Short New Topic-------Making Roads

Okapidragon said:
.....everybody using a "perfect" formula..... homogeneous and bland.
Click to expand...

ive tried telling this to my art teacher. i can draw a face without any planning at all, and if i do any planning in pencil (like buildings and landscapes), its very simple and there's no geometric artistic nonsense involved. if you rely on a formula to do your drawings, you end up with everything looking similar, and like you said - the only distinguishing features are the nose and hair.
another annoying thing is character design. i never design characters; the first time i draw them is the way they stay for the entire story. designing characters seems to be a waste of time to me, 'cause as soon as i have drawn a person i can continue the comic.
I suppose the only people who really need these techniques are traditional animators. animation is one of those things that needs as many tricks as possible to make it simpler, and believe me - its difficult. i spent 5 hours hunched over a lightbox filling in frame after frame, only to end up with a 2 second loop with bad spacing and timing. i take my hat off to the animation industry.

you sad something about concentrating all the time. when i draw i'm usually doing something else like watching TV or talking or "revising". i suppose i use a separate part of the brain to do that, it just comes naturally. i dont usually "think" about what i'm going to draw, i just do it. sometimes i do drafts of the storyline in my head, but thats about it. i guess my subconcious is doing all the work. the problem with this is that i might come back to a piece of work and say "whoah, i didnt think i drew it THAT badly", and discipline my subconcious mind.

you also said you were good at drawing lizards and dragons. i cant draw animals at all. im dreading the battle near the end of my story where thousands of horses are involved, and where ill have to draw them in awkward poses as they fall. the normans were the best at this, while im an obsolete anglosaxon.
http://seattlegis.com/travel/042_bayeux_tapestry_norman_horses_and_riders_entangled_in_tragic_confusion_postcard.jpg
 
I just cannot draw humans without concentration. Everything else comes out fine.

I am very good at drawing animals in all sorts of weird positions (though horses aren't my best), but yeah, I can totally understand by trying to imagine having to draw that many people falling in weird positions. I can do it a few times, but over and over and I'd eventually shred the paper and probably burn it.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=jj0adz&s=6

Image is big, didn't want to post it here. Sorry for the weirdness, but I effed up the transparency and didn't bother fixing it, so this is how it looks flattened.  :p By the way, same subject as previous picture.
 
I draw horses that are (1) highly stylized or (2) heads-and-necks.  I guess that's called a bust?  What few full drawings of horses I've done usually come out slightly cartoony.  Nevertheless, they look good to me.  I've adopted the more stylized caligraphy line type of drawings over the past several years (see link in previous reply).

And I was right.  The watermark is broken...
 
I see. That sort of thing is fairly popular, though. There was this arsehat in sixth grade that was pretty full of his talent for drawing, though he wasn't actually all that talented, so he was, of course, downing my work, so I mockingly drew a dragon in that sort of minimalist-calligraphic-outline style, which was one of two styles he drew in (the other being hand-drawn fractals decorated in eyeballs and twisty trees, in other words, things he probably drew while on questionable medicines or copied from people on questionable meds), and he was like, "Well, it's not great, but it's a lot better." Because he thought I was serious when I was mocking his work.

Anyway, other people seem to be really impressed by that style, because they apparently can't quite figure much out, having not drawn themselves.

Also, the Napoleonic stature of the average person's realm of experience (and yes, I know Napoleon was actual of middling height, I was speaking figuratively) sometimes scares me.
 
Okapidragon said:
Anyway, other people seem to be really impressed by that style, because they apparently can't quite figure much out, having not drawn themselves.
Click to expand...

i get the same thing. due to the fact that the average Homo Sapiens Sapiens gawps at people with the slightest amount of skill (american idol, pop idol, and all that sort of thing are good examples), i get the same questions asked every time somebody sees my drawings.
 
Ha, I'm entertained how you work under the assumption we're all super-smart Indigo children subspecies. Apparently, about two-thirds of the newest generations (twenty and younger) and even less of those going back to 1950 are actually of the new subspecies, though I'm more inclined to say one-tenth of a percent, and calling that generous.  :laugh2

But, yeah. People are often either too or too little appreciative because they've got no idea what they are talking about, and are generally stupid and inexperienced; All of their education and knowledge, practically, comes from a television. And the television is frequently stupid.
 
Okapidragon said:
...and the television is frequently stupid.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed.  Nothing on the telly worth watching that's not already online.  Come to think of it, there's really not much on the telly worth watching in the first place.

except horse racing  :p
 
hmmm..., i can feel my luddite spirit boiling up inside me. smash the rotten machines, and lets go back to the good old days of hunter gathering and strip farming and feudal warfare, where beer was better than water and the best entertainment around was following the battles of your local despot and observing the carnage with glee.
 
Not to nit pick, but you'd probably be observing that carnage from within and with some sharp object embedded on your person.

Hence why TV has it's uses.  You can watch the carnage and the only embedding is your rear into the couch :D .

Just don't rely on TV to get you your degree :;): .
 
Nope, television is dumb. Not to say that television is bad; In fact, bad =! good, television=dumb, good=dumb, ergo television =! bad.

Personally, I'm on the corner of Gallop here. Sorry, Pat and Anglosaxon, but the fact is that there is NOTHING, not even horse races, that is good on the telly. The ONLY things I watch are Doctor Who and House, MD. And even those are starting to get kinda schizophrenic for me. [/House joke]

And if there IS anything on the television that is good (i.e., House, Doctor Who, not horse races), it can be found on the Internets, more quickly. And that is that.
 
Mark it on your calendar, folks!  The mighty Dragon-y Girraffe-y One agreed with me, for once!  :rolleyes

I have a one-word reply that effectively sums up my opinion of that entire statement: Amen.  :p
 
Okapidragon said:
Nope, television is dumb. Not to say that television is bad; In fact, bad =! good, television=dumb, good=dumb, ergo television =! bad.

Personally, I'm on the corner of Gallop here. Sorry, Pat and Anglosaxon, but the fact is that there is NOTHING, not even horse races, that is good on the telly. The ONLY things I watch are Doctor Who and House, MD. And even those are starting to get kinda schizophrenic for me. [/House joke]

And if there IS anything on the television that is good (i.e., House, Doctor Who, not horse races), it can be found on the Internets, more quickly. And that is that.
Click to expand...
*Gets nit-picky again*

Well, technically, any TV show you find on the internet has to have been shown on TV first.  It just a  question of whether you live in the right country to see it.

Without TV, there's very little outside of movies (and people harming themselves in comical/painful ways) to provide good content to the internet :D .

I pretty much agree TV is dumb, but not bad.  There's just something to be said for watching it in your living room with a remote as opposed to downloading it to your PC, transferring it to a set-top box, going to you menu and playing it.

The latter option doesn't have the same ring to it for me.
 
True, though there's nothing quite like a comfy chair, a good HDMI cable, an XBox 360 controller, a rad game, and being able to check unread posts here at Kayssplace all at the same time.  In fact, I think I'll do just that this weekend!  First I need one of those wireless controllers you can get from some place like Walmart... [/off topic]  Computer pwns all!

[on topic] Yes, for watching stuffs, TV is more convenient.  But computer, on a whole, has more goodies, like Solitaire!  :woot
 
Yeah, plus, you don't need teh cable. It is so much easier for everybody in the neighborhood to use one guy's wifi. Not to mention, with the computer, you
-Don't need a separate television set to view
-It is super-easy to control the quality of what you see
-You can see ANYTHING, for much cheaper than buying all 9001 channels they have out there now
-You can watch things whenever you want, without having to pay for a DVR and with a much higher limit on memory.

Computer is teh pwnz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top