This drawing blog, done by a guy named Rad, has got me thinking: Do I teach too much by picking on people's common misperceptions about how body parts are formed? Does that approach favor surface result too much over process and understanding? And if so, am I short-changing you guys by teaching in a more superficial way than I ought to?
Or, on the other hand, would a deeper approach prove too analytical and intensive for today's students? Too much like the year of drawing plaster casts that used to feature as a prominent and fundamental part of classical art education? (Considering that almost all drawing errors are some combination of misreading the evidence of senses and failure to deal with the implications of 3D-ness, I think more and more that art schools were on the right track a hundred years ago. My biggest knock on current students is that they want to be shown a recipe, a video tutorial, even for things that aren't cut and dried enough to work that way.)
Either way, please check out Rad's blog, which is a sublime combination of sharp-eyed analysis and a heightened feeling for not only figure drawing, but shape design and storytelling. As such, it is very useful to both illustrators and concept artists. And animators really need this stuff as they spend years moving beyond a superficial, shape-driven apprehension of the world.
You know a guy's got a lot on the ball when he's willing to show you his class notes.... Go now, go now!
JH
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dude, this guy's blog is amazing. I can really relate to the volumetric approach to shapes coming from a 3D background.
i remember doing this in my figure drawing classes 10 years ago, where we had to painstakingly draw volume lines through every drawing we did.
I think you're right; understanding drawing in a geometrical way is the way to go.
Post a Comment