EPT
Zoe Saldana Portrait
| Blogs > Glider |
|
Glider
United States1353 Posts
| ||
|
xaoteca
Czech Republic34 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On January 16 2014 11:09 Plansix wrote: Just years of practice and patience. Nah there was definitely witch craft involved | ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
| ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On January 16 2014 11:09 Plansix wrote: Just years of practice and patience. You have to have some kind of skill with drawing in order to draw like that. For example i could never practice into drawing like that. I just don't have the necessary talent for it. But for music it's the opposite for me. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
On January 16 2014 11:09 Plansix wrote: Just years of practice and patience. oh ok lol? | ||
|
killy666
France204 Posts
| ||
|
Kon-Tiki
United States402 Posts
| ||
Empyrean
17082 Posts
| ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Staboteur
Canada1873 Posts
On January 16 2014 21:56 Aelfric wrote: You have to have some kind of skill with drawing in order to draw like that. For example i could never practice into drawing like that. I just don't have the necessary talent for it. But for music it's the opposite for me. That's actually a myth, and I'm not just saying that. It's like a taxi driver's knowledge of a city inside and out, or a coder's understanding of how to arrange functions and variables in a way that makes sense to them. It's an impressive feat, but they are all learnable skills. For drawing, on a mechanical level, you only need fairly basic hand-eye coordination. Contained example for those who think I'm full of shit: + Show Spoiler + I'm not a natural talent. You can't look at my 8-year-old pictures and see potential. I wasn't a kid that had a sketchbook throughout my entire teen years - in fact, throughout all of high school I filled up maybe two sketchbooks, and compiled entirely one of that would be writing. Here's an image I made around the end of, or just after high school. ![[image loading]](http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/SaboteurGreg/Face.jpg) And here's some drawings after 9 months of rigorous formal art education: ![[image loading]](http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/SaboteurGreg/Torso_001.png) (Muscle study, no direct reference) ![[image loading]](http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/SaboteurGreg/Lifedrawing_30min_002.png) (lifedrawing, 30 minutes) ![[image loading]](http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y73/SaboteurGreg/ValueStudy_002.png) (face/value study, direct reference) To seal the deal : I'd estimate I've got at most 1,000 hours actually drawing, and probably need another dedicated 1,000 hours JUST on portraits to get to Glider levels, nevermind his command of different mediums as well. Glider, if you read this - How many hours do you estimate you've spent drawing in your life? ...but to reach Glider-levels of skill, you need thousands of hours of practice, which points to the most important part of learning how to do anything -> Passion. | ||
|
EonuS
Slovenia186 Posts
On January 16 2014 21:56 Aelfric wrote: You have to have some kind of skill with drawing in order to draw like that. For example i could never practice into drawing like that. I just don't have the necessary talent for it. But for music it's the opposite for me. no it takes a lot of time to train your eye hand coordination to achieve that point, but it's certainly possible to start from zero. it does not require any special talent if you treat it as a math-like problem solving process. Hell, two years ago all I knew was how to do a 2d house now I'm pretty much aware of every single muscle of the human body and developed a good sense to record what I see accurately. It's 98% in looking at the right things, 2% actually putting down strokes | ||
|
Nightwishone
Italy391 Posts
Being a writer myself, I find your works very inspiring. I love your Elle Fanning and Chloe Moretz portraits too! | ||
|
Glider
United States1353 Posts
As for the whole inherent talent vs practice thing that always comes up, I can only say based on my current limited understanding/observation/experience that... as is the case with almost everything, there is no fine line and it's all a mixture of grey (or perhaps a color-wheel). On the extreme end one person can hold the belief that it's 100% talent and practice means nothing, on the other end It's all practice and anyone can accomplish any result (which makes great hallmark cards but we can also see It's most likely not to be the case)... So most people are not on the extreme ends, great, but then you can further argue on what percent of mixture it is between talent and effort and the importance in the role they play in achieving mastery or a particular result. Of course then what you try to achieve / the nature of mastery comes into play as well, which is itself in a grey area. Making a crazy 1 million block domino, it's easy to agree that most people, through sheer effort (a lot of effort!), can do it. Compose a symphony at age 7, perhaps leans at the other end of shade... With portrait drawing, this mastery itself has no clear objective definition. (do you consider it goal accomplished when you draw someone that kinda looks like that person, or an art so piercing that it captures the dreary soul behind the subject like rambrant does) Despite all this, often person A says "Oh ye I agree it's a mixture, but I say it's not about inherent ability, sure every little bit of it help, maybe about 10%, but rest of the result is from effort, and then you too can accomplish the goal", and then Person B says " no no, definitely needs at least 50-50, I can't achieve that particular result if I barely have any talent toward it no matter how hard I try." Who is right, who is wrong? Person C enters the argument with his own vague percentage value, maybe backed by his own experience...all are just lines in the sand, drawn by the mind, influenced by too many other factors not considered. This is why I don't like to talk/argue too much on this sort of thing, everyone is so different in some ways, and so similar in other ways, the more you try to make a statement that applies to everyone, the more general / vague it needs to be. But to end it on a positive note, I will say something that I believe is true. No matter what you think your talent (or lack of) is for what you are trying to accomplish, with effort, you can surpass what you believe yourself is capable of. You may or may not be able to draw like Rembrandt, you can certainly surprise yourself with what you can do with practice, and that should be the most valuable yard stick for us to measure against and strive toward: our own potential, in the direction of our passion. | ||
|
dmnum
Brazil6910 Posts
Also, even if I'm wrong and talent exists, what's the point of letting something you can't do anything about stop you from doing what you want to? | ||
|
Staboteur
Canada1873 Posts
 @dmnum I don't think there's any argument that talent / inherent proficiencies don't exist. If you got a group of one hundred toddlers to perform a task that they've never performed before, there will invariably be a spread between not only the quality of the completed task, but the speed in which they've completed it. Part of that can be explained through upbringing / medium they've been exposed to etc, but part of it will be yet inexplicable, and I feel pretty safe calling that "talent". Also, savants are outstanding examples of raw talent! We're not all wired the same, naturally some of us will be better at certain things than others. | ||
|
LOcDowN
United States1015 Posts
On January 18 2014 04:35 Glider wrote: Thanks guys for the kind words. Although I never kept track of the number of hours I've spent drawing (basically I draw whenever I feel like it, some days none, some days a lot so it's hard to even approximate) - through the years I'm sure the numbers adds up. As for the whole inherent talent vs practice thing that always comes up, I can only say based on my current limited understanding/observation/experience that... as is the case with almost everything, there is no fine line and it's all a mixture of grey (or perhaps a color-wheel). On the extreme end one person can hold the belief that it's 100% talent and practice means nothing, on the other end It's all practice and anyone can accomplish any result (which makes great hallmark cards but we can also see It's most likely not to be the case)... So most people are not on the extreme ends, great, but then you can further argue on what percent of mixture it is between talent and effort and the importance in the role they play in achieving mastery or a particular result. Of course then what you try to achieve / the nature of mastery comes into play as well, which is itself in a grey area. Making a crazy 1 million block domino, it's easy to agree that most people, through sheer effort (a lot of effort!), can do it. Compose a symphony at age 7, perhaps leans at the other end of shade... With portrait drawing, this mastery itself has no clear objective definition. (do you consider it goal accomplished when you draw someone that kinda looks like that person, or an art so piercing that it captures the dreary soul behind the subject like rambrant does) Despite all this, often person A says "Oh ye I agree it's a mixture, but I say it's not about inherent ability, sure every little bit of it help, maybe about 10%, but rest of the result is from effort, and then you too can accomplish the goal", and then Person B says " no no, definitely needs at least 50-50, I can't achieve that particular result if I barely have any talent toward it no matter how hard I try." Who is right, who is wrong? Person C enters the argument with his own vague percentage value, maybe backed by his own experience...all are just lines in the sand, drawn by the mind, influenced by too many other factors not considered. This is why I don't like to talk/argue too much on this sort of thing, everyone is so different in some ways, and so similar in other ways, the more you try to make a statement that applies to everyone, the more general / vague it needs to be. But to end it on a positive note, I will say something that I believe is true. No matter what you think your talent (or lack of) is for what you are trying to accomplish, with effort, you can surpass what you believe yourself is capable of. You may or may not be able to draw like Rembrandt, you can certainly surprise yourself with what you can do with practice, and that should be the most valuable yard stick for us to measure against and strive toward: our own potential, in the direction of our passion. That was beautiful. | ||
|
snively
United States1159 Posts
On January 18 2014 04:35 Glider wrote: Thanks guys for the kind words. Although I never kept track of the number of hours I've spent drawing (basically I draw whenever I feel like it, some days none, some days a lot so it's hard to even approximate) - through the years I'm sure the numbers adds up. As for the whole inherent talent vs practice thing that always comes up, I can only say based on my current limited understanding/observation/experience that... as is the case with almost everything, there is no fine line and it's all a mixture of grey (or perhaps a color-wheel). On the extreme end one person can hold the belief that it's 100% talent and practice means nothing, on the other end It's all practice and anyone can accomplish any result (which makes great hallmark cards but we can also see It's most likely not to be the case)... So most people are not on the extreme ends, great, but then you can further argue on what percent of mixture it is between talent and effort and the importance in the role they play in achieving mastery or a particular result. Of course then what you try to achieve / the nature of mastery comes into play as well, which is itself in a grey area. Making a crazy 1 million block domino, it's easy to agree that most people, through sheer effort (a lot of effort!), can do it. Compose a symphony at age 7, perhaps leans at the other end of shade... With portrait drawing, this mastery itself has no clear objective definition. (do you consider it goal accomplished when you draw someone that kinda looks like that person, or an art so piercing that it captures the dreary soul behind the subject like rambrant does) Despite all this, often person A says "Oh ye I agree it's a mixture, but I say it's not about inherent ability, sure every little bit of it help, maybe about 10%, but rest of the result is from effort, and then you too can accomplish the goal", and then Person B says " no no, definitely needs at least 50-50, I can't achieve that particular result if I barely have any talent toward it no matter how hard I try." Who is right, who is wrong? Person C enters the argument with his own vague percentage value, maybe backed by his own experience...all are just lines in the sand, drawn by the mind, influenced by too many other factors not considered. This is why I don't like to talk/argue too much on this sort of thing, everyone is so different in some ways, and so similar in other ways, the more you try to make a statement that applies to everyone, the more general / vague it needs to be. But to end it on a positive note, I will say something that I believe is true. No matter what you think your talent (or lack of) is for what you are trying to accomplish, with effort, you can surpass what you believe yourself is capable of. You may or may not be able to draw like Rembrandt, you can certainly surprise yourself with what you can do with practice, and that should be the most valuable yard stick for us to measure against and strive toward: our own potential, in the direction of our passion. youre not only an amazing artist youre a poet  | ||
|
Sporadic44
United States533 Posts
| ||
| ||
