drawn only canines their whole life wants to draw a feline? If they don't look at real photos of felines and reference it to learn feline anatomy, that cat's gonna look like a dog. Saying people who use references are wasting their time and hindering their ability is a very false way to look at it. *You have to learn realism before you can learn to stylize. You have to learn anatomy to make things look like what they're meant to be, and you don't do that by trying to imagine what it looks like.*



That problem is obsessively drawing the same thing, not anything to do with references.
I'm pretty sure canine artists only draw canine-looking things because that's what they're into and have no interest for anything else.




Butt_Ghost said:


> I'm not dependent on references, nor are most people who use them to learn. This is how your argument's busted, it doesn't solve a problem that actually exists, it solves one you've made up.



You keep telling yourself that. It doesn't sound convincing to me.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> That's why my commissioned work looks way worse than my personal art. With my own characters I can use my full abilities.


Your full abilities to draw the one subject you've taught yourself to draw. Bravo.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> Your full abilities to draw the one subject you've taught yourself to draw. Bravo.



It is not "one subject"? I have a variety of different characters of my own. I don't stick on one subject, like dogs.
And a lot of my art is not uploaded, mostly the dream based stuff that is too weird and I don't want people to judge me on it.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Yes, and even better, customers won't complain about it.
> That problem is obsessively drawing the same thing, not anything to do with references.
> I'm pretty sure canine artists only draw canine-looking things because that's what they're into and have no interest for anything else.



You do realize a lot of children only draw dogs cuz that's what they enjoy and they see it as purely a hobby, right? When i was little i only ever drew dragons, but as i got older and began to take art more seriously i referenced stuff to learn anatomy as well as lighting and shading. You can't expect a child to treat art like someone in their teenage or adult years, but if they choose to take it more seriously and broaden their comfort zone the only way they're gonna learn to draw other things is *by using references.*


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> You do realize a lot of children only draw dogs cuz that's what they enjoy and they see it as purely a hobby, right? When i was little i only ever drew dragons, but as i got older and began to take art more seriously i referenced stuff to learn anatomy as well as lighting and shading. You can't expect a child to treat art like someone in their teenage or adult years, but if they choose to take it more seriously and broaden their comfort zone the only way they're gonna learn to draw other things is *by using references.*



Huh? I've seen many adult canine artists. I don't know about FA, I don't browse it often, but on DA most canine-only artists I come across are usually 16-20+ years old.
It's not the only way, because I don't use references. There are many ways. Just because you can't understand those ways doesn't mean they don't exist.

I know someone who can draw people perfectly from memory. I don't know how she does it, but that doesn't mean her method doesn't exist.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> It is not "one subject"? I have a variety of different characters of my own. I don't stick on one subject, like dogs.
> And a lot of my art is not uploaded, mostly the dream based stuff that is too weird and I don't want people to judge me on it.


And you've mashed them all into the same "human-like face with animal ears" archetype. The way people who draw Sonic mash everything into the Sonic archetype, and the way people who draw Anime mash everything into the Anime archetype.


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 19, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> If I referenced from a real dog and made a more dog-looking dog, I'm sure I'd get yelled at and asked for a refund.



You’ve missed my point - I wasn’t saying you would be making it more “dog-looking” by using reference. Referencing real dogs helps your stylised/cartoony dog look better because you’re more familiar with the underlying structure and know where you can push the anatomy.

You don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between 

i) referencing from life then using that new knowledge in your art, and 
ii) straight copying from reference

The two aren’t the same.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Huh? I've seen many adult canine artists. I don't know about FA, I don't browse it often, but on DA most canine-only artists I come across are usually 16-20+ years old.
> It's not the only way, because I don't use references. There are many ways. Just because you can't understand those ways doesn't mean they don't exist.
> 
> I know someone who can draw people perfectly from memory. I don't know how she does it, but that doesn't mean her method doesn't exist.



Right but that doesn't change the fact that all proffesional level artists highly recommend using references. Art teachers, popular artists, etc. They all insist you reference from real life by looking at photos or taking figure drawing classes to learn proper anatomy. Your memory isn't reliable enough to use alone unless you have a photographic memory. And a proffesional artist is something you definitely are not, considering the fact that you've basically just admitted to halfassing a paid product simply because you don't like the subject (in which case, why tf do you even sell art to furries to begin with?)


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> But, for commissions, I have to basically copy from the reference image and make the character look exactly the same or else people get irrationally upset about it.



That’s the job of the commissioned artist: do what the client wants. It’s not up to you to make colour adjustments to improve someone else’s character, no matter how much of an eyesore you think it is.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> And you've mashed them all into the same "human-like face with animal ears" archetype. The way people who draw Sonic mash everything into the Sonic archetype, and the way people who draw Anime mash everything into the Anime archetype.



That's because I prefer it, not because I'm unable to.
I draw long-snouted anthros when I am commissioned to.
But I prefer this because it looks better. It is a desirable aesthetic I aim for, like these anthro dolls.






There's a difference between getting stuck on something crappy because it's all you ever knew and choosing to draw something pretty and pleasing to the eye because it is your personal decision.




redfox_81 said:


> You’ve missed my point - I wasn’t saying you would be making it more “dog-looking” by using reference. Referencing real dogs helps your stylised/cartoony dog look better because you’re more familiar with the underlying structure and know where you can push the anatomy.
> 
> You don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between
> 
> ...



So it's not referencing if you don't want it to be referencing? LOL



silveredgreen said:


> Right but that doesn't change the fact that all proffesional level artists highly recommend using references. Art teachers, popular artists, etc. They all insist you reference from real life by looking at photos or taking figure drawing classes to learn proper anatomy. Your memory isn't reliable enough to use alone unless you have a photographic memory. And a proffesional artist is something you definitely are not, considering the fact that you've basically just admitted to halfassing a paid product simply because you don't like the subject (in which case, why tf do you even sell art to furries to begin with?)



"Professional level" doesn't mean anything. Most art teachers don't even know what they are doing.
Making art isn't like being a doctor. Art is a very personal thing, there's no "one way" to teach it because that kills individuality and self expression.

When did I say I was halfassing anything? I'm doing what they ordered. If I could, I would make it look better, but these people want their characters to look shitty, that's what they paid for, that's what I have to draw. It makes working on commissions extremely boring and take longer but that's how it is.



redfox_81 said:


> That’s the job of the commissioned artist: do what the client wants. It’s not up to you to make colour adjustments to improve someone else’s character, no matter how much of an eyesore you think it is.



I am not talking about major palette changes. I am talking very subtle saturation changes or even lighting.
I like my art to look decent, so it's very hard for me to resist to correct ugly colors or use lighting that isn't generic.

In fact after the current batch of commissions I am working on, I was going to put a disclaimer saying not to commission me if you're not comfortable with my style.
Because it has taken me so long to work on these commissions because it's just not enjoyable at all.

I don't know why these people even commission me, there are plenty of other artists who are better at drawing neon dogs, I am not a neon dog artist.


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> So it's not referencing if you don't want it to be referencing? LOL



No, both of my examples ARE referencing. Two different types. You missed my point again.



Inkblooded said:


> When did I say I was halfassing anything? I'm doing what they ordered. If I could, I would make it look better, but these people want their characters to look shitty, that's what they paid for, that's what I have to draw. It makes working on commissions extremely boring and take longer but that's how it is.
> 
> I am not talking about major palette changes. I am talking very subtle saturation changes or even lighting.
> I like my art to look decent, so it's very hard for me to resist to correct ugly colors or use lighting that isn't generic.
> ...



Don’t take neon dog commissions, then. Your arrogance and contempt for people who want to PAY YOU  to provide a professional service is disgusting. You really are a tool.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> That's because I prefer it, not because I'm unable to.
> 
> "Professional level" doesn't mean anything. Most art teachers don't even know what they are doing.
> Making art isn't like being a doctor. Art is a very personal thing, there's no "one way" to teach it because that kills individuality and self expression.
> ...



I don't know what kind of experience you had, but a good art teacher doesn't tell you there's a "wrong or right way" to draw something, even if there is. They teach you necessary skills to improve your art. Things like anatomy, lighting and shading, perspective and color theory. And are you going to tell all the people on youtube who make a solid living doing commissions and make "how to improve your art" tutorials that they don't know what they're doing? Or the people working at big name animation studios? Because i guarantee if you were to ask them how to learn to draw something, they'll tell you to use references.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> There's a difference between getting stuck on something crappy because it's all you ever knew and choosing to draw something pretty and pleasing to the eye because it is your personal decision.


There really isn't, the people who draw "something crappy because it's all they ever knew" chose to draw it because they think it looks good. It's exactly the same thing, and I'm not going to say you can't like what you draw but you've gotta understand that that getting to the point where you draw one very specific thing because you like it isn't a measurement of whether your way of working is going to work for other people. Most of the time, refusal to work from reference - for any reason, ego, insecurity, "I don't like doing it" - is precisely what gets people stuck.

The reason I'm using Sonic and Anime as an example is because this is, quite literally, the exact thing they go through. Same excuses, same way of working.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

redfox_81 said:


> Don’t take neon dog commissions, then. Your arrogance and contempt for people who want to PAY YOU  to provide a professional service is disgusting. You really are a tool.



I don't have much choice. The amount of furries with characters that aren't a trainwreck to the eyes are a very small minority. If I want money then I have to put up with bullshit. I already say no to a lot of things so "no ugly dog fursonas" will leave me with probably a total of 3 customers.



silveredgreen said:


> I don't know what kind of experience you had, but a good art teacher doesn't tell you there's a "wrong or right way" to draw something, even if there is. They teach you necessary skills to improve your art. Things like anatomy, lighting and shading, perspective and color theory. And are you going to tell all the people on youtube who make a solid living doing commissions and make "how to improve your art" tutorials that they don't know what they're doing? Or the people working at big name animation studios? Because i guarantee if you were to ask them how to learn to draw something, they'll tell you to use references.



I studied art "professionally" and it was a big waste of time. I'm sure it's not that different no matter where you study it.
They always ignore the most important part of art, creativity and originality.
The technical skills are useless if you don't have that. Anyone can shit out a boring painting of some fruit.
The real skill is in imagination.

Just because they consider themself "professionals" doesn't mean they're right.
If we're talking about animation studios, Disney Pixar seems to think that all 3D animated women should have identical faces. That's not a good example, neither is encouraging people to use an inefficient learning method.



Butt_Ghost said:


> There really isn't, the people who draw "something crappy because it's all they ever knew" chose to draw it because they think it looks good. It's exactly the same thing, and I'm not going to say you can't like what you draw but you've gotta understand that that getting to the point where you draw one very specific thing because you like it isn't a measurement of whether your way of working is going to work for other people. Most of the time, refusal to work from reference - for any reason, ego, insecurity, "I don't like doing it" - is precisely what gets people stuck.
> 
> The reason I'm using Sonic and Anime as an example is because this is, quite literally, the exact thing they go through. Same excuses, same way of working.



Eh, no. I was talking about people who started off drawing sonic, then moved onto "serious" anthro and then found they couldn't remove Sonic-ness from their art. Even when they don't like Sonic anymore.
I've changed my art style a few times, if I wanted to stop drawing pretty doll-inspired anthros and switch to ugly Disney looking ones I'm sure I could, if I really tried.
(But obviously I'm not going to because why would I do something like that)


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Eh, no. I was talking about people who started off drawing sonic, then moved onto "serious" anthro and then found they couldn't remove Sonic-ness from their art. Even when they don't like Sonic anymore.
> I've changed my art style a few times, if I wanted to stop drawing pretty doll-inspired anthros and switch to ugly Disney looking ones I'm sure I could, if I really tried.
> (But obviously I'm not going to because why would I do something like that)



Same excuses, same argument.
"I'm sure I could draw not anime if I really tried"
"I'm sure I could get the sonic-ness out of my art, but why would I do something like that?"


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I don't have much choice. The amount of furries with characters that aren't a trainwreck to the eyes are a very small minority. If I want money then I have to put up with bullshit. I already say no to a lot of things so "no ugly dog fursonas" will leave me with probably a total of 3 customers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know you could always try selling prints... draw some popular media characters and sell the art online or something. People eat that up. Or yknow, learn to market to a fandom that isn't furries? Furries buy the most art but they're not the only people who buy art.

And you clearly haven't been paying attention if you did study professionally. The point of an art class is not to teach creativity or originality, the point of an art class is to teach you the basic skills necessary to make decent looking art. Finding a style is something you have to do on your own, nobody can teach you that. If you think all art classes are required to teach originality then you have a warped and narrow minded view of what an art class is. 

And even if Disney and Pixar do have same face syndrome, they still know the basics. They still understand basic anatomy, lighting and shading, perpective, etc.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

This thread has officially gone up in flames, i think its time an admin killed it.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> Same excuses, same argument.
> "I'm sure I could draw not anime if I really tried"
> "I'm sure I could get the sonic-ness out of my art, but why would I do something like that?"



Did you read what I said? I am talking about people who are trying to remove traces of Sonic and Anime from their art but can't. It's not just about whether you want to. 



silveredgreen said:


> You know you could always try selling prints... draw some popular media characters and sell the art online or something. People eat that up. Or yknow, learn to market to a fandom that isn't furries? Furries buy the most art but they're not the only people who buy art.
> 
> And you clearly haven't been paying attention if you did study professionally. The point of an art class is not to teach creativity or originality, the point of an art class is to teach you the basic skills necessary to make decent looking art. Finding a style is something you have to do on your own, nobody can teach you that. If you think all art classes are required to teach originality then you have a warped and narrow minded view of what an art class is.
> 
> And even if Disney and Pixar do have same face syndrome, they still know the basics. They still understand basic anatomy, lighting and shading, perpective, etc.



No, I am not a fan artist. I have zero knowledge of anything popular, I don't really like franchises and I'm not a fan of anything.
Plus selling prints of stuff like that is just going to get me a copyright infringement. I have no intentions of dealing with the law that way.
Its kind of dishonest. I'm not going to start "selling out" by drawing and selling something I know nothing about.

Your art won't look decent if it's unoriginal. And besides, they didn't teach us many art skills at all, it was mainly written "research." Boring.

Same face syndrome is kind of a big problem... LOL. You can't just brush that aside. Especially from a "professional" group that should know better.
And guess what? I understand the basics too. But I don't need references for that.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Did you read what I said? I am talking about people who are trying to remove traces of Sonic and Anime from their art but can't. It's not just about whether you want to.


Precisely, it's not just about whether you want to. Before they try to and fail at it, they're in a state of "not wanting to". All of 'em. That's how they get there.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> Precisely, it's not just about whether you want to. Before they try to and fail at it, they're in a state of "not wanting to". All of 'em. That's how they get there.



They get stuck on it because it's all they draw and they start drawing with low quality and heavily stylized cartoons. It doesn't happen to people who don't start with cartoons.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

@Inkblooded: You have a fascinating ability to ignore most of what people say and fixate on only one aspect of what they actually say, if you're even reading what they _are _saying. You're clearly going to argue references = bad in spite of the various well-crafted arguments against such. Instead of looking at what people are saying, and considering the validity of their words, you stubbornly cling to your 'my way or the highway' mentality in this regard. Not to mention your staggering irreverence toward people _paying you actual money so that you can draw them a good picture of their character_ is pretty fucking astounding in and of itself.
At this point, the thread should be locked, since you're not going to budge on your perspective, and since you're just going to say the same thing over and over again without really addressing the major cause of discourse in this thread, that being that you _clearly _by your actions either have no _fucking_ clue what we're all trying to tell you, or you're just pretending you don't so you can keep espousing your references = bad rhetoric.
It is my sincerest hope that nobody comes to you for artistic advice, because your method of drawing is stagnant and has no means of growth beyond itself.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> @Inkblooded: You have a fascinating ability to ignore most of what people say and fixate on only one aspect of what they actually say, if you're even reading what they _are _saying.



That's because people are getting off topic. What else am I supposed to do?



Diretooth said:


> You're clearly going to argue references = bad in spite of the various well-crafted arguments against such. Instead of looking at what people are saying, and considering the validity of their words, you stubbornly cling to your 'my way or the highway' mentality in this regard.



It's my opinion and I am simply saying that not only do you not need references, you need to learn to draw without them if you want to go anywhere.
If you do not like what I say just ignore it and move on. There is no point getting over emotional about something that doesn't matter.



Diretooth said:


> Not to mention your staggering irreverence toward people _paying you actual money so that you can draw them a good picture of their character_ is pretty fucking astounding in and of itself.



If they wanted me to draw a "good" picture maybe they wouldn't whine when I try to make it look good. That has nothing to do with the topic though.



Diretooth said:


> At this point, the thread should be locked, since you're not going to budge on your perspective, and since you're just going to say the same thing over and over again without really addressing the major cause of discourse in this thread, that being that you _clearly _by your actions either have no _fucking_ clue what we're all trying to tell you, or you're just pretending you don't so you can keep espousing your references = bad rhetoric.



Or you could just drop the subject and move on with the thread, because there is no reason to actually argue with me.



Diretooth said:


> It is my sincerest hope that nobody comes to you for artistic advice, because your method of drawing is stagnant and has no means of growth beyond itself.



Now I need to repeat myself for the 500th time: Just because my method doesn't work for you doesn't mean that my method is bad and doesn't work.
Do you not see how hypocritical you are being?


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> They get stuck on it because it's all they draw and they start drawing with low quality and heavily stylized cartoons. It doesn't happen to people who don't start with cartoons.


You've described, in length, a drawing process that you've said gets you stuck trying to draw anything outside of it. Whether or not you make excuses for getting stuck like "Well I don't want to do that anyway!" is irrelevant, you've flat out described it happening. 
Anyway, I'm  done. I was only ever worried that you might convince someone to work against their own interests with your trash advice, and I'm fairly sure that's not gonna happen now. Draw how you want.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> You've described, in length, a drawing process that you've said gets you stuck trying to draw anything outside of it. Whether or not you make excuses for getting stuck like "Well I don't want to do that anyway!" is irrelevant, you've flat out described it happening.
> Anyway, I'm  done. I was only ever worried that you might convince someone to work against their own interests with your trash advice, and I'm fairly sure that's not gonna happen now. Draw how you want.



I never said I got stuck.
I said repeatedly that my method is fine and that I am doing ok.
Please read my post before replying


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

First off, just so everyone is clear:
o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/
_noun_
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

What you are doing is professing your _opinion_ as base fact, you are professing that references = bad, but you have nothing, have _provided_ nothing, to back up your claim. *This is what I, personally, am pissed about.* You have given zero evidence, beyond your own personal experiences, that gives any veracity to your claim. You have not given any examples of good or professional artists who do what you do, it is your one single opinion against several other people's experiences. _I have done exactly as you describe your art style to be_, and I know for certain, and this is my opinion backed up by teachers, professionals, other artists, that drawing with references, _but not relying on them beyond a certain point_, is better in the long run because it helps you pinpoint what your definitive art style is.
Because you profess this _opinion_, but do not give any tangible _fact_, your argument becomes less valid the more you repeat variations of the same words. You are not only stagnating in your artwork through your self-professed better artistic method, but you are stagnating in your ability to gives your opinion any validity beyond your personal views. I would tell you to try using references yourself to see if you are actually that _fucking_ good, because you are apparently the artistic _god_ amongst mortals because your one method is _apparently so good that everyone must do it lest they become copycats and stagnant._


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> No, I am not a fan artist. I have zero knowledge of anything popular, I don't really like franchises and I'm not a fan of anything.
> Plus selling prints of stuff like that is just going to get me a copyright infringement. I have no intentions of dealing with the law that way.
> Its kind of dishonest. I'm not going to start "selling out" by drawing and selling something I know nothing about.
> 
> ...



Ok then. Can't help ya on the art thing in that case.

The term 'unoriginal' is subjective at times, what you think is unoriginal might not be unoriginal to someone else, at least in terms of art style. Its also not possible to have a fully original art style, there will always be someone with a style similar to yours. And if all you did was written research then that's not an art class. An art class is supposed to teach you the basics through hands on experience, because that's the only way to actually learn.

And i'm not saying same face syndrome isn't a problem in general, i'm saying it isn't a problem when you're just trying to learn how to properly proportion a human body. The face can look as generic or unique as possible but you still need to learn how to make sure it isn't too big or too small.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> First off, just so everyone is clear:
> o·pin·ion
> əˈpinyən/
> _noun_
> ...



I've provided many things to back up my stance, you are just choosing to ignore them. I have repeated myself a lot, I have explained why relying on references can be damaging to your skill, but you are just saying "no thats not true! people say references are good!" with no counter claim.

Whether you choose to believe me or not is your choice, but don't say that I didn't provide anything behind my claim, because I did. You are just willingly looking over it.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Give me an overview of what I missed, then, what exactly did you say that lends credence to your claim that does not have roots in your own personal experiences?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 19, 2017)

Unless someone draws something that has never existed before, it's still a version of a copy.  

Pretty much nothing is "new", it's all been done before to a certain degree.  If someone does chance to something new, then it's guaranteed to be used as an influence somewhere else. 

Everything is an influence, whether in singularity or massive amounts.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> Give me an overview of what I missed, then, what exactly did you say that lends credence to your claim that does not have roots in your own personal experiences?



TLR Version.

1. Using references every time you draw will make you dependent on references. That means that you will become unable to draw without a reference in front of you.
Especially if you use "heavy referencing" which is closer to copying. And dont say "it doesnt happen" because it does. I have seen people who are only able to copy something already existing.

2. Referencing from other people's art instead of photos will warp your art style, you will end up copying them, intentionally or not

3. Again regarding copying from art - most artists aren't ok with you using their art as a "guide"

4. Referencing is ok if you have tried and cannot do something, however you should always try to make it on your own because it challenges your mind and allows you to learn. If you attempt to draw poses without reference, you will soon understand posing in general, instead of only being able to draw poses copied from photos


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Alright, now give proof to your claims. This is discourse 101: When you make a claim or state an opinion, it is your obligation to provide proof that what you say is correct. This is known as the 'burden of proof'. I need hard facts, I need something more than your words before I can take what you claim as true more seriously than I have been. Examples, tangible results of such, anything that I can see and say, 'Yes, this lends credence to your claims.' Because everything you listed is opinion, not hard fact.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> Alright, now give proof to your claims. This is discourse 101: When you make a claim or state an opinion, it is your obligation to provide proof that what you say is correct. This is known as the 'burden of proof'. I need hard facts, I need something more than your words before I can take what you claim as true more seriously than I have been. Examples, tangible results of such, anything that I can see and say, 'Yes, this lends credence to your claims.' Because everything you listed is opinion, not hard fact.



What kind of "proof" do you want?
I can't give you proof of my own experience because I don't use references. 
And there's no academic studies done on this, obviously. (People don't do studies on things like this)

Usually when people demand "proof" of a claim they are looking for something specific, and will reject anything else, even if it does prove the claim.

Or you could just continue using references for every one of your drawings and see where that takes you.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Showing your own artwork would be an excellent example of how your method has turned out. Showing artwork from artists who display the very traits you claim is also an excellent example. I don't need any specific thing, I need you, who made a claim, to back up said claim with good examples.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> TLR Version.
> 
> 1. Using references every time you draw will make you dependent on references. That means that you will become unable to draw without a reference in front of you.
> Especially if you use "heavy referencing" which is closer to copying. And dont say "it doesnt happen" because it does. I have seen people who are only able to copy something already existing.
> ...



1. This is only true if you allow yourself to become fully dependent on references. If you do a study and then attempt to draw it in your own style, it will help more than anything else. Proper referencing is used as a learning tool, not as a sole method of producing art. Once you have the anatomy down you're supposed to put your references away and stylize it.

2. This is why people recommend you reference from real photos, but referencing someone else's art isn't bad if its for minor things such as a pose you can't find a real photo example of.

3. Nobody is ok with people tracing their art and calling it their own, but that's tracing and not referencing. 

4. I bring back my specific details in response 1. Use references to learn anatomy, then put your references away and do it on your own to develop your style.


----------



## Steelite (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> Yourself, huh? How'd you learn to draw faces? Honest question.





Inkblooded said:


> By looking at faces.


This one alone goes against everything about not using references.


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If you attempt to draw poses without reference, you will soon understand posing in general, instead of only being able to draw poses copied from photos



No you won’t, you’ll just draw shitty poses with terrible anatomy. _The way you learn to draw poses from your head is to copy them from photos or life first._



Inkblooded said:


> I've provided many things to back up my stance, you are just choosing to ignore them. I have repeated myself a lot, I have explained why relying on references can be damaging to your skill, but you are just saying "no thats not true! people say references are good!" with no counter claim.



I refer you to the articles from the Muddy Colors blog I linked a couple of pages back. I suggest you read them.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Steelite said:


> This one alone goes against everything about not using references.



In the real world by living everyday life, not looking at pictures or people while I draw.
That's not the same thing.



redfox_81 said:


> No you won’t, you’ll just draw shitty poses with terrible anatomy. _The way you learn to draw poses from your head is to copy them from photos or life first._



You just sound like you're defensive because it doesn't work for you.
Besides, I think its better to have less anatomically accurate poses than recycled ones and an inability to create your own.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 19, 2017)

Looking at many photos for pose and clothing ideas and then using those ideas to draw something in your own style is a good way to grasp ideas. Because your not tracing them, you're just gathering inspiration.
How will you make anything without seeing them first? It's like telling someone in North Korea to draw a platypus from memory.

If you don't live under a rock or a sheltered life, you are already exposed to many people/clothing styles/Animals even, and yea you would have a higher chance to draw these things from memory; but you need to take in account that not everyone grew up around the same things as you and these people need to look up references. Not to trace, but just to grasp the idea of what they want to draw.

For example, I'm fashionably inept. I have no idea about what fashion even is. So if I want to draw a character wearing something other then a t-shirt and jeans then hell yea I'll look up clothing.

As for looking at real people outside, that's still referencing real people.... The only difference is you're outside and they may not sit still for you. Looking at people walking around and looking at a photo is still *looking at a reference*.


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> You just sound like you're defensive because it doesn't work for you.
> Besides, I think its better to have less anatomically accurate poses than recycled ones and an inability to create your own.



Actually I'm the first one to admit that I don't know the full range of human anatomy off by heart, I prefer accuracy. Hence I use reference, to further my knowledge and better my art. The difference between you and I is that I don't hide my artistic shortcomings behind bullcrap like "I think it's better to have less anatomically accurate poses." You may as well say "Yeah I know this drawing has a ton of flaws, that's just my style."

I'm done trying to help you, there's only so long you can speak to a brick wall. I look forward to seeing more of your art.


----------



## Steelite (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> In the real world by living everyday life, not looking at pictures or people while I draw.
> That's not the same thing.


No, it's the exact same deal, sweetie. You use what you see in the real world as references.
"Reference" doesn't mean only pictures or other people's arts you find online. Everywhere you look at, it can be considered "reference".
The faces you look at while drawing *ARE* references, as well. There's nothing different.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

redfox_81 said:


> Actually I'm the first one to admit that I don't know the full range of human anatomy off by heart, I prefer accuracy. Hence I use reference, to further my knowledge and better my art. The difference between you and I is that I don't hide my artistic shortcomings behind bullcrap like "I think it's better to have less anatomically accurate poses." You may as well say "Yeah I know this drawing has a ton of flaws, that's just my style."
> 
> I'm done trying to help you, there's only so long you can speak to a brick wall. I look forward to seeing more of your art.



"You're just making excuses for your flawed artwork!!!!!"

"I look forward to seeing more of your artwork"

Either that second comment is sarcastic and I missed it, or you're more contradictory than an animal-hating furry



Steelite said:


> No, it's the exact same deal, sweetie. You use what you see in the real world as references.
> "Reference" doesn't mean only pictures or other people's arts you find online. Everywhere you look at, it can be considered "reference".
> The faces you look at while drawing *ARE* references, as well. There's nothing different.



"Sweetie"
Please don't. That's weird, especially coming from a man.

No, I think this thread is specifically about using photo-reference and looking at an image while you draw. Not just living.
Or else it would impossible to not use a reference unless you were blind.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> .
> Or else it would impossible to not use a reference unless you were blind.



That's pretty much the end of the discussion, right there in plain text.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> That's pretty much the end of the discussion, right there in plain text.



If everyone is now claiming it's impossible not to reference, why do you insist that people should use references, and get annoyed at me for saying you don't need them? Surely if its impossible not to reference then there's no need to get hostile at me for it?


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> "
> 
> No, I think this thread is specifically about using photo-reference and looking at an image while you draw. Not just living.
> Or else it would impossible to not use a reference unless you were blind.



Erm...  Here i'll give you an example to help you understand what they mean. When you go outside and look at a cloud and start sketching it as you are looking at it. That's referencing.
When you sit inside and look at a picture, that's also referencing.

When you sit inside an empty room with white walls, no mirrors, and just draw on the paper without looking outside, or your hands or anything else. That's drawing from memory.

The problem is, if you are drawing from memory, you have to have prier knowledge on what something looks like. For example. Pokemon. If I gave you a random pokemon to draw from just memory, you might find it surprising how different it will turn out without anything to look at. The same thing can be said about anatomy, hands, feet, faces, clothing, animals, fur... ect ect

The only time you can draw from memory is when you invented the thing you are drawing.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If everyone is now claiming it's impossible not to reference, why do you insist that people should use references, and get annoyed at me for saying you don't need them? Surely if its impossible not to reference then there's no need to get hostile at me for it?



5 pages of nothing regarding me being hostile about it.  I was clear I personally use a reference until I figure it out myself how I should do it.


----------



## Steelite (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If everyone is now claiming it's impossible not to reference, why do you insist that people should use references, and get annoyed at me for saying you don't need them? Surely if its impossible not to reference then there's no need to get hostile at me for it?


Am I not getting what you mean, or you just have multiple contradicting arguments together ?


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> 5 pages of nothing regarding me being hostile about it.  I was clear I personally use a reference until I figure it out myself how I should do it.



I was mostly talking about the others



Steelite said:


> Am I not getting what you mean, or you just have multiple contradicting arguments together ?



You say that me not using a reference is still referencing, because I have eyes. Even if I am not looking at something as a reference when I draw.

If that's true, and every artist is always using a reference, then why are people in this thread being hostile to me for not using a reference and suggesting that you don't need them?

If everyone references and it's impossible not to, why the argument?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If that's true, and every artist is always using a reference, then why are people in this thread being hostile to me for not using a reference and suggesting that you don't need them?
> 
> If everyone references and it's impossible not to, why the argument?



Because of everything in this particular post.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Because of everything in this particular post.



?????????
So you are arguing for the sake of arguing?


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> ?????????
> So you are arguing for the sake of arguing?


please read my post. XP I better explained what they meant.


----------



## Steelite (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If that's true, and every artist is always using a reference, then why are people in this thread being hostile to me for not using a reference and suggesting that you don't need them?
> 
> If everyone references and it's impossible not to, why the argument?





Inkblooded said:


> ?????????
> So you are arguing for the sake of arguing?


You seriously don't even get it ? Really ?

You basically give out one incredibly awful suggestion, against almost the very basic common sense of an artist, and against all the successes they've made with using refs.

And you went on to have 5 pages repeating yourself the same point. I'd be surprised if no-one gets annoyed at you for such stubbornness.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> ?????????
> So you are arguing for the sake of arguing?



No, I'm pointing out the literal contradictory argument of your own words.  I don't have to argue anything, as you're doing that yourself.

*You never use references.
*Unless you're blind, you have used a reference.  You are probably not blind.
*Everything you've ever seen is a reference.  Memory is a reference.  Memories are something you've seen before.  That's why it's called "muscle memory" when you draw.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> Erm...  Here i'll give you an example to help you understand what they mean. When you go outside and look at a cloud and start sketching it as you are looking at it. That's referencing.
> When you sit inside and look at a picture, that's also referencing.



But I am doing neither of those.
I look at things outside, because I have eyes, but I don't draw outside. 
(Side note, how can anyone stand to look at the  daytime sky long enough to draw while looking at it? My light-sensitive eyes would be blinded...)



Yvvki said:


> When you sit inside an empty room with white walls, no mirrors, and just draw on the paper without looking outside, or your hands or anything else. That's drawing from memory.
> 
> The problem is, if you are drawing from memory, you have to have prier knowledge on what something looks like. For example. Pokemon. If I gave you a random pokemon to draw from just memory, you might find it surprising how different it will turn out without anything to look at. The same thing can be said about anatomy, hands, feet, faces, clothing, animals, fur... ect ect
> 
> The only time you can draw from memory is when you invented the thing you are drawing.



Eh?
It's not difficult... that's how people normally draw.
Sure if it's something like a Pokemon or character design, something I don't see every day, I will need to see an image of it.
But for something like hands, eyes, faces... I don't need to look at images of those, because I see them all the time, and I have them myself.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> No, I'm pointing out the literal contradictory argument of your own words.  I don't have to argue anything, as you're doing that yourself.
> 
> *You never use references.
> *Unless you're blind, you have used a reference.  You are probably not blind.
> *Everything you've ever seen is a reference.  Memory is a reference.  Memories are something you've seen before.  That's why it's called "muscle memory" when you draw.



Then why is the thread about using references if everyone always uses references? If it's impossible not to reference this thread wouldn't have existed and I would have not posted.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Look, there is no way you are this disconnected from reality. There is no way that we all spent five pages explaining, over and over again, in so many ways, and you not only disagree with us, but you do not _understand_ the very thing we are talking about. At this point, you are either _extremely_ stubborn to the point of idiocy, extremely defensive of your stagnant art style, or you're a blatant fucking troll who's getting their rocks off on how pissed off some of us are getting. I _refuse_ to believe you are as incapable of understanding us as much as you have shown. I _refuse_ to believe that the concept of what we have been discussing is so _alien_ to you that you misconstrue very blatant and simple concepts to such illogical extremes.



Inkblooded said:


> Then why is the thread about using references if everyone always uses references? If it's impossible not to reference this thread wouldn't have existed and I would have not posted.


I'm fucking done you _dense *motherfucker.*_


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Then why is the thread about using references if everyone always uses references? If it's impossible not to reference this thread wouldn't have existed and I would have not posted.



You've posted genuine facts supporting you use a reference, while vehemently arguing you don't.  I have no idea why you posted.  I'm also not getting paid to find out why, so it matters little.


----------



## Steelite (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> But I am doing neither of those.
> I look at things outside, because I have eyes, but I don't draw outside.


And this isn't "using references" to you ? You fucking kidding me ?



Inkblooded said:


> (Side note, how can anyone stand to look at the daytime sky long enough to draw while looking at it? My light-sensitive eyes would be blinded...)


Who the fuck cares ?



Inkblooded said:


> But for something like hands, eyes, faces... I don't need to look at images of those, because I see them all the time, and I have them myself.


You telling me this isn't "using references" ? For real ?



Inkblooded said:


> Then why is the thread about using references if everyone always uses references? If it's impossible not to reference this thread wouldn't have existed and I would have not posted.





Diretooth said:


> Look, there is no way you are this disconnected from reality. There is no way that we all spent five pages explaining, over and over again, in so many ways, and you not only disagree with us, but you do not _understand_ the very thing we are talking about. At this point, you are either _extremely_ stubborn to the point of idiocy, extremely defensive of your stagnant art style, or you're a blatant fucking troll who's getting their rocks off on how pissed off some of us are getting. I _refuse_ to believe you are as incapable of understanding us as much as you have shown. I _refuse_ to believe that the concept of what we have been discussing is so _alien_ to you that you misconstrue very blatant and simple concepts to such illogical extremes.
> 
> I'm fucking done you _dense *motherfucker.*_





-..Legacy..- said:


> You've posted genuine facts supporting you use a reference, while vehemently arguing you don't.  I have no idea why you posted.  I'm also not getting paid to find out why, so it matters little.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> But I am doing neither of those.
> I look at things outside, because I have eyes, but I don't draw outside.
> (Side note, how can anyone stand to look at the  daytime sky long enough to draw while looking at it? My light-sensitive eyes would be blinded...)
> 
> ...



There you go then. Not everyone sees the same things you do. Some people dont even go outside because of things such as bad location, anxiety, ect ect.
Some people don't like looking at their own faces as well. ( I can relate to that ) Because they start feeling ugly.
And even if you can see your own hands, it's really hard to see them from a front view unless you have a good mirror, but that's the thing. You might just be super lucky to not have these inconveniences, but don't assume it applies to everyone.

Like for me I need to look up fashion because I don't wear anything other then t-shirt and jeans. So I wouldn't know how to conjure up a design otherwise.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> Look, there is no way you are this disconnected from reality. There is no way that we all spent five pages explaining, over and over again, in so many ways, and you not only disagree with us, but you do not _understand_ the very thing we are talking about. At this point, you are either _extremely_ stubborn to the point of idiocy, extremely defensive of your stagnant art style, or you're a blatant fucking troll who's getting their rocks off on how pissed off some of us are getting. I _refuse_ to believe you are as incapable of understanding us as much as you have shown. I _refuse_ to believe that the concept of what we have been discussing is so _alien_ to you that you misconstrue very blatant and simple concepts to such illogical extremes.
> 
> 
> I'm fucking done you _dense *motherfucker.*_



"Stagnant art style"

In what way is it "stagnant?" Because I don't like or want to draw dogs?? LOL.
You are overly emotional about something that does not matter. And since you asked I am drawing something right now, not using a reference, so you can actually believe it.
But I guess you dont want proof because if you realize it's possible to not use references, it might make you look bad for using them.




-..Legacy..- said:


> You've posted genuine facts supporting you use a reference, while vehemently arguing you don't.  I have no idea why you posted.  I'm also not getting paid to find out why, so it matters little.



The other people seem to think that "using a reference" means "looking at a photo as you draw."
Look at the other posts. Someone mentioned "referencing poses from photos." I draw all my poses myself.

Also, I will say this again for the thousandth time; I never said you can never use references, just that *you shouldn't depend on them and it's something you should learn to go without. *It's a beginner thing, which doesn't mean it's bad, but you should learn to overcome it.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Also, I will say this again for the thousandth time; I never said you can never use references, just that *you shouldn't depend on them and it's something you should learn to go without. *It's a beginner thing, which doesn't mean it's bad, but you should learn to overcome it.


YOU HAVE NEVER _GODDAMNED SAID THIS DURING THIS ENTIRE THREAD. YOU HAVE SAID, AND I FUCKING QUOTE,


Inkblooded said:



			Copying from existing images constantly will prevent you from learning the necessary skills to make any original work. If all you do is reference, that will be your limit.
Of course you should look up references if you're struggling with a particular thing, but you have to try and work it out yourself. If you don't you won't get very far.
		
Click to expand...

THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE INCLUDING ME HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS *ENTIRE FUCKING TIME. *THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN *VEHEMENTLY* ARGUING AGAINST. EVERY OTHER STATEMENT YOU HAVE MADE WAS CONTRADICTORY TO  PRIOR STATEMENTS, AND *NOW YOU HAVE COME TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'RE AGREEING WITH US?!*



_


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> YOU HAVE NEVER _GODDAMNED SAID THIS DURING THIS ENTIRE THREAD. YOU HAVE SAID, AND I FUCKING QUOTE,
> 
> THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE INCLUDING ME HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS *ENTIRE FUCKING TIME. *THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN *VEHEMENTLY* ARGUING AGAINST. EVERY OTHER STATEMENT YOU HAVE MADE WAS CONTRADICTORY TO  PRIOR STATEMENTS, AND *NOW YOU HAVE COME TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'RE AGREEING WITH US?!*
> 
> ...



I'm dying over here


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I'm dying over here


So am I, but not in the way you are.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> YOU HAVE NEVER _GODDAMNED SAID THIS DURING THIS ENTIRE THREAD. YOU HAVE SAID, AND I FUCKING QUOTE,
> 
> THOSE ARE THE WORDS THAT LITERALLY EVERYONE ELSE INCLUDING ME HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS *ENTIRE FUCKING TIME. *THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN *VEHEMENTLY* ARGUING AGAINST. EVERY OTHER STATEMENT YOU HAVE MADE WAS CONTRADICTORY TO  PRIOR STATEMENTS, AND *NOW YOU HAVE COME TO THE POINT WHERE YOU'RE AGREEING WITH US?!*
> 
> ...



If I recall none of you ever said that you should limit using references. The general consensus of this thread is "use references and use them often, as often as possible, because its the only way to get good."

I do not agree with that. You shouldn't use references. Ideally you shouldn't use them at all but if you have to, as a beginner, it's okay (as long as you're not copying/tracing) if you limit it and know you need to stop doing it.

Also I don't see how I contradicted myself. I still stand by my previous statement.
Relying on references will make you unable to draw anything original.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If I recall none of you ever said that you should limit using references. The general consensus of this thread is "use references and use them often, as often as possible, because its the only way to get good."
> 
> I do not agree with that. You shouldn't use references. Ideally you shouldn't use them at all but if you have to, as a beginner, it's okay (as long as you're not copying/tracing) if you limit it and know you need to stop doing it.
> 
> ...



Did you just forget every fucking thing i told you here? I recall telling you that people should put their references away when they have the anatomy down. Even higher quality artists can use references if they need em, but they shouldn't be used all the time.

Dear fucking lord i'm more of a broken record than you at this point, and that's saying something.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

@Diretooth @-..Legacy..- @Butt_Ghost @Steelite

Here is a sketch of a generic dog anthro I just did.





Time taken: a few minutes
I did not use a reference to draw this. I did not look at an image, any image, while drawing it.
I did not even tab out or take a break while drawing it.

I also did not use magic, witchcraft, blood sacrifice, or drugs to make this sketch.

Remember these things I said earlier:

1. I rarely draw canines
2. I don't like drawing canines
3. I have little to no experience with real dogs in real life

Even with something I don't have any interest in and don't draw often, I don't need a reference. This is because I can figure things out. It's not hard.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Did you just forget every fucking thing i told you here? I recall telling you that people should put their references away when they have the anatomy down. Even higher quality artists can use references if they need em, but they shouldn't be used all the time.
> 
> Dear fucking lord i'm more of a broken record than you at this point, and that's saying something.


Then you agree with me, what is the problem?
That's not what other people were saying.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If I recall none of you ever said that you should limit using references. The general consensus of this thread is "use references and use them often, as often as possible, because its the only way to get good."





Diretooth said:


> The way to get better is to copy, from nature, from other artists, until you have the ability to take what you've learned through it and be able to create something new, until you are so used to making the necessary motions that you can make that detailed image in your brain, until you can apply what you know and understand and make the art that you want to without having to rely on multiple references. The end goal is that you don't rely on references, so much that you only use them as necessary every now and again.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)




----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> The way to get better is to copy, from nature, from other artists,



My point is proven.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Then you agree with me, what is the problem?
> That's not what other people were saying.



I do not agree with you. You're saying that people just shouldn't use references unless they've already tried to freehand it many times. I'm saying a reference should be the first thing you use when drawing something new, but only until you've learned its anatomy. Its called doing a 'study'.

And you keep coming at us with the same damn thing despite the fact that we've blown your argument out of the water.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Read. Every. Fucking. Word. You. Dense. Mother. Fucker.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Every word that I quoted from my post.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

EVERY SINGLE ONE.
You don't just cherry pick out of context.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

I'll make it easy for you.
The way to get better is to copy, from nature, from other artists, until you have the ability to take what you've learned through it and be able to create something new, until you are so used to making the necessary motions that you can make that detailed image in your brain, until you can apply what you know and understand and make the art that you want to without having to rely on multiple references. The end goal is that you don't rely on references, so much that you only use them as necessary every now and again.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
The end goal is that you don't rely on references.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> I do not agree with you. You're saying that people just shouldn't use references unless they've already tried to freehand it many times. I'm saying a reference should be the first thing you use when drawing something new, but only until you've learned its anatomy. Its called doing a 'study'.
> 
> And you keep coming at us with the same damn thing despite the fact that we've blown your argument out of the water.



But you haven't, though. And I literally just drew something that I don't normally drew, without a reference.
I have drawn canine furries maybe about 3 or 4 times. If I can go from never drawing something to getting it to look decent, without using a reference, that proves my method works fine.

Your argument falls flat. Reference if you want to, but if it takes you a long time to improve or you become unable to make your own original non-referenced content, that's on you. I was giving advice and you all took it as an attack. That is not my problem.



Diretooth said:


> Read. Every. Fucking. Word. You. Dense. Mother. Fucker.


1. How about you read mine, including the post I tagged you in with the image?

2. Maybe I'd want to read more if it wasn't in caps and with a lot of insults like an angry toddler. o v o


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

We need an admin to close this. This conversation no longer adds anything of substance. Its just a bunch of people getting pissed off at one of the most dense fuckers ever now.

But what do you expect? Ink loves to set forum threads on fire.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
> The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
> The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
> The end goal is that you don't rely on references.
> ...



Which won't happen if you use references from the beginning. You're setting yourself up to be dependent.
Now stop acting like a toddler and go do some drawing, if you spent the time practicing instead of throwing tantrums you would get better fast, LOL


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

I reiterate, read every word that I had quoted from my post, instead of choosing one out-of-context statement that supports your viewpoint. You're as bad as a goddamn Christian who thinks they can cherrypick whatever bible verse they want that supports their asinine viewpoints.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> We need an admin to close this. This conversation no longer adds anything of substance. Its just a bunch of people getting pissed off at one of the most dense fuckers ever now.
> 
> But what do you expect? Ink loves to set forum threads on fire.



I didn't set it on fire. You and the others did, and Mr. Spammy Capslock Temper Tantrum up there.

You could've just ignored my post and move on. As always. If you don't like my method or my advice that's fine, but you don't have to reply, especially if you get defensive and stressed over it.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Nobody would have been annoyed if you weren't spewing bad art advice.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

I like how Diretooth asked for proof, asked me to prove I can draw without reference and then ignored it when I did. Hmmmm that speaks for itself.

I'm going to ignore him (and the others) now, especially if you have nothing new to say. There's no use arguing with immature people.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> 1. This is only true if you allow yourself to become fully dependent on references. If you do a study and then attempt to draw it in your own style, it will help more than anything else. Proper referencing is used as a learning tool, not as a sole method of producing art. Once you have the anatomy down you're supposed to put your references away and stylize it.
> 
> 2. This is why people recommend you reference from real photos, but referencing someone else's art isn't bad if its for minor things such as a pose you can't find a real photo example of.
> 
> ...



@Inkblooded Remember this? Its exactly what i told you i already said.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> Nobody would have been annoyed if you weren't spewing bad art advice.


I could say the same thing about you. You advised people to copy from others art.
"Bad" seems to be subjective, doesn't it?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 19, 2017)

At least we know why you're looking for a new username...

Superstars sell themselves.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

I advised that they copy other styles to learn how the other artists do it, I did not advise them to claim the style as their own. Literally every art teacher I have ever known has had me and other students copy the works of Van Gogh and Dali and Rembrandt to learn their styles so we would better find our own style.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Which won't happen if you use references from the beginning. You're setting yourself up to be dependent.
> Now stop acting like a toddler and go do some drawing, if you spent the time practicing instead of throwing tantrums you would get better fast, LOL



Honey its called A STUDY. Which you've clearly never done! 



Inkblooded said:


> I didn't set it on fire. You and the others did, and Mr. Spammy Capslock Temper Tantrum up there.
> 
> You could've just ignored my post and move on. As always. If you don't like my method or my advice that's fine, but you don't have to reply, especially if you get defensive and stressed over it.



No you set it on fire when you started arguing with people who could easily debunk your argument.

And this is a public forum, people are going to reply. If you don't like it then stay out of the forums.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> @Diretooth @-..Legacy..- @Butt_Ghost @Steelite
> 
> Here is a sketch of a generic dog anthro I just did.
> 
> ...


I'm going to be honest with you on this one. This does not look like a dog. It looks like it could share some canine traits but it defiantly does not look like a dog.  It's like a merge of a bunch of things.
A lot of artists are bad for this.

But when you compare with a real dog you can see the mistakes.






And let's be even more honest. We both know if you were looking at this picture you could easily draw a dog.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Yknow what i'm gonna do? I'm gonna look at animal photos and do an anatomy study. And then i'll stylize it. And guess what, i'm gonna learn something from it and improve my art.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> At least we know why you're looking for a new username...
> 
> Superstars sell themselves.



I'm looking for a new one because this one is based on an old character I no longer use. It's obsolete.

Anyway, let's change the subject.

*Time for more "Bad" art advice!!!*
*
If you're struggling with drawing poses, *there is an application (PC) called DesignDoll.
It is a 3D poser program that allows you to pose a doll and morph it's proportions. It is still referencing but you make the pose yourself, and it's far better than copying another artist or photographer's pose exactly.

Most of the options are anime based or stylized, there is no photorealism, but you shouldn't be copying line from line. Just use it as a rough guide.
You can change parts of the body's appearance by sliders, you can also alter the size of parts or the whole doll. (Useful if you have a macro or micro fetish I guess!!)
You can also add multiple dolls for your couple poses. (or 6some furry orgies)

Try it if you are struggling with poses!! It's a lot better than photos because you can move it around in 3D space. A 2D image doesn't really give you what you need.

There are two versions, free and paid. The free version doesn't expire, it just means you can't save poses, so take a screenshot.

Here is the link: 
http://terawell.net/terawell/?lang=en


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> I'm going to be honest with you on this one. This does not look like a dog. It looks like it could share some canine traits but it defiantly does not look like a dog.  It's like a merge of a bunch of things.
> A lot of artists are bad for this.
> 
> But when you compare with a real dog you can see the mistakes.
> ...



I wasn't trying to draw a dog. Please re-read the post again.
I was drawing a "generic canine anthro" that doesn't look like a real animal, AKA what 90% of FurAffinity will commission people for.
I am fully aware they don't look like dogs (or anything really.) Thats why i don't like them. LOL.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I wasn't trying to draw a dog. Please re-read the post again.
> I was drawing a "generic canine anthro" that doesn't look like a real animal, AKA what 90% of FurAffinity will commission people for.
> I am fully aware they don't look like dogs (or anything really.) Thats why i don't like them. LOL.


*And let's be even more honest. We both know if you were looking at this picture you could easily draw a dog.*


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

You are aware that nobody can own a pose right? And in referencing the pose found in a photo or someone's art, you aren't actually stealing anything... right? You know this?


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Time taken: a few minutes
> I did not use a reference to draw this. I did not look at an image, any image, while drawing it.
> I did not even tab out or take a break while drawing it.
> 
> I also did not use magic, witchcraft, blood sacrifice, or drugs to make this sketch.



Congrats. It looks like what you normally draw with a twelve year old's concept of what a muzzle looks like plastered on it, out of perspective. Exactly the result I was expecting, so excuse me if you're not exactly shattering my views.

I'm done. I've already said I don't care how you draw, the main point of contention is that you're telling people to inconvenience themselves for a reason you can't properly justify. Don't @ me.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> *And let's be even more honest. We both know if you were looking at this picture you could easily draw a dog.*



I could draw a dog without the picture. I could draw the dog in a different pose. 
When I said that I don't have much real life experience with dogs, that doesn't mean I've never seen a dog before.
Do I need to prove it? Because I have a ton of Generic Anthro Not-Dog commissions that need finishing, and you know what happens when FA customers don't get their art quick :<


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Butt_Ghost said:


> Congrats. It looks like what you normally draw with a twelve year old's concept of what a muzzle looks like plastered on it, out of perspective. Exactly the result I was expecting, so excuse me if you're not exactly shattering my views.
> 
> I'm done. I've already said I don't care how you draw, the main point of contention is that you're telling people to inconvenience themselves for a reason you can't properly justify. Don't @ me.



I was wondering why you are being unnecessarily rude and hostile, but then I took a look at your FA gallery and all makes sense.
I said it to the other guy. Why don't you stop arguing and go relax and practice your art?


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I could draw a dog without the picture. I could draw the dog in a different pose.


Prove it, then, give us the fruits of your non-reference-heavy labor.


----------



## Butt_Ghost (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I was wondering why you are being unnecessarily rude and hostile, but then I took a look at your FA gallery and all makes sense.
> I said it to the other guy. Why don't you stop arguing and go relax and practice your art?


Don't re-initiate an argument with me and then say to stop arguing and also don't @ me.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I could draw a dog without the picture. I could draw the dog in a different pose.
> When I said that I don't have much real life experience with dogs, that doesn't mean I've never seen a dog before.
> Do I need to prove it? Because I have a ton of Generic Anthro Not-Dog commissions that need finishing, and you know what happens when FA customers don't get their art quick :<


Just say, yea if i'm bad at drawing something, and I look at a picture of it. I would be able to draw it. Just agree with that statement. I never said your art was bad but if you do want to keep improving then you will need to pop that bubble you have over yourself and teach yourself things that you don't normally look at or draw. To do that you will have no choice but to look at a reference. 
I can draw cartoons without a reference because they don't have to be completely proportional. But I don't want to be able to JUST draw cartoons. 

See what I don't understand is why you are fighting everyone with everything you have instead of just taking their words with a grain of salt.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

More "bad" art advice:

1. Understanding and using color correctly is extremely important, and it's why your beginner art probably looks "bad" to you. Try different palettes and lighting, use colors that work well together. 

2. Don't draw breasts as circles. Breasts are not completely round, unless they are surgical implants

3. Don't make your lines too thick, unless you know what you're doing, it probably won't look good.

4. (This is mostly for realism and semi realism artists) Eye whites are not pure white. Darken it. I usually go with a subtle blue-grey.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I was wondering why you are being unnecessarily rude and hostile, but then I took a look at your FA gallery and all makes sense.


If we're delivering low blows, then I'll point out that your dA account that you have linked in your profile seems to suffer from sameface syndrome. Half-lidded eyes with a slightly open mouth with a slightly disproportionate flat face. Tell me which specific image I'm speaking of.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> Just say, yea if i'm bad at drawing something, and I look at a picture of it. I would be able to draw it. Just agree with that statement. I never said your art was bad but if you do want to keep improving then you will need to pop that bubble you have over yourself and teach yourself things that you don't normally look at or draw. To do that you will have no choice but to look at a reference.
> I can draw cartoons without a reference because they don't have to be completely proportional. But I don't want to be able to JUST draw cartoons.
> 
> See what I don't understand is why you are fighting everyone with everything you have instead of just taking their words with a grain of salt.



I'm not going to agree with it because it's not the case. I don't use references aside from personal reference sheets, and I wouldn't use references to draw something nrew, either. If I wanted to draw dogs I would learn to draw dogs myself. It's not like I've never seen a German Shepard before.

Everything I learned to draw I did myself. 

And if you don't believe that you can learn to draw something without looking at photographic references... then how do people draw fantasy creatures? How did I draw my fursona? The answer? You don't need references. It is that simple.

This works for me. If you don't want to believe it, that's your opinion, but I'm not obligated to agree. People have different ways of drawing, and this is mine. That is how things are.
o v o


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> If we're delivering low blows, then I'll point out that your dA account that you have linked in your profile seems to suffer from sameface syndrome. Half-lidded eyes with a slightly open mouth with a slightly disproportionate flat face. Tell me which specific image I'm speaking of.



Probably because I was commissioned to draw a lot of boring bust shots.
Trust me, this is all because of money. If I had the time to work on my personal art and better characters it would look a lot better.

But at least I don't put saturated brown and bright red together on a gray background hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

I will admit, though, and this is me writing this shortly after writing the prior post, that you do have a fairly good eye for color, but there is very little variation in your body proportions, which while they are decently proportioned, look like the same body as well. Your eyes have a very definite anime-esque quality to them, which several other artists use, but they are at least more realistic than not.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> But at least I don't put saturated brown and bright red together on a gray background hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


I will admit my art is pretty fucking atrocious, but that's mostly because I never used references when I drew it, proportional or color.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I'm not going to agree with it because it's not the case. I don't use references* aside from personal reference sheets*, and I wouldn't use references to draw something nrew, either. If I wanted to draw dogs I would learn to draw dogs myself. It's not like I've never seen a German Shepard before.
> 
> Everything I learned to draw I did myself.
> 
> ...



Do you not understand what a reference even is because I don't think you do.  "I don't use references* aside from personal reference sheets" "It's not like I've never seen a German Shepard before"*
I'm self taught as well but I still look at things to figure out how to draw them.

*"then how do people draw fantasy creatures"*
They... are you serious right now? They study real animals and or fossils of real animals that existed, and combine those things* from knowledge of existing animals*. AKA Refferencing real animals and combining them to fit the skeleton. -facepalm-

Closed and or open species on FA are taken from real animals and plants/earth and re-imagined as a new species.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> More "bad" art advice:
> 
> 1. Understanding and using color correctly is extremely important, and it's why your beginner art probably looks "bad" to you. Try different palettes and lighting, use colors that work well together.
> 
> ...



1. Or you could, yknow, not tell people how to color their characters. Yeah i'm not fond of bright clashing colors either but people will do what they want with their own fursona. Shading with colors is something i was told to do, however, and yes color theory is a thing.

2. I can't argue this, breasts are more of a water balloon shape. You actually said something reasonable, go you.

3. Actually thick lines can look really neat if done right. Some styles depend on them, usually cartoony ones. 

4. Once again, you actually said something reasonable. GG.


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> 2. Don't draw breasts as circles. Breasts are not completely round, unless they are surgical implants


Good advice, and something that irritates me on a daily basis.


Inkblooded said:


> 4. (This is mostly for realism and semi realism artists) Eye whites are not pure white. Darken it. I usually go with a subtle blue-grey.


Good advice, and something I will definitely apply in the future.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 19, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> 1. Or you could, yknow, not tell people how to color their characters. Yeah i'm not fond of bright clashing colors either but people will do what they want with their own fursona. Shading with colors is something i was told to do, however, and yes color theory is a thing.
> 
> 2. I can't argue this, breasts are more of a water balloon shape. You actually said something reasonable, go you.
> 
> ...



If I can't tell others how to color (even if most agree it looks bad) then why is it upsetting if I choose not to use references? I don't understand. Can't you just let me be happy with my own method?


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 19, 2017)

Your method, though it seems to work for you, is perfectly fine within the context of yourself. What people disagreed with, primarily, was advising others to do it stating that it was the best way.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If I can't tell others how to color (even if most agree it looks bad) then why is it upsetting if I choose not to use references? I don't understand. Can't you just let me be happy with my own method?



Nobody is telling you to use references. You came onto this thread with your opinion and people came in to prove you wrong, and then you got defensive. And now you're telling us that using references as a learning tool prevents you from being able to improve. If you wanna live your life not using references then go ahead and have fun, just don't ever teach an art lesson. You're far from qualified.


----------



## narutogod123 (Nov 19, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If I can't tell others how to color (even if most agree it looks bad) then why is it upsetting if I choose not to use references? I don't understand. Can't you just let me be happy with my own method?



Because your methods are not good enough for actually self art improvement. If your going to tell someone to not use reference unless it's a last resort and have no evidence to show actual good results  back up your clamis. Then why are you saying this in the first place. 

Don't give art advice if you have no evidence, also don't tell me your art is a good example cause it's not.

Show me a professional that said they don't use reference. Google "Muscle Memory".every time someone says they never used reference they are pretty much have shit tier or average art and you sir have average art.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

narutogod123 said:


> Because your methods are not good enough for actually self art improvement. If your going to tell someone to not use reference unless it's a last resort and have no evidence to show actual good results  back up your clamis. Then why are you saying this in the first place.
> 
> Don't give art advice if you have no evidence, also don't tell me your art is a good example cause it's not.
> 
> Show me a professional that said they don't use reference. Google "Muscle Memory".every time someone says they never used reference they are pretty much have shit tier or average art and you sir have average art.



Thanks for the advice Naruto God. I will go watch anime and learn to draw art the Right way.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 20, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Thanks for the advice Naruto God. I will go watch anime and learn to draw art the Right way.



Give it a fucking rest already and stop using someone's username as a basis for how credible their comments are.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Give it a fucking rest already and stop using someone's username as a basis for how credible their comments are.



His comment wasn't credible in any way and so far nobody has been able to argue against my method without resulting to "UR ART SUCKS" so why should I listen

More art advice: Never take art advice from anime fans


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 20, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> His comment wasn't credible in any way and so far nobody has been able to argue against my method without resulting to "UR ART SUCKS" so why should I listen
> 
> More art advice: Never take art advice from anime fans



I'm an anime fan and so far i've been a better art teacher than you ever were.

And you've either got the worst memory ever or you're the stupidest bitch alive (going for the latter) because the thing you just said we were unable to do is exactly the thing all of us have been doing this whole damn time! Did you forget last night's discourse or something? Your argument was obliterated so fucking badly by multiple people that its nothing more than dust in the wind by now.

Fuck outta here with your elitist bullshit and let this thread die. You're not better than us because you don't draw dogs and refuse to use references.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> I'm an anime fan and so far i've been a better art teacher than you ever were.



Well you certainly have the narcissism and inflated ego to be an art teacher, that's for sure. Have you made a Patreon where you charge $20 a month for mediocre tutorials? You should.



silveredgreen said:


> And you've either got the worst memory ever or you're the stupidest bitch alive (going for the latter) because the thing you just said we were unable to do is exactly the thing all of us have been doing this whole damn time! Did you forget last night's discourse or something? Your argument was obliterated so fucking badly by multiple people that its nothing more than dust in the wind by now.
> 
> Fuck outta here with your elitist bullshit and let this thread die. You're not better than us because you don't draw dogs and refuse to use references.



When you don't have an argument left so you resort to the sexist insults. I would put the ok hand emoji here if the forum allowed emojis but I don't think it does.
Please go calm down and watch your shitty animes, someone doing art on the internet isn't something you should be getting upset over


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 20, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Well you certainly have the narcissism and inflated ego to be an art teacher, that's for sure. Have you made a Patreon where you charge $20 a month for mediocre tutorials? You should.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No i know my art needs work. I know i'm not the best artist, unlike you. You think you're the very image of artistic perfection and that everyone should learn from you. I'm still improving my anatomy in some subjects and i use references as a learning tool, guess that makes me a shit tier artist eh?

And yeah while the insults might not be necessary, i'm gonna toss em your way anyway because i can and i'm sick of your shit. And you clearly have no respect for other peoples' interests if you're willing to openly insult people for liking anime or canine anthros. 

Oh also stay the fuck out of the salt relief thread if you're just gonna light a fire. It exists as a form of relief from dumpster fires like this.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> No i know my art needs work. I know i'm not the best artist, unlike you. You think you're the very image of artistic perfection and that everyone should learn from you. I'm still improving my anatomy in some subjects and i use references as a learning tool, guess that makes me a shit tier artist eh?
> 
> And yeah while the insults might not be necessary, i'm gonna toss em your way anyway because i can and i'm sick of your shit. And you clearly have no respect for other peoples' interests if you're willing to openly insult people for liking anime or canine anthros.
> 
> Oh also stay the fuck out of the salt relief thread if you're just gonna light a fire. It exists as a form of relief from dumpster fires like this.




Um, no? When did I ever say or imply that? LOL. Of course I need to get better. In fact I am very unhappy with my art and I am currently trying to make improvements on it.
If I thought I was the best artist ever I would've already asked you to buy from my Patreon and linked you to my generic webcomic about anime anthro women with inflatable beach ball breasts.

No thank you. I will post my egg vore pictures and if that makes you upset thats not my issue


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 20, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Um, no? When did I ever say or imply that? LOL. Of course I need to get better. In fact I am very unhappy with my art and I am currently trying to make improvements on it.
> If I thought I was the best artist ever I would've already asked you to buy from my Patreon and linked you to my generic webcomic about anime anthro women with inflatable beach ball breasts.
> 
> No thank you. I will post my egg vore pictures and if that makes you upset thats not my issue



Not talking about the egg vore, i'm talking about the part where you insulted everyone else's choice in salt relief content.


----------



## ArtVulpine (Nov 20, 2017)

I use references for the following things: 

To get a sense of a drawing a particular pose for the first time. After I draw that pose a couple of times, I usually don't need the reference anymore. 
Drawing a certain fan art for the first time, or the character I'm trying to draw is complex. Say I want to draw Nick Wilde from Zootopia. I get a screenshot of his character to understand the details. Again, after a couple of times drawing a character I ditch the reference pic.
And let me be clear: I don't trace, even when I'm starting out drawing a character.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Not talking about the egg vore, i'm talking about the part where you insulted everyone else's choice in salt relief content.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 20, 2017)

Guys there's a reson he's not quoting my posts... I'm legit trying to point out that what he is doing is using references and then saying he doesn't, without insulting him.

and instead of going. Oh whoops I guess I do use references without knowing they are references.
What does he do? He focuses on insults and petty fight methods to prove his point. Oh wait a minute, that's not how you prove a point.

Posting one line from a paragraph that someone wrote and then debugging it without the context it came with is also petty, because you can twist words around to suit yourself. But you're not fooling anyone.

Also insulting someone for liking something like Anime. * Dude please, you're a Fucking furry. We all are, who the hell cares. No one. So why care if they like anime. 
*
Go have a glass of water if your argument stooped that low, I mean seriously.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

_*For Alll Of You Loser's Who Think You Cant Make A Good Art witohut Reference's
I Bring You This






Admit It Fools. You will Never Draw as Good as Me!

Discussion Has Been Ended.*_


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 20, 2017)

Ok now that he finally left this topic. We can actually have a non hostile chat about the topic.
I grew up sheltered and I didn' use references growing up. I did improve eventually on my own but it all looked the same. Only recently within the last few years I've been trying to get out of my cartoony style so that I could have a better grasp of the body. In just a year I've improved drastically and it shows, and that's with using references. 




To




And then applying the two to make this.


----------



## W00lies (Nov 20, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> Ok now that he finally left this topic. We can actually have a non hostile chat about the topic.
> I grew up sheltered and I didn' use references growing up. I did improve eventually on my own but it all looked the same. Only recently within the last few years I've been trying to get out of my cartoony style so that I could have a better grasp of the body. In just a year I've improved drastically and it shows, and that's with using references.
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, that is drastic improvement in a year! :O


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 20, 2017)

W00lies said:


> Wow, that is drastic improvement in a year! :O


See my main problem was that I had an idea of what the body looked like but it wasn' 100%. So referencing things for me really helped place things in place, so to speak.


----------



## narutogod123 (Nov 20, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Thanks for the advice Naruto God. I will go watch anime and learn to draw art the Right way.


Lol I guess you haven't seen my art oh well I see there is no arguing with someone like you. Thanks for the laughs I've had through this thread. Have a nice day!


----------



## W00lies (Nov 20, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> See my main problem was that I had an idea of what the body looked like but it wasn' 100%. So referencing things for me really helped place things in place, so to speak.


It sure did! I was really *stubborn *about learning when I was younger so I spent a good 15 years slooowly improving until I pretty much reached my peaked! Without learning from life and learning anatomy there was no way for me to get better. I quit drawing for 10 years but I am back full force!


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

narutogod123 said:


> Lol I guess you haven't seen my art oh well I see there is no arguing with someone like you. Thanks for the laughs I've had through this thread. Have a nice day!



I've seen it alright. that's kind of the point


----------



## Sunburst_Odell (Nov 20, 2017)

I use references on the occasion. They really help when it comes to a pose I can't get to look right.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 20, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> Ok now that he finally left this topic. We can actually have a non hostile chat about the topic.
> I grew up sheltered and I didn' use references growing up. I did improve eventually on my own but it all looked the same. Only recently within the last few years I've been trying to get out of my cartoony style so that I could have a better grasp of the body. In just a year I've improved drastically and it shows, and that's with using references.
> 
> 
> ...



Oh dang that's awesome! 

I never used references when i was younger either. Similar to this, my stuff all looked the same. When i took things more seriously i started copying parts of other peoples' art that i liked and there was one time when i would always trace the same photo of the same anime girl for everything.

But eventually i broke myself out of these habits and was able to improve. I used some references as well. I don't have art examples on hand rn though since i'm on mobile.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

Its kind of depressing that some people on here think the reason they're not good at art or weren't good at art in the past is because they don't use references. No... nobody becomes a good artist instantly. We are all "bad" (beginner) artists to start with. Improvement takes time and patience.

It may be disappointing to hear but there is no magical art cheat that will make you from a beginner to an expert overnight. The key is practice. The more you do the better you will get.

Try not to think "my art looks bad" or be negative about your work. Focus on what you can dk and draw because you like it. There's no point to art if you don't find it fun.

Not everything you draw has to be a masterpiece, I know thats a hard compulsion to get over and I'm still struggling with perfectionism myself. It's ok to just do a little doodle, don't pressure yourself to make flawless work every time because it won't happen and it will just make the process unenjoyable and discourage you.


I know I said some mean things about other's art yesterday, I am sorry, it was only a joke because people were saying my art sucks, but now I realize I probably should've worded it more constructively


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 20, 2017)

None of us are saying there's a magical method of being good at art, we're just saying we found better methods of practicing a bit later on and wished we had done so sooner (or at least i wish i had).


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

You shouldn't need to copy for that, though. That's what I'm saying.

Something that made my art a lot better very quickly was finding the right brushes and line pen. Maybe this is a perfectionist thing, but sometimes subtle brush changes can make a lot of difference.

Ironically, there was a short period of time where I hated my art because I tried to get it to look like other anthro artist's art (no one in particular) because I thought people would like it more. I tried copying traits and methods, but it was a failed attempt and the result was ugly. LOL. Don't copy other art and don't try to change your art style for other people


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 20, 2017)

And i don't, when i traced i was like 10 years old, or close, and i wanted to draw only in a generic anime style. I traced art to learn the style but i grew out of the phase and developed a semi realistic one.

I still appreciate a good anime style, but its not for me.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

I wasn't talking about tracing. I was talking about copying (or "heavy referencing.")


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 20, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I wasn't talking about tracing. I was talking about copying (or "heavy referencing.")



Its more or less the same thing. One just traces the exact lines while the other attempts to replicate the drawing using freehand methods.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Its more or less the same thing. One just traces the exact lines while the other attempts to replicate the drawing using freehand methods.



Yeah, that's why it's bad. I didn't expect you to agree there.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 20, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Yeah, that's why it's bad. I didn't expect you to agree there.



Tracing/Copying is definitely no way to learn and i didn't learn anything in doing so. I ended up dropping it altogether when i lost interest in the generic anime style and started using references to learn proper anatomy and develop my own style. I will agree on that fact.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Tracing/Copying is definitely no way to learn and i didn't learn anything in doing so. I ended up dropping it altogether when i lost interest in the generic anime style and started using references to learn proper anatomy and develop my own style. I will agree on that fact.








Well, okay then... I will say no more about that.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 20, 2017)

Oh, I just want to show this. It's a bit old (made in June) but here it is anyway


Spoiler: WARNING: sensitive themes












No reference was used for it. Not even sure how it would be possible to reference for lighting in this case, because the pose I drew myself. Even if you tried to reference lighting you would basically have to figure 50% of it out yourself.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 21, 2017)

The proportions are way off and it shows you didn't look at anything.  Not much else to say there.

The thing is everyone else wants to study art, and people. You do that by drawing them by looking at a person in real life, or by re-drawing a picture.  After doing this for a while, you learn where certain things go in the body. How long to make the arms/legs. How wide to draw the shoulders. Where the bones/muscle goes. ect ect. 



Spoiler


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 21, 2017)

Not gonna lie, I use references suuuper rarely. Basically out of laziness. Ain't nobody got the patience to dig up references for dumb doodles. 

I should use them more. I recognize this. Not least because using references is how you remind your brain what things _really_ look like, rather than focusing on what you _think_ they look like. Especially since what you think they look like tends to shift over time, accidental and deliberate stylistic choices taking over the more accurate underpinnings.

The general style I usually draw in is far from photorealistic, but the stylization is consistent (or at least intended to be), so studying photos to figure out animal anatomy, for example, really helps ensure the species is recognizeable. Especially if I'm going outside my handful or so of "comfortable" species.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> The proportions are way off and it shows you didn't look at anything.  Not much else to say there.
> 
> The thing is everyone else wants to study art, and people. You do that by drawing them by looking at a person in real life, or by re-drawing a picture.  After doing this for a while, you learn where certain things go in the body. How long to make the arms/legs. How wide to draw the shoulders. Where the bones/muscle goes. ect ect.
> 
> ...



"Way off?" LOL, okay, that just proves that you are dissing my art just because I say I don't use references.

The truth is I used a poser for that to get the legs right. But if I told the truth you would say "see, look what happens if you reference, you draw so much better than those other ugly pieces!"

It's ironic considering you wanted to trade with me. 

This is why I don't listen to criticism, because no art critic on the internet is genuine. 99 times out of a 100 they say your art is flawed just because they don't like you.

And a nasty attitude will ruin your own artwork even more than heavy copying or how to draw manga books will


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> No reference was used for it. Not even sure how it would be possible to reference for lighting in this case, because the pose I drew myself. Even if you tried to reference lighting you would basically have to figure 50% of it out yourself.


Speaking candidly, you have a pretty good eye for lighting and shading. There's something about the lighting that feels a little 'off' to me, but the lighting itself is pretty good, especially considering that lighting is an extremely tricky thing to draw. The proportions, however, do not look good, they do not look accurate, and more importantly, the legs look like they are simply disconnected from the rest of the body, there are no visible thighs. The way their hips are positioned, it looks like they are sitting, but turned away from where their legs should be, while their shins are inexplicably leaning against their torso.
I _would_ suggest using a reference, even if it's yourself doing that same exact pose while someone else, a family member, perhaps, takes a few pictures. Whether or not you take this suggestion is dependent on you personally.
I understand that this artwork deals with serious, and perhaps even personal, themes, which is why I am making an earnest attempt at being passive and constructive, rather than being as critical as I could be. You are a decent artist, however, you are nowhere where you should be given the level of detail you are able to draw just from your mind alone. The mind is not a static thing, in dreams, it cannot process how hands should look, it cannot keep time consistent, and it can only draw faces from those whom you have seen, even in passing.

EDIT:
As a side note, admitting you used Poser when you claimed there was no reference is an admission that you did indeed use a reference.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> EDIT:
> As a side note, admitting you used Poser when you claimed there was no reference is an admission that you did indeed use a reference.



It was a test to see how people would react. I predicted that if I said I used a reference* that I would get praise and people encouraging me to reference more.
If I said I did not use a reference I would get people insulting my art with no constructive criticism beyond "it sucks and looks BAD"

My point was proven. And if I had to guess I would say you only wrote an attempt at being "Constructive" and polite with your criticism after you read me claiming to have used a reference







What is the truth? You will never know now. Oh no !

* Even using a poser is not the same as using photo reference. While it is still undesirable, at least it means making your own pose instead of copying one

For the record I only listen to criticism and advice from people who know what they are talking about, and people I can trust not to be immature and biased
 o v o


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> "Way off?" LOL, okay, that just proves that you are dissing my art just because I say I don't use references.
> 
> The truth is I used a poser for that to get the legs right. But if I told the truth you would say "see, look what happens if you reference, you draw so much better than those other ugly pieces!"
> 
> ...


The poser could also be heavily stylised and not capture the human body correctly. I don't just randomly say someone's art looks bad because I don't like them. I'm not you.

Honestly those legs are just way too long. Or the torso is not long enough.
I'm legit sitting in the same  pose looking how long my legs are to my body.

Also hold up. You do know that poses can't be copyrighted, right?


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> The poser could also be heavily stylised and not capture the human body correctly. I don't just randomly say someone's art looks bad because I don't like them. I'm not you.
> 
> Honestly those legs are just way too long. Or the torso is not long enough.
> I'm legit sitting in the same  pose looking how long my legs are to my body.



"Way too long" based on what?
I'm tall and thin and weirdly proportioned in real life, so I base my character on that. 
Not every character has an average body type and I'm guessing you're not above 6 feet


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Even using a poser is not the same as using photo reference. While it is still undesirable, at least it means *making your own pose instead of copying one*



You can't really make your 'own pose'. You can freehand a pose but there's a 100% chance that other people use the same pose. Referencing poses is perfectly acceptable and should never be discouraged.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> You can't really make your 'own pose'. You can freehand a pose but there's a 100% chance that other people use the same pose. Referencing poses is perfectly acceptable and should never be discouraged.



If you draw it yourself or pose a doll manually that's making your own pose. Of course there is going to be similar poses but it won't be a direct copy / trace of a photo.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> "Way too long" based on what?
> I'm tall and thin and weirdly proportioned in real life, so I base my character on that.
> Not every character has an average body type and I'm guessing you're not above 6 feet


I'm not but I know people who are, I went and looked at the models you use. They give a general idea and are shaped extremely stylistically.  Maybe drawing realism with those models is just a bad idea?


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> I'm not but I know people who are, I went and looked at the models you use. They give a general idea and are shaped extremely stylistically.  Maybe drawing realism with those models is just a bad idea?



Models...? I don't use models. Did you not read my post? I don't use photo pose reference.
I based the drawing on my own body. Please pay attention.

I think you are just being negative because you don't like me. Sorry but like I said before I only listen to actual criticism from people who know what they are talking about, not those who don't practice what they preach and just put me down to be rude. o v o


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Models...? I don't use models. Did you not read my post? I don't use photo pose reference.
> I based the drawing on my own body. Please pay attention.
> 
> I think you are just being negative because you don't like me. Sorry but like I said before I only listen to actual criticism from people who know what they are talking about, not those who don't practice what they preach and just put me down to be rude. o v o


You said you used a poser. I don't know why it looks so weird to me. It looks like rubber for some reason. It could be because the butt is not nearly as detailed as the rest of the art, or it could be because the hips are missing. Or it could be the missing ankle bones. Who the heck knows what it is, something just looks off.

If you want to pull the "You just don't like me" card, fine have at it. To me it's just making yourself look unprofessional, and many a little bratty.
I'm not out to get you and randomly put down your work.  If someone else's art looks off I let them know and help them find out why it looks off. If you can't deal with me trying to critique why something looks weird, then go drink some water.

I'm a qualified Graphic Designer. It's what I went to school for. It's what I do. I work with artists and programmers all the time. We discuss things to improve each other.

Yes my art is still improving, yes we are all learning new ways each day. That does not make us unqualified. It makes us able to give honest advice because we did the same shitty mistakes in the past with our art that you are doing.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> You said you used a poser. I don't know why it looks so weird to me. It looks like rubber for some reason. It could be because the butt is not nearly as detailed as the rest of the art, or it could be because the hips are missing. Or it could be the missing ankle bones. Who the heck knows what it is, something just looks off.
> 
> If you want to pull the "You just don't like me" card, fine have at it. To me it's just making yourself look unprofessional, and many a little bratty.
> I'm not out to get you and randomly put down your work.  If someone else's art looks off I let them know and help them find out why it looks off. If you can't deal with me trying to critique why something looks weird, then go drink some water.



I was just testing you, and "poser" doesn't mean "photo models."

"because the butt is not nearly as detailed as the rest of the art"
I am thin, I don't have that padding that normal weight people do. You probably just haven't seen a very skinny person before.
If you saw me in real life you'd probably tell me to go use a reference too LOL

"ankles"

These are not human feet

You're not critiquing to be helpful though. You're just doing it in an attempt to make me feel bad. I am not an idiot.
You wouldn't like it if everyone told you art sucked and looked "weird" so don't be childish


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I was just testing you, and "poser" doesn't mean "photo models."
> 
> "because the butt is not nearly as detailed as the rest of the art"
> I am thin, I don't have that padding that normal weight people do. You probably just haven't seen a very skinny person before.
> ...


When I said detailed I meant shading wise. When you look at super skinny person you can see their wrist bones/ankle bones/knee bones/elbow bones. And yes animals have joints. If their feet connected to their legs without a joint then they wouldn't be able to move their feet at all. On real creatures like a cat, that would make more sense because they are not built to walk on their back legs.
You know what, if you want to just call it a stylistic choice then go right ahead. Just don' try to pass it off as realism.


And you're right. I wouldn't like it if people told me my art sucked
 But if they were helping me find out why and telling me how to improve I would be happy to take that advice and try it out. 

The reason why I'm not trying out your methods is because I did the same thing you are doing now and I barely improved that way. Don' believe me? Here areally some things I drew like eight years ago.


Spoiler


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> When I said detailed I meant shading wise. When you look at super skinny person you can see their wrist bones/ankle bones/knee bones/elbow bones. And yes animals have joints. If their feet connected to their legs without a joint then they wouldn't be able to move their feet at all. On real creatures like a cat, that would make more sense because they are not built to walk on their back legs.
> You know what, if you want to just call it a stylistic choice then go right ahead. Just don' try to pass it off as realism.



Or maybe it was a quick vent drawing painted quickly and it doesn't need to be 100% accurate because I draw for fun, not to get hassled by strangers on the internet???
I don't have time to make full photorealistic paintings, and considering I doubt you can do any better, I suggest you keep your unwanted opinions to yourself


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Or maybe it was a quick vent drawing painted quickly and it doesn't need to be 100% accurate because I draw for fun, not to get hassled by strangers on the internet???
> I don't have time to make full photorealistic paintings, and considering I doubt you can do any better, I suggest you keep your unwanted opinions to yourself


Excuse you, you are the one with the unwanted opinions. Otherwise there wouldn't be an argument in the forums to begin with.

You knew full well what you were getting into.
Thank you though, for telling the truth about your art. I have no idea why you were defending it so much if it was just a quick work for venting how you felt at the time.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> Excuse you, you are the one with the unwanted opinions. Otherwise there wouldn't be an argument in the forums to begin with.
> 
> You knew full well what you were getting into.
> Thank you though, for telling the truth about your art. I have no idea why you were defending it so much if it was just a quick work for venting how you felt at the time.



I'm defending it because you're shitting on it for no other reason than you don't like me and what I said about references.

I like how you also keep criticising my art for not looking photo realistic when 1. I am not a photo realism artist, and 2. You are also not a realism artist, even less so than me.

It would be one thing if you were a wannabe realism artist shitting on everything that's not realism, but since you choose to draw cartoon/anime, it's weird and hypocritical that you think other forms of art are invalid.

I don't desire to make things look perfectly real.
My end goal is to have art that is "better than realism." Take a look in the real world - realism can be ugly. A photorealistic furry with human + animal real life proportions mixed would probably be an unsightly creature.

Like I mentioned several pages back, I have been basing my art style on Ball Jointed Dolls and that includes anthro too. They are my source of inspiration.

Of course I am not saying photo realism is bad. I just personally have no interest in replicating it when I have the option to add prettier proportions and remove the flaws.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If you draw it yourself or pose a doll manually that's making your own pose. Of course there is going to be similar poses but it won't be a direct copy / trace of a photo.



Nobody can own a pose. Please stop implying that copying a pose used in someone else's work is a form of theft.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I'm defending it because you're shitting on it for no other reason than you don't like me and what I said about references.
> 
> I like how you also keep criticising my art for not looking photo realistic when 1. I am not a photo realism artist, and 2. You are also not a realism artist, even less so than me.
> 
> ...


Even when I draw cartoons I try to use realistic proportions with them. Also for the record, I did like you, you know, until you started being a little brat to me and pulling the 'i'm being attacked' card. 
I don't hate you though, I'm just loosing respect for you as a person.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Nobody can own a pose. Please stop implying that copying a pose used in someone else's work is a form of theft.



I didn't say anything about "owning" a pose. 
If you just copy a pose it's just kind of lazy. (And if you're using stock photos, someone will probably know its copied)



Yvvki said:


> Even when I draw cartoons I try to use realistic proportions with them. Also for the record, I did like you, you know, until you started being a little brat to me and pulling the 'i'm being attacked' card.
> I don't hate you though, I'm just loosing respect for you as a person.



I'm not the one being a brat here.
I don't care what you think of me. That's your problem. If you can't handle someone else's different art methods, you'll only have yourself to blame fo being angry


----------



## Diretooth (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> If you can't handle someone else's different art methods, you'll only have yourself to blame fo being angry


Wow. Just wow.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I didn't say anything about "owning" a pose.
> If you just copy a pose it's just kind of lazy. (And if you're using stock photos, someone will probably know its copied)



You're implying its a form of theft in the way you treat the very subject of referencing a pose. Copying a pose is not lazy, especially when you're having trouble coming up with a pose on your own. And nobody gives a rat's ass about whether someone uses a pose found in another photo or not, unless they're incredibly uptight about it.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> You're implying its a form of theft in the way you treat the very subject of referencing a pose. Copying a pose is not lazy, especially when you're having trouble coming up with a pose on your own. And nobody gives a rat's ass about whether someone uses a pose found in another photo or not, unless they're incredibly uptight about it.



Um, no. If I was trying to say it was theft I would bluntly say it's theft.

It's not theft, just a cheap lazy method that's unoriginal and lacks originality. That's what I think. I don't care if you copy poses or not, do whatever you want to with your art. I cant stop you, and only the owner of the image youre copying has a right to try.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Um, no. If I was trying to say it was theft I would bluntly say it's theft.
> 
> It's not theft, just a cheap lazy method that's unoriginal and lacks originality. That's what I think. I don't care if you copy poses or not, do whatever you want to with your art. I cant stop you, and only the owner of the image youre copying has a right to try.



The owner of the image has no right to stop me if all i'm using is the pose, because its not their pose. If you want to think that, i can't change your mind. However, you have no right to play the victim card when we inevitably tell you that your opinion is false. Just accept that you're in the wrong and move on.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> The owner of the image has no right to stop me if all i'm using is the pose, because its not their pose. If you want to think that, i can't change your mind. However, you have no right to play the victim card when we inevitably tell you that your opinion is false. Just accept that you're in the wrong and move on.



That's up to them. Different people have different thoughts about people referencing from their work. I for one would not be ok with it if the pose was copied exactly, and neither would anyone else I know. Some people don't care, some people are happy to have their work used, but I think that's the minority of artists.

I'm not "playing the victim" (where did you even get that idea?) and opinions can't be "wrong" in this case. If it's so "wrong" to you, drop it and move on. It's really easy not to click "reply" underneath my posts, you can do it if you believe in yourself. Or do you need to reference that action from someone else?

(I am joking don't declare world war three you wet sponges)


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 21, 2017)

Diretooth said:


> Wow. Just wow.


I know, right.  He should follow his own advice.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> That's up to them. Different people have different thoughts about people referencing from their work. I for one would not be ok with it if the pose was copied exactly, and neither would anyone else I know. Some people don't care, some people are happy to have their work used, but I think that's the minority of artists.
> 
> I'm not "playing the victim" (where did you even get that idea?) and opinions can't be "wrong" in this case. If it's so "wrong" to you, drop it and move on. It's really easy not to click "reply" underneath my posts, you can do it if you believe in yourself. Or do you need to reference that action from someone else?
> 
> (I am joking don't declare world war three you wet sponges)



I've said this at least three times already but since you have the memory of a goldfish:

1. This is a public forum. Anyone is free to comment on any post they want, at least until an admin locks it.

2. If the pose of someone's art isn't copied line for line its not theft and the artist has no right to complain.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> I've said this at least three times already but since you have the memory of a goldfish:
> 
> 1. This is a public forum. Anyone is free to comment on any post they want, at least until an admin locks it.
> 
> 2. If the pose of someone's art isn't copied line for line its not theft and the artist has no right to complain.



"You are WRONG and you are being HATEFUL by saying referencing shouldnt be used!!! DONT POST NO ONE WANTS YOUR OPINION!!!!"

"Anyone can post here! We don't have to stop replying to you!!"

????

2. I didn't say it's theft. But it's still a dick move and most artists don't appreciate it. Keep that in mind.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> "You are WRONG and you are being HATEFUL by saying referencing shouldnt be used!!! DONT POST NO ONE WANTS YOUR OPINION!!!!"
> 
> "Anyone can post here! We don't have to stop replying to you!!"
> 
> ...



There's a huge difference between posting combatative comments solely to start drama and posting to be part of a discussion or to try to talk sense into someone. The former is unacceptable behavior and the latter is not.

And any artist who gets on my case personally about my use of a pose they used will be 100% ignored. Idk about others but idgaf if you have a problem with me using the same pose as you. I don't copy entire compositions, so its not theft.


----------



## Yarik (Nov 21, 2017)

It's a grey zone. "Poses" are not copyrighted but it's so obvious when someone copies it 1:1. It's not about the posing but also the angle, the dynamic feel behind it, the body type influencing the "pose" etc.
There are 50000 images of characters having a hand on their hip but they all look different in a way.  When people call something "a pose" they usually mean all factors combined and copying that is like stealing a 3d model of some game, then adding some more triangles as spikes to it, give it a different texture and call it your own.
Now, referencing said model and building everything up yourself is a different thing and considered fine.

Tl;dr: Copying a pose 1:1 is at very least rude. Referencing it and turning it into your own with other influences and effort on your part is fine.


On topic: I always use references when I can. They improve quality, help you to understand the subject and improve your skills. I mainly use photo references.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> There's a huge difference between posting combatative comments solely to start drama and posting to be part of a discussion or to try to talk sense into someone. The former is unacceptable behavior and the latter is not.
> 
> And any artist who gets on my case personally about my use of a pose they used will be 100% ignored. Idk about others but idgaf if you have a problem with me using the same pose as you. I don't copy entire compositions, so its not theft.



It seems like you are looking for drama.

So be it then but don't start making a fuss if arists begin to have something against you.

Speaking as someone who has even had for sale poses like YCHs blatantly copied, it's completely reasonable to blacklist anyone who rips you off.


----------



## Steelite (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Without, always.
> I'll only ever use a reference if I'm struggling with a pose, and I will use a poser application for that, not copy a pose off an existing image.
> 
> Copying from existing images constantly will prevent you me from learning the necessary skills to make any original work. If all you I do is reference, that will be your my limit.
> ...


Problem solved.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

Steelite said:


> Problem solved.



Okay saltite. You have fun with that text editor


----------



## Steelite (Nov 21, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> Okay saltite. You have fun with that text editor


And you have fun with generalizing everyone to your standard, honey.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 21, 2017)

Steelite said:


> And you have fun with generalizing everyone to your standard, honey.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 22, 2017)

ヽ(。_°)ノ


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 22, 2017)

Since an artist had to be consulted to write to pose program, wouldn't that be the same thing? 

It's literally someone else's art lol.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Since an artist had to be consulted to write to pose program, wouldn't that be the same thing?
> 
> It's literally someone else's art lol.



That's not even remotely the same as copying someone's drawing... first of all 3D posing apps are made for artists to use... a random person's own drawing wasn't.

Unless we're going to have the "all art is public domain and was meant to be used by anyone" argument again. Please do not.


----------



## Kopatropa (Nov 22, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> Referencing is absolutely encouraged in improving your art and finding your style. This especially goes for real life photos, since you have to learn realism before you can develop a proper style.



What do you mean by "realism"? Isn't it specifically for realistic styles of art?


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 22, 2017)

It's complete bullshit that you have to learn realism before you do anything else. Piss offwith that.

Draw what you like drawing. If you stick to pretentious rules like "learn realism before you do anything else" or "practice still life studies often" art will become a chore and you will lose all the fun of it.

Ignore people who like to set extremely high and tedious standards, if they like circlejerking tl the "RIGHT WAY!!!" they can keep that to themselves.

Someone drawing cartoon animals and Pokemon as a hobby doesn't need to learn realism. Nobody "needs" to learn anything. Stop policing people's hobbies and let people actually enjoy it.


----------



## narutogod123 (Nov 22, 2017)

Kopatropa said:


> What do you mean by "realism"? Isn't it specifically for realistic styles of art?



You have to know the rules before you break them.

So you have to know what a face looks like and experiment different ways to draw it.

Instead of copying a picture of a face, try to understand how it works like how the bones connect to the jaw .  Look at different expression of real people and look up the muscles of the face to get a better understanding of how it works.

The key thing to learn is to understand a subject and put it into practice with experimentation.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 22, 2017)

Kopatropa said:


> What do you mean by "realism"? Isn't it specifically for realistic styles of art?



You have to learn how to draw something realistically before you can develop a proper style. Realism teaches you correct anatomy and proportions so that when you move on to stylization you don't get stuck with obvious anatomical flaws or giant heads. Essentially it can help prevent the "its just my art style!" excuse kids like to make when their obvious flaws are pointed out.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 22, 2017)

narutogod123 said:


> You have to know the rules before you break them.
> 
> So you have to know what a face looks like and experiment different ways to draw it.
> 
> ...



You're missing the point.
Some people aren't that dedicated. Some people only draw casually for fun, some people have no interest in drawing humans, and that's perfectly okay. Art snobs are a pain who only make art an unenjoyable experience. Let people do as they please.


----------



## Kopatropa (Nov 22, 2017)

narutogod123 said:


> You have to know the rules before you break them.
> 
> So you have to know what a face looks like and experiment different ways to draw it.
> 
> ...



Why does art need rules? I thought we could draw whatever and however we wanted?


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 22, 2017)

Kopatropa said:


> Why does art need rules? I thought we could draw whatever and however we wanted?



And we can. Don't listen to the pretentious bastards. Just because art is miserable for them doesn't mean that has to be the way for everyobe else.

If drawing isn't fun for you, there's no point to it.


----------



## Kopatropa (Nov 22, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> It's complete bullshit that you have to learn realism before you do anything else. Piss offwith that.
> 
> Draw what you like drawing. If you stick to pretentious rules like "learn realism before you do anything else" or "practice still life studies often" art will become a chore and you will lose all the fun of it.
> 
> ...


I dunno whether to agree with you or argue.

On the one hand, I too believe that artists should be able to what what they like and that nobody should be policing others on how to draw, maybe unless you're a professional.

On the other hand, I dunno what you're implying, but learning happens anyway, I think. Some artists learn a different way from others, so "Nobody "needs" to learn anything" is incorrect.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 22, 2017)

It's pretentious to act like there's only one way to do art and that everyone should follow the same method.

Their method also doesn't work. Spending hours a day studying realistic human anatomy will not teach you to draw cutesy cartoon rabbits. Don't waste time learning something that doesn't apply to you.


----------



## narutogod123 (Nov 22, 2017)

Kopatropa said:


> Why does art need rules? I thought we could draw whatever and however we wanted?



You don't have to follow rules, if you are doing it for fun. You can be a hobbyist do what you want I'm not stopping you.

You first have to enjoy drawing and if you want to draw professionally that's good too but you have to be good. If you are fine with doing 5-10$ commissons I'm not stopping you. For me personally I would rather get 50-100$ for each drawing cause drawing takes time.

I'm not telling to not have fun I'm telling if you want to be good at art you have to follow rules. You can also do the trial and error method but you still need reference to exaggerate features in your own way.


----------



## narutogod123 (Nov 22, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> You're missing the point.
> Some people aren't that dedicated. Some people only draw casually for fun, some people have no interest in drawing humans, and that's perfectly okay. Art snobs are a pain who only make art an unenjoyable experience. Let people do as they please.



It's not my problem if someone isn't dedicated, people can do what they want. I'm not holding a gun to their head telling them to do what I say. I said my opinion  I didn't say "Always listen to me every on else is wrong.


----------



## silveredgreen (Nov 22, 2017)

Kopatropa said:


> I dunno whether to agree with you or argue.
> 
> On the one hand, I too believe that artists should be able to what what they like and that nobody should be policing others on how to draw, maybe unless you're a professional.
> 
> On the other hand, I dunno what you're implying, but learning happens anyway, I think. Some artists learn a different way from others, so "Nobody "needs" to learn anything" is incorrect.



Nobody is policing how you draw. You're not expected to learn one set way. This is just what's most commonly recommended to people seeking advice on how to improve. And its just that, a recommendation. Whether you follow it or not is completely up to you. What we were arguing, however, was whether the act of using references was considered unoriginal and unhelpful or not.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 22, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> .


You like drawing for fun right?
Some people here draw for a career, and yea it IS work, and it can be tedious. Sometimes it's just not fun in general if you choose being an artist to be your job.

I think that's why it's so hard for each side of this debate to understand each other.

You say "draw for fun", while the artists who choose this as their career are saying. "Hold up, what I do is my job, therefore I want to get better and make a living off of it. Even if it's not fun learning all the things."

I can kind of understand if you're doing it for fun,  you don't plan on it to be your end goal/career in life, and so you don't care how you improve your art.

That does not mean giving that advice with the same mindset to someone who does want it to be their end goal is right. *That's where everyone is disagreeing with you*. You do you. If it's for fun then it's for fun. If it's your end goal and Job, then you're going to have to give people Career advice. That advice might not be fun to do, but it will get them to where they want to be in their career. I hope that cleared up a few things.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 22, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> You like drawing for fun right?
> Some people here draw for a career, and yea it IS work, and it can be tedious. Sometimes it's just not fun in general if you choose being an artist to be your job.
> 
> I think that's why it's so hard for each side of this debate to understand each other.
> ...



I draw for fun and as a way to make money.
There's no reason why it can't be both.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 22, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> I draw for fun and as a way to make money.
> There's no reason why it can't be both.


Yea but it's not your end goal so you don't have to worry about going to school for it.

You don't need to get a diploma in art to make it a career. ( Most companies where I live ask for a diploma or higher education to be considered. And when you go to school for art, guess what practices they teach.  )

Even when you do Freelancing, they still want you to go to school first for it.


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 23, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> Yea but it's not your end goal so you don't have to worry about going to school for it.
> 
> You don't need to get a diploma in art to make it a career. ( Most companies where I live ask for a diploma or higher education to be considered. And when you go to school for art, guess what practices they teach.  )
> 
> Even when you do Freelancing, they still want you to go to school first for it.



My end goal is to have something look good, not reproduce the same generic and uninteresting fodder that art schools want to push you into.

I attended an art school. I dropped out because words like "professional" "quality" and "mature" are words that could not be further from what the experience was actually like. They had us scribbling with crayon and finger painting like babies, literally, for the first half of the "course." 
That's if they actually still had art supplies of course. Most of the time they had run out.

It was not advertised as a special ed art school but that's how it was taught.

I can't remember if they gave me a qualification or not, but if they did it's probably just a napkin with "CONGRATS UR A BIG BOY WHO CAN HOLD A PENCIL" written in Crayola marker.

Also the kind of freelancing you're talking about isn't freelancing if there's a company/boss/organization who's requiring you to have a qualification. Freelancer means self employed - I'm freelancing.


----------



## Sleepysnout (Nov 23, 2017)

LuxerHusku said:


> I feel as *bad* as tracing.



aaAAHHNO

Referencing is a tool, tracing is a tool, tutorials are tools. None of these are bad in and of themselves. These are learning methods. If you are practicing art, do NOT listen to the high-horse naysayers. When you are learning math, you watch someone do a problem, you learn the steps by referencing and sometimes copying their methods because that's how learning works. The same principle applies. Tracing is a great exercise to learn line confidence, and is in fact a great way to study anatomy. Tutorials are a great way to expand your technique understanding. Referencing is *VITAL* to learn how to draw anything. It is not useful to do everything from memory. In fact, I'd argue it's detrimental to try and draw soley from memory. 

Now that is all practice and skill-honing. What about commissions or publicly claimed art?

Tracing is a no-go for commissions or public works because you are profiting (monetarily, or through viewership) by essentially using another artists time and effort without their permission.  

Tutorials are great for commissions and public art. If the tutorial really helped you, be a pal and credit them. Bonus points: See if the original tutorial maker takes tips. If not, maybe just send them a nice message. 

Referencing is ESSENTIAL FOR MAKING ART DO NOT LET ANYONE TELL YOU OTHERWISE. Use refs for personal art, practice art, commissions, and public postings. Credit if you're using specific reference stock images that require it. Maybe credit it even if it doesn't require it, just to be an ArtistBro. 
You need to draw a hand? Reference a god damn hand. Your hand, your friends hand, pictures of a hand, cartoon stylings of hands to understand how it's translated to that medium, 3d models of hands for the ability to manipulate it and understand how the light catches.

If you have someone in your life that gives you flak for referencing, who believes they are better off drawing from memory, please send them to me. I can sit them down and calmly explain how absolutely detrimental they are being to their own work, and the work of those they touch, with that toxic and vile mentality. 

Draw a tree from memory. Now look outside, and draw a tree from reference. You will notice so many matters of form, of depth, of tone, that you are not able to replicate from memory. Additionally, drawing from reference is not easy. It's not like you're a xerox machine. Referencing takes skill, and it's an important skill to hone.


Okay, officially have written too much.

*TL;DR: 

Referencing isn't bad, it is an essential artistic tool. Find me who tells you refs are bad, so I may gently chide them. *


----------



## Inkblooded (Nov 23, 2017)

TLDR of entire thread: Copy, never try to create anything original, and make sure to disrespect artists by directly copying their work !  Its the only way to be a Professional. If you dont do exactly this, your art sucks and you are worthless. Please subscribe to my Professional Referencing Artist Patreon account for only $20 a month, it will give you access to drawings of balloon-breasted generic fox girls with proportions weirder than a Barbie. *tips fedora* ONLY TRUE PRO ARTISTS REPLY, no original content making Peasants allowed


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 23, 2017)

Inkblooded said:


> TLDR of entire thread: Copy, never try to create anything original, and make sure to disrespect artists by directly copying their work !  Its the only way to be a Professional. If you dont do exactly this, your art sucks and you are worthless. Please subscribe to my Professional Referencing Artist Patreon account for only $20 a month, it will give you access to drawings of balloon-breasted generic fox girls with proportions weirder than a Barbie. *tips fedora* ONLY TRUE PRO ARTISTS REPLY, no original content making Peasants allowed
































ALSO

Freelance Illustrator Jobs (with Salaries) | Indeed.com

Freelancing is done under a contract. So yes if you Freelance for a company, you need the required education in your field.


----------



## Sleepysnout (Nov 23, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> *snipped*



To tack onto this:












These artists heavily referenced photographs, and they were also immensely skilled.  One does not preclude the other.


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 23, 2017)

Yvvki said:


> Even when you do Freelancing, they still want you to go to school first for it.





Yvvki said:


> ALSO
> 
> Freelance Illustrator Jobs (with Salaries) | Indeed.com
> 
> Freelancing is done under a contract. So yes if you Freelance for a company, you need the required education in your field.



You need the required education - ie. skill - but you don’t need any qualifications. I’m a freelancer who works under contract and not once has anyone asked me for my credentials, they hire me solely based on my portfolio.


----------



## Yvvki (Nov 23, 2017)

redfox_81 said:


> You need the required education - ie. skill - but you don’t need any qualifications. I’m a freelancer who works under contract and not once has anyone asked me for my credentials, they hire me solely based on my portfolio.


Maybe it's different where I live then. :/


----------



## redfox_81 (Nov 24, 2017)

I’m curious to see why they’d need any other information!


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 24, 2017)

Please stop sniping at each other over disagreeing about the thread's topic. There is absolutely no need to be snide, and I don't want to have to kick anyone out of the thread because you can't play nice.


----------

