When is the right time to move on?

[-RUSALKA-]

Hello fellow aspiring people!

I've been a lurker for some time and - very sporadically - have tried to improve during this outstretched time. Just now, I've decided to give my attempts a more lush and continuous approach. A bit more devoted one. Because I've always drawn something, the process of me understanding rendition on a surface of choice somehow came to be lopsided and not entirely logical. I knew shifts of light and color before perspective. I felt form before I knew how the form was supposed to move in a spatial plane.
After reading so much about all your progress and seeing the actual flow of improvement with my own eyes I started to feel that something's out of order.
I stared with perspectives.
Even art needs logic and structure; it's inevitable to become better and understand oneself. I sense I have no logic in my drawings, so I started with perspectives, even though I more or less orient myself in this highly linear world.

Now I'm very confused. I've drawn loads and loads of simple boxes and rectangles and circles and a bit more organic shapes, but I can't stop. I simply never know when to move on. How do I know it's "done"? I don't know this because a logical and systematic approach to learning isn't a natural trait of mine. For the sake of improving my drawings, I've taken to this thinking and the plan of sticking with the correct order of things.

I'm not asking for a tutorial on perspectives; I've found great sites and books on this subject (among them Loomis, which is a simplified heavenly sweet fluffy relief from the too-logical, cluttered grids where my brain digests next to nothing sensible).
What I'm asking for is small stories and recollections of how you knew you practiced perspectives right, when you felt it was time to move on to anatomy, and your general feelings and approach on this very complicated subject.

[dpaint]

You move on when you have nothing more to learn about it. You come back to it when new endeavors show a hole in your learning. Its an endless process of study with peaks and valleys.

[themegagod]

I'm a student myself, so I can't speak from a professional view, but I'd say you are done when you are no longer progressing with that idea. once you under stand boxes and cylinders, work to more complex shapes. once you can do anamorphic shapes, move up to organic, and so on.

set up a goal; what do you want to eventually draw, and why?
once you've answered that, make a chart which shows how you need to progress in order to draw that subject the best way possible. then follow the steps you need.

Evolve, because quite frankly, you will never know everything, but if you stay on one subject until you've mastered it, you may never get anywhere.

[Symson]

I never confined myself to to learning one thing at a time and considering I was done. I'm always in a state of constantly improving and learning.

Once I incorporate what I've learned so it's second nature and I'm not consciuosly trying to remember it, then I try to up my game.

[JFierce]

Well first you ask yourself if you've mastered the content. If you can draw boxes and such, how about in different radical perspectives? Can you picture what a series of boxes would look like if you the viewer was staring down at them, or what about diagonally up. etc


Either way it's not like you have to be bound to a specific topic to study. I've done a bunch of squares one second then foot studies the next and back to shapes. Why does it have to be purely sequential as long as your actually understanding and taking something out of the studies.

[Charlie D]

Once you understand covergence, foreshortening, major/minor axis you probably need to get drawing

Little exercises like: Draw a simple mech leg in two point perspective then mirror towards right VP, so you have two legs on one side, then mirror these two legs to the otherside.

Once you master this excercise, maybe make mech leg more complicated, and repeat above. Then change viewing angle and repeat.


This is vehicle specific, however, it applies to everything i think.

http://conceptart.org/forums/showthr...t-Robertson%29




PS. Images help ppl to point you in right direction.

[-RUSALKA-]

Good morning! It makes me happy to see such quick replies, and it gives me a lot of motivation. All of your answers present something I've missed to think about, ant the tip with the mecha leg will be done and presented once I collect everything I've practiced on an started a proper sketchbook here on Conceptart.

[QueenGwenevere]

Why in the world are you approaching your studies in such a linear way - first perspective, then anatomy, etc.? You can study ALL aspects of art simultaneously, you don't need to "master" one aspect before moving on to another. In fact, it makes more sense to study many different aspects of art at once, as they tend to overlap and reinforce each other.

There's no reason you can't be studying perspective and anatomy at the same time. Especially since perspective can be (and should be) applied to drawing people (and everything else.)

Anyway, don't worry too much about "mastering" anything before trying anything else. You'll soon find out if you need to learn more about any subject by trying to apply it to general image-making. Instead of obsessing over exercises all the time, try making complete finished images periodically, even if you don't think you're "ready" - this will help you identify which areas you're currently struggling with, and what you still need to learn. And learning never really stops. Over time, you'll keep coming back to the same subjects again and again as you gain more experience and encounter new problems and continually reassess where your current strengths and weaknesses are.

I mean, goodness knows a lot of pros don't know absolutely everything there is to know about perspective... It's a VAST subject, you could keep studying it for years and years...

[Charlie D]

Perspective is so vast it is explained in a few images and a couple of pages of text in books by Ernest Norling, Josep D'Amelio and in a few minutes in a Scott Robertdson video.

As for the pro's, well, all i can say is, all the images i have seen by them, they understand this simple thing called perspective.

[QueenGwenevere]

Perspective is so vast it is explained in a few images and a couple of pages of text in books by Ernest Norling, Josep D'Amelio and in a few minutes in a Scott Robertdson video.

As for the pro's, well, all i can say is, all the images i have seen by them, they understand this simple thing called perspective.

Go here, read everything, report back when you've mastered all of it.

Sure, it's simple enough to master the basic everyday working perspective that suffices most of the time, but sooner or later you run into fun stuff like curvilinear perspective, Escher-esque distortions, and constructing views from a plan. Oh, and spiral staircases. Those still baffle me.

[Charlie D]

Do not ned to go there QG. Ernest, Joseph and Scott have already explained convergence,foreshortening, minor,major axis.

[QueenGwenevere]

Okey dokey. If you think you've learned everything there is to know about perspective by reading "a couple of pages" in a couple of books and watching a few minutes of video, let's see the evidence. Draw me a spiral staircase in curvilinear perspective; a spherical cityscape including onion domes, arches, bridges, and spiral ramps; and a cathedral constructed entirely from a floorplan, with accurate measurements.

Have fun.

[Charlie D]

Sorry QG, but those who want stuff for free, like an art test can go take a running jump imho.

No offence meant to you.

[themegagod]

Sorry QG, but those who want stuff for free, like an art test can go take a running jump imho.

No offence meant to you.

Wow, charile, down boy.

Lol. I've started reading the handprint on perspective information, and it gets into the ways atmosphere, your eyes, texture, all of that, effects perspective. With a solid understanding of those concepts A person's artwork can really progress.
I know you mean no offense to anyone, and neither do I- it just seems as though your view on perspective is just a bit arrogant.

I don't think QG was asking for anything for free, but rather saying if you understand all aspects of perspective, since "Ernest, Joseph and Scott have already explained convergence,foreshortening, minor,major axis," it should be showing in all of your work.
Perspective is one of your strongest areas from looking at your sketchbook, but it troubles me that you see it as something "simple". I'm pretty sure most "pros" had to spend many years studying perspective, and I don't think they ever approached it with the view of it being easy, simple, or the like. It may get easier to do what previously was hard, but you should always be growing, so your views and concepts should be pushing you into the next challenge.

there's always more to learn IMHO. but perhaps ignorance for some is bliss.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying, but it would seem to me you were saying that perspective for pros is simple, and that you don't need to look at the information seen in handprint.com, because a few pages and videos have made it that you don't have anything left to learn on the subject.

[Charlie D]

Sorry not meant to be arrogant, just trying to get across (but poorly) that making pictures is not difficult or as complicated as some seem to make out.

To become good at it, can take many hours of observational drawing and painting though and this what seperates the Pro from the rest.

Greg Manchess however, seems to suggest that tracing being used can be used speed up the learning

[Charlie D]

Some also use 3d in the workflow too.

As Feng Zhu states no one cares how it's made

[creeptool]

Go here, read everything, report back when you've mastered all of it.

Sure, it's simple enough to master the basic everyday working perspective that suffices most of the time, but sooner or later you run into fun stuff like curvilinear perspective, Escher-esque distortions, and constructing views from a plan. Oh, and spiral staircases. Those still baffle me.

thats a lot of info to study...what do you think is the average learning curve for all that perspective study.

[Elwell]

Gwen, FYI: http://conceptart.org/forums/showthr...earning-to-see

[QueenGwenevere]

Sorry QG, but those who want stuff for free, like an art test can go take a running jump imho.

What.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you're gonna talk the talk, you'd better be prepared to walk the walk. You seem to claim that you know everything you'll ever need to know about perspective already from minimal study. The proof is in the pudding. Looking at your SB, I ain't seeing it yet. If you REALLY understand everything there is to understand about perspective (or anything else,) then you should be able to apply it. If you can't apply it yet, you still have more to learn.

I think making pictures is way more complex than you think it is. I've been doing this for a while, and the one thing I've learned is that no matter how much I think I know, there's ALWAYS more to learn. Paradoxically, the more you know, the more you realize you how much you don't know. The fact that you seem to be dismissing further learning after reaching a certain point is, as themegagod says... troubling.

[Charlie D]

It's not complex QG, digital tech has seen to that i think

[QueenGwenevere]

It's not complex QG, digital tech has seen to that i think

Oh boy. You DO have a lot to learn.

Have fun with that...

[Charlie D]

I do have fun with digital tech QG. No point using it usless you have fun imho

Anyway, i've spent enough time chatting. Off to play with some custom shapes to create an image (picture)

Catch ya'll later

[themegagod]

thats a lot of info to study...what do you think is the average learning curve for all that perspective study.

I'm not sure on what you're asking here....

My guess would be a basic bell, or parabola? Some people not being able to grasp much on it, most people falling into an average area (like 1-3 point perspective), and then some rare exceptions truly taking off in perspective (escher, and 5 point)?

I imagine learning anything above the rest gives you an advantage...
If you are asking the amount of time it takes to learn all of that... well, I guess that depends on the person, and how much time they will devote to that area of expertise.

But I don't know if learning curve is the phrase you want to use there.

learning curve
n.
A graph that depicts rate of learning, especially a graph of progress in the mastery of a skill against the time required for such mastery.

Like with everything, It will take time, and learning gets slower as you progress further (you learn the most when you first begin to approach a situation) but your learning becomes much more complex as it slows. For example in a video game, you learn first how the character moves, the level style, the game play type, the basic story, you learn all of this in about the first 10 minutes- an hour. as the game progresses you learn more combos, and strategies, and the story begins to unfurl, but the new information comes at a slower, yet more complex rate. maybe it's a 12 button combo, or you now control an army- or simply you begin to recognize complex patterns in the shapes of tetris blocks.
this is what I think of when I think learning curve, but perhaps I'm wrong.

IF that is what you mean, I think learning perspective just depends on the person.
to learn all of what QG was referring to, I'd say it would take a good 3-5 years of study, and possibly you could get basic with a year of intense study. In order to master it though? 5-10 years with a perspective focus?
I'm just guessing, but it sounds good.

But is there really any average time to "learn" something in art? I guess one could argue can you ever really learn anything?

[Black Spot]

Way to derail a thread Charlie D.