Kaj_Sotala comments on Drawing Less Wrong: Technical Skill - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Raemon 05 December 2011 05:12AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (36)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 25 June 2014 01:24:38PM 0 points [-]

Example A just imitates the superficial characteristics of a particular style

This implies that there are deep characteristics of that style which example A is missing. What are they?

Comment author: Nornagest 26 June 2014 10:21:51PM *  3 points [-]

This is hard to explain, but I might be able to approximate it. Our brains tend to decompose objects we see into salient features: in Example A, consider muscles, clothing, and hair. Naive artists often try to reproduce those features without giving enough thought to the underlying volume or dynamics, which leads to errors in anatomy, proportion, and shading, and severely limits poses, representations of action, and interactions between objects in the field. That all adds up to a flat, disconnected look in the finished product: think Trogdor the Burninator.

In this case there's more going on, too: the artist isn't trying to draw from life but rather to draw in a certain style (pretty clearly that of Akira Toriyama). That adds another abstraction layer: the artist is drawing a representation of another artist's visual vocabulary, without any apparent understanding of how that style works to represent objects. Doing so tends to compound all the errors above, and also carries the stigma of being common among pubescent fanchildren.

Example B is a messier piece of work than Example A and was almost certainly drawn more quickly, but it directly attacks volume, pose, and weight distribution, and doesn't try to translate through an affected style. Although it subjectively might look less appealing, that grounding allows it to be foundational to work that's much better by almost any standards, and therefore I'd be much more impressed if I saw it in someone's sketchbook.

(Source: am not a professional-quality artist, but am good enough to occasionally fool people into thinking I'm talented.)

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 26 June 2014 10:30:00PM 0 points [-]

Thanks, that's useful.

Comment author: Raemon 26 June 2014 09:49:08PM 1 point [-]

I thought this was clear but a few people have been confused. I don't think I can explain it better than the followup paragraph already tried though:

"But the figures there communicate a good understanding of anatomy, a grasp of weight, decent composition. You can see from the third example, where the body turns and the shoulders overlap, that they're drawing what they see. You can tell that one foot is pointing towards the audience and the other is pointed to the right, even though both feet are a buzzy blob of lines."

Example A is floating in the air, not showing any realistic weight to how a body would fall, and each limb is sort of presented "flatly", instead of foreshortened.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 26 June 2014 10:28:52PM 0 points [-]

Oh, okay. Your original wording just seemed to imply that there was some deeper skill involved with drawing pictures like example A, which was specific to that style and independent from the stuff in the paragraph that you just quoted.

Part of the confusion came from the fact that I interpret the style of example A as being one that doesn't even try to look realistic, so a paragraph explaining the greater realism of example B came off as unrelated.