Results 66 to 78 of 101
May 15th, 2012 #66
No there isn't Jason. There's no qualifier on it. Using reference means to refer to something for information; life, photos, an object, other works of art or illustration. If someone says they never use ref and then use it they're just a liar and shame on them for confusing the issue for people starting out trying to gauge what they need to learn.
Hide this ad by registering as a memberMay 15th, 2012 #67
So with that said, here's some more examples...
May 15th, 2012 #68Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Thanked 5,197 Times in 1,728 Posts
The following is NOT an opinion: Frank Frazetta was way, way, wayyyyyy more talented than the average artist. To not get that understanding is a kind of failure of the imagination.
All you have to do is look at what he doodled in his notebooks to see the incredible amount of information he could call upon from his imagination. I have seen almost every prelim he did for almost every painting he did and most of the information in the final paintings is already in the initial sketch. And what was left out was anatomy and lighting, which we know from looking at his notebooks he could well do out of his head.
I would say way more than 50% of his work is unreferenced. Yet I am sure he used reference all the time when he felt he needed. None of the ref was slavishly copied.
As I see it, the myth around Frazetta's artistic prowess is actually not all that much of myth.
Last edited by kev ferrara; May 15th, 2012 at 06:52 PM.At least Icarus tried!
My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
May 15th, 2012 #69
I could definitely see more than 50% of his work is unreferenced! I imagine when he did use reference, he probably found it before he even did his rough? Anyways, no doubt he could outdraw anyone from memory too.
May 15th, 2012 #70
May 15th, 2012 #71
I don't think anyone is arguing on his ability. But rather just giving a bit of truth where something became a tall tale.
Just because Frazetta used some reference doesn't equate to "completely from memory"
And just because he used some reference doesn't equate to "he can't draw from memory"
There is no black and white side to take here.
The Following User Says Thank You to Arshes Nei For This Useful Post:
May 15th, 2012 #72Registered User
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Thanked 76 Times in 47 Posts
It seems TOO pointless to just do a study of something, without then testing what you've retained.
May 15th, 2012 #73
Frazetta is known for having painted most of his pictures straight from his head, instead of the standard practice (among realists) of relying on models. This approach may seem to be a foolish handicap, or even proof of laziness. But I believe it enabled Frazetta to compose pictures of greater power than most of his contemporaries. To quote
the excellent Carlson's Guide to Landscape Painting:
"The memory exaggerates the essentials; the trifles of incidents tend to become blurred. Protracted painting of what one sees before him dulls the initial expressive shock. In painting from memory, the whole stress is laid on expressive agents. In direct-from-nature painting, much useless lumber insinuates itself, interesting for its own sake, but derogatory to the whole. The eye is greedy. There is always too much material seen, with not enough synthesis. Until mastery of memory is reached,
the brain refuses to act as a filter."
May 15th, 2012 #74
May 15th, 2012 #75
This is the sticking point for me though Jason. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "first" implies that at some point you know enough and have committed enough to memory that you no longer need reference? And that somehow you can commit to memory the nuances of light, form, texture, etc. through repetition and study?
And I think we've all agreed that yes, to a certain extent you can develop relatively generic or stylized forms accurately. In Frazetta's case a handful of archetypes were easy for him to call into being, again, to a certain level of realism (sketches, composition layouts, etc.).
So back to why I'm stuck on the notion of getting to a certain point and then it is committed to memory (which relates directly to the OP's original question).
I don't believe it is true, and I think it is a major misconception, that you can "memorize" or study enough the infinite variables of light, form, texture and color to reproduce it at will from imagination. Particularly in the context of a scene and the complexities and relationships found therin.
Basically to me it is an axiom in art that the more "realistic" or natural result one is attempting the more one needs to work from life. The proof of this axiom is that artists and illustrators do exactly that. Which was implied in my original question as to why would artists bother with models after a certain point if it wasn't necessary?
May 15th, 2012 #76Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- The land of fast cars and loud guitars.
- Thanked 24 Times in 16 Posts
I remembered that Robert Beverly Hale talks about masters drawing from imagination a lot in Drawing Lessons From The Great Masters. I think that is part of where I got the idea that you're supposed to study until you can do it all from imagination. Upon reviewing the book, he isn't saying that at all. He's pointing out how they could do strong and anatomically informed sketches from imagination and how that level of knowledge greatly aided their drawings from the model.
This drawing was made from a model, but Callot brought to it his knowledge of anatomy. Now most beginners seem to have a knowledge of the body drawn mostly from nursery rhymes: they know that people have thumbs (because of little Jack Horner) and a few other evident things, but that is all. And they will sit in a drawing class, sedulously copying the flesh in front of them day after day, making no attempt to identify and analyze each separate part.
Now Callot knew the identity and function of every bump and hollow on this body. And what is more, because of his knowledge of anatomy. comparative anatomy, and function, he was able to characterize every bump and hollow so that they looked more like themselves than they actually did on the model.
Funny how you can read something and think you understand it fine and then later on it actually clicks for you.
So my takeaway from this thread is that while I will continue to study and improve my knowledge, I now understand that hiring a model isn't taking the easy way out; rather it is probably the only realistic way to produce work with the degree of accuracy and realism that I am looking for.
p.s. I really like dpaint's points about discouraging the myths that lead beginners to think they aren't supposed to use reference.
May 15th, 2012 #77
May 15th, 2012 #78
Most (all?) artists can render a more convincing figure from reference than they can from their imagination. But some artists can render a more convincing figure from their imagination than other artists can from reference.
**Finished Work Thread **Process Thread **Edges Tutorial
Crash Course for Artists, Illustrators, and Cartoonists, NYC, the 2013 Edition!
"Work is more fun than fun."
"Art is supposed to punch you in the brain, and it's supposed to stay punched."