Now as I was saying before, everything you will ever draw, or have drawn before will be made of these shapes.

(Michelangelo rolls in his grave)

Here i illustrate this idea. Be aware though things we draw typically exist in three dimensional space and your drawings, while 2-d are usually meant to give the illusion of being a 3-d form. So all those fancy pyramids and spheres and cubes you drew would be overlayed in their respective 2-d positions. The positions of those shapes are based upon the anatomy and proportions of whatever you are drawing. But we aren't worried about those yet, just concentrate on seeing these shapes in things so that we might better understand the planes that give them their form.

Planes are literally the dimensions of something in 3-d space, what defines it as a 3-d object. A mere cube has six plane surfaces A human has many more than that.

Any questions?

Some of you might be like, "The fuck you talkin' about? Your example looks like ass."

Planes are like what you might imagine in really basic video game graphics, when everything is very boxy and all angled.

Andrew Loomis illustrates these in the male face and head.

At 3/31/12 06:14 PM, Template88 wrote: Andrew Loomis illustrates these in the male face and head.

Hooray, it's Bizarro

Meet this MF,

Manikin Frame is his name, and helping your art make more sense is his game.
If he isn't inside or his sister isnt inside something, things start to look like this http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs49/f/2009/167/6/0/TsukinoHoshi_
_s_Ashley_by_YuniNaoki.jpg
Flat. No sense of structure. No consistency with measurements of limbs or the dimensions of anything.

You can make your own MF using the shapes that you know oh so well in three dimensions cant you? If you notice parts of him are black and stickfigurey, but his core points, the things that make him take shape in a three dimensional way are there, albeit simplified.

I want you to take images, photos whatever, of people or other things, and use a MF and overlay it on top if you have to, or eyeball it (i suggest this). Use shapes that best go with what you are drawing, and pay special attention to the way things are angled in a 3-d sense I do not suggest making them up in your head. Try to figure out some of the underlying shapes and where they originate from inside of real subjects When you have an idea how things actually exsist, you might someday make things from your imagination with some inkling of accuracy.

anatomy, proportion and perspective/foreshortening are optional and will get their own attention as we get to them But it would be nice for you to at least try to keep the measurements of the limbs the same.

this is much akin to drawing robots what with the angular shapes and ball joints and nearly human complexions anyhow

is it something like this that i should be doing? (i know the proportions are not photo realistic this is just for questioning purposes)

At 3/31/12 07:16 PM, M-Maher wrote: this is much akin to drawing robots what with the angular shapes and ball joints and nearly human complexions anyhow

is it something like this that i should be doing? (i know the proportions are not photo realistic this is just for questioning purposes)

Yes, but that looks like you made that up from your head, and you didn't define the shapes in a 3-d manner, where are the dimensions? Remember those cones and boxes and cylinders you drew before? you dont need to shade them but show that you know where they originate from. Yours might be a robot, but mine is an invisible crystal golem. Seriously it can be ANYTHING, ALL THINGS are made up from basic shapes.

At 3/31/12 05:55 PM, Template88 wrote: Now as I was saying before, everything you will ever draw, or have drawn before will be made of these shapes.

I knew this was going to happen. Better have some understandment of those shapes soon!

At 3/31/12 06:48 PM, big-jonny-13 wrote:

At 3/31/12 06:14 PM, Template88 wrote: Andrew Loomis illustrates these in the male face and head.

Hooray, it's Bizarro

Not yet, but now it is.

I think i'm just going to stick to paper and pencil...

Remember I want to see the dimensions of what you are drawing. This isnt about getting a pose correct or drawing stick figures in different poses. This is about using what you drew yesterday to understand objects as they exist in a 3-d form.

To be honest, I think I'm getting a bit confused about this one.
I'm not really accustumed into drawing every volume when sketching a figure. Plus, my brain fights between the "you HAVE TO use the most basic shapes, as you've been told to!" and the "but, if I draw a curve like this, it will look more like an actual limb..."
Any guidance would be useful.
And, as for the little figurine at the right... It has nothing to do with the exercise, but I thought "If this is how I don't make my sketches... How do I make my actual sketches?". It's been a while since I did one. So I had to try it... But anyways, I've tended to change often the way I make them.
Or maybe it's only that my brain is on "stand by" status right now. Anyways, I couldn't get some rest without getting some pic done.
'Later!

At 3/31/12 10:09 PM, BizarroJoe wrote: To be honest, I think I'm getting a bit confused about this one.
I'm not really accustumed into drawing every volume when sketching a figure. Plus, my brain fights between the "you HAVE TO use the most basic shapes, as you've been told to!" and the "but, if I draw a curve like this, it will look more like an actual limb..."
Any guidance would be useful.
And, as for the little figurine at the right... It has nothing to do with the exercise, but I thought "If this is how I don't make my sketches... How do I make my actual sketches?". It's been a while since I did one. So I had to try it... But anyways, I've tended to change often the way I make them.
Or maybe it's only that my brain is on "stand by" status right now. Anyways, I couldn't get some rest without getting some pic done.
'Later!

As an artist who is experienced, I am not surprised you are having these feelings, this exercise is merely for getting people to think about objects they are drawing in a different way than they are used to. It is not practical to draw this way for every illustration you do. Especially for somebody who is experienced and already understands how an object occupies space. My MF when I draw them are only in two dimensions because I have some knowledge of the general shape of the masses involved. Give yourself more credit, but remember you have spent quite some time since you started drawing already practicing these things to slowly understand how these objects are formed. When I first started I thought of things in two dimensions and that lead to flat drawings, like some of those above.

At 3/31/12 09:13 PM, Template88 wrote: Remember I want to see the dimensions of what you are drawing. This isnt about getting a pose correct or drawing stick figures in different poses. This is about using what you drew yesterday to understand objects as they exist in a 3-d form.

Alright, what about this then?

well I tried.

At 3/31/12 11:48 PM, TasmanianDevil wrote: well I tried.

no wait

Catching up with you guys

At 3/31/12 11:57 PM, TasmanianDevil wrote:

At 3/31/12 11:48 PM, TasmanianDevil wrote: well I tried.

no wait

Feel like I didn't do 3-D

kay here we go, heres the example i worked off of.

At 4/1/12 11:23 AM, M-Maher wrote: kay here we go, heres the example i worked off of.

It's probably usually not the best idea to do anatomy practice off of game models

At 4/1/12 11:29 AM, J-qb wrote: It's probably usually not the best idea to do anatomy practice off of game models

tru dat

Kinda like dis?

Okay then. Please excuse the shite.

toot

Here's mine. i thought it came out ok.. maybe ill photoshop it into something interesting (:

At 4/1/12 06:32 PM, RogueSoul wrote: Here's mine. i thought it came out ok.. maybe ill photoshop it into something interesting (:

img didnt load. here.

At 4/2/12 05:21 AM, HotCakes wrote: Best thread in a while.

I believe, however, that our masters have abandoned us to our fates in the long road to artistic awesomeness :(

At 4/4/12 08:47 PM, RogueSoul wrote: I believe, however, that our masters have abandoned us to our fates in the long road to artistic awesomeness :(

EGAD!

Dont be preposterous, I don't have time to post here everyday. I was both allowing more time for others to post and doing other things~

Very well, I shall put up with the lack of regularity for these lessons and exercises for two reasons: they're free, and, well, they're free.
haha, srsly though, i totally agree. Best thread in a while.

Alright for most of you, it seems you understand the concept of looking through an object and seeing it as a 3-d form. But Tasmianian Devil, it seems like you might get it, but your drawings are so cluttered I cannot be sure, and Hotcakes your shapes arent even complete shapes, you've tried to give them depth and then just stopped caring about what the actual shapes are. For the rest of you good job, this is something most beginners flat out cannot comprehend. However, you might ask "But Template, you said earlier it isn't practical to do this for every illustration one might make"

That is correct, this is useful for beginners to start understanding how more complicated shapes take up space in a 3-d environment and better help them understand planes and shapes. More experienced artists kind of just have a sense of how to do this without such things, but that takes time and practice. -SO PRACTICE-
Understanding this gets to be very important when you start to use perspective, place things in a background, and for all coloring purposes with light and shadow. You cannot color a 2-d object, because it is flat, it doesn't have depth, no volume. You must understand it in three dimensions to simulate light and shadow on its surfaces and shade it in a convincing way.

Alright the logical progression from simple shapes usually leads to perspective, but fuck that, alot of you guys don't seem to understand something even more elemental and basic.

Remember how all things are made out of those simple shapes? But what are those simple shapes made out of?

Everything you will ever draw or have drawn before will be made of these three things. Call these the holy trinity of drawing, the supreme subatomic particles of all drawings, indivisible and absolute.

The mighty Line, simple, elegant, the particle of choice for so many who would dare tread in the land of the visual arts. They come in many forms but they can be boiled down to two types. Lines with static width and lines with variable width. While in real life there are no such things as 3-d shapes created with lines, its the simplest way for our minds to grasp that something exists that can still be recognized as a 3-d object. Static width lines can be attractive but they usually illustrate unnatural things, a step toward fantasy, it can be quite complex, but those who wish for realism, you must use variable width lines. http://www.quilt-around-the-world.com/sites/default/files/im ages/story/959/martha_washington_line_drawing.jpg Observe how flat and unnatural this looks. Variable width lines are much more effective at giving the illusion of a 3-d form across, with them you can simulate depth in objects. http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lisdjtGvZM1qbmkaoo1_500.jp g Observe how much more realistic that is despite clearly being a cartoon character.
Here's where people fuck up alot, typically newbies lines look like shit. The whole point of a line is to define a shape, when your lines are all fuzzy, blurry and pixelated you lose clarity and things end up looking like cocks. Confused, you blunder about adding lines, seeking clarity but creating only a confused mess nobody understands. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NUq5U_LDHrA/TYQAp_r-4nI/AAAAAAAAAJ M/-xVmC3A4HUs/s1600/bad%2Bdrawings%2Bof%2Bfamous%2Bmusicians %2B001.jpg The lines are torn, incomplete, inconsistent, shapes made half thought out, without no rhyme or reason. http://oldprints.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/apokalypse.gif Behold here a master's work, notice how each line serves a purpose, to define a shape, to make thing clear, not muddle it all up. If a line serves no purpose do not create it. Everybody can learn to use lines to create art.

The next particle is the mightiest of them all, the Gradient. Alot of you think of color and take it for granted. Humans see in color and even things without color have value and that is part of a gradient too. We don't really pay attention to it because its all around us everyday. Ever wonder why some artwork looks so realistic that you could mistake it for a photograph? Its because COLOR AND VALUE ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO FORM. FORM IS ALL AROUND YOU, EVERYTHING HAS FORM. If it doesn't have form its intangible and cannot be drawn. The greatest masters of art aren't merely people who take a paint brush and smear some random colors on a canvas until it looks pretty, they are GENIUSES THAT UNDERSTAND SPACIAL CONCEPTS USING COLOR AND VALUE AS A MEANS TO EXPRESS 3-D DATA INTO A 2-D MEDIUM. Thats -why- it works, at the highest level your brain will not be able to distinguish a perfect 2-d drawing from a 3-d object. Unfortunately we cannot make a perfect image. Not even a camera can do it. Yet. Art is a science, and most of it involves understanding the form of something in space. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_qjUt6oT1j3c/S8dXF1fWUfI/AAAAAAAAAE w/oaIftOmMVYY/s1600/andrewwyerth.jpg That looks real because all of the value, all of the colors involved are almost perfectly in the places that they would actually be if she was real. It has real spacial data based entirely on the colors, which consists of light and shadow, tint, hue, satuation, form, ect. ect. This is the real shit, and not many get to master it, it requires understanding elements that are extremely complicated. But for the simplest of shapes you may find your current ability adequate at rendering them in a convincing way. To improve in this to the understand the truth of what things really are.

The last particle is not really a particle at all, it is the absence of something. Silhouettes are probably the easiest was to imagine it but everything has it. Negative space. It has alot to do with composition, and it is just as important as what you choose to draw in regards to making an object more convincing. To be honest its not something I worry about right now but it is very important. http://volcanoeditions.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/p osfigureground41.jpg Observe how using negative space, this is actually two illustrations. A man with an instrument and a female face.