|
Post by June Scarlet on Jan 11, 2017 14:37:16 GMT -5
Completely unrelated o/ Out of yellow green, blue to cyan, and purple, which color would you say is warmest/has the most heat? The guidelines I'm using say whichever is closer to red or green depending where you are on the spectrum...Purple has red in it but yellow green has green in it... Thoughts? Purple. This might just be me and my opinion, but yellow is an extremely limited color. It only takes a nudge of red to make it orange, and a nudge of blue to make it green. Whereas blue is a vast color with a lot of range. So with yellow being so limited, if it's yellow green, then I think it's green and cool. Whereas Purple is much more likely to be warm. That said, it's possible that with a very yellowy green vs. a very blueish purple, the yellow green would indeed be warmer. But generally, I think purple is the warmest of the cool colors.
|
|
|
Post by Mostly Harmless (flufflepuff) on Jan 11, 2017 17:37:33 GMT -5
June Scarlet you are a freaking genius. When you put it that way it seems so simple!
I noticed how volatile yellow is when it comes to changing it but it never really came to the forefront of my mind before....OvO
|
|
|
Post by Zoey on Jan 12, 2017 1:32:51 GMT -5
Completely unrelated o/ Out of yellow green, blue to cyan, and purple, which color would you say is warmest/has the most heat? The guidelines I'm using say whichever is closer to red or green depending where you are on the spectrum...Purple has red in it but yellow green has green in it... Thoughts? This gives me the giggles, because I actually remember frustratingly researching this when I was trying to pick watercolor paint tubes to buy. This sort of stuff you might already know, but I was just so boggled by it: So you have your three primaries: red, yellow, blue. Then, apparently, you can have cool AND warm versions of each primary: cool red, warm red, cool yellow, warm yellow, cool blue, warm blue. But then, I read this: reds that pull more blue are considered more cool, and yellows that pull more green/blue are also considered cool, but then you have blues themselves that can also be warm or cool. Anyway, in regards to the question, I think it entirely depends on what the actual color looks like. If the yellow-green is more yellow than green, it'd probably be considered a cool yellow (a "warm" yellow is more orange-y). If it's more green than yellow, then it's like a nice light grass green, which is warm. For blues, if it pulls more green, then it's considered "warm" (like Prussian blue, if you've ever seen that color), and if it's more... well, purple, I guess, it's considered "cool". And purples, too, are warm and cool depending on its constituents. If it's more red, then I'd say it's a "warm" purple; if it's more blue, then that'd be a "cool" purple? And then you have colors that are dead middle of the road (ex. a purple that's equal parts red and blue), in which case I wouldn't try to put a label on it and just let it be. LOL! But to be really honest, I feel like color theory changes depending on which person you're asking. For instance, June says that yellow-green is more warm. Some other people I've read color theory from have cool and warm blues completely switched. It's a mess and I just want to paint, man. XD
|
|
|
Post by June Scarlet on Jan 12, 2017 21:50:22 GMT -5
You know, Drawing Teachers are always saying, "Draw what you see." But have you looked at stuff? Like, really really looked at it? You probably have, so you know things are filled with innumerable details. Fabric is filled with threads if you look closely, woven together. Trees are filled with leaves, and each leaf is filled with detail, veins branching into ever smaller veins.
When I look, I see everything. And the world is filled with an overwhelming amount of detail. How are you supposed to draw all that?
Quite simply, you can't. Or I can't. And why would you? That's what photography is for.
No, I think the advice they needed to give, or at least the advice I needed to hear was, "Interpret what you see."
You don't have to draw every leaf on every branch. You don't have to painstakingly draw each blade of grass. You don't have to draw every grain in a plank of wood. Not because it isn't there, not because you don't have the ability to take a month to draw it.
But because figuring out what to omit, how to express the idea of the object without putting every detail in, knowing how to simplify what you see, that is how you find your style.
|
|
|
Post by Ginz ❤ on Jan 12, 2017 23:03:11 GMT -5
I really like the perspective you took on that phrase, June Scarlet ! I think “Interpret what you see” is awesome advice, and definitely how you find your style! I got the “Draw what you see“ advice from art teachers too, and it was actually helpful to me, but I think the way I was given it made me think of it in a very different way, so I'd like to share that. So, whether we realize it or not, we all have these preconceived notions of what things should look like… but if we actually look at these things, do they really match up to our ideas of them? How many times do we go on ‘autocomplete’ and draw things the way we think they should look rather than the way they actually are? To me, “draw what you see” is actually meant to be taken the other way around… not to look so closely that you get caught up in all the details, but instead to take a step back and find the actual shapes that make everything up. I had an art teacher who told us to try not to ‘name’ what we were drawing in our head. So as an example, instead of thinking “I’m drawing a hand”, to think in terms of “okay, this shape curves out slightly”, “this line extends at this angle", “there’s this amount of negative space between this shape and the other”, etc… Looking at things this way really helps you draw what you see, rather than what you think you’re seeing. It helps because you’re not caught up in making it look “like a hand”, you’re actually focusing on drawing exactly what you see. And by the time you’re done, you’ll be surprised at how much more it’ll actually look like a hand, even if it didn’t seem like it would while you were drawing it. Of course, this advice is mostly meant for when you’re doing studies and you’re drawing from life or at least from reference, because you need to be able to have that reference to deconstruct… but I find that it can be immensely helpful when you feel like you’re struggling to make something look “right.” I feel like interpreting what you see would definitely be the next step, though!
|
|
|
Post by Zoey on Jan 13, 2017 0:19:52 GMT -5
You know, Drawing Teachers are always saying, "Draw what you see." But have you looked at stuff? Like, really really looked at it? You probably have, so you know things are filled with innumerable details. Fabric is filled with threads if you look closely, woven together. Trees are filled with leaves, and each leaf is filled with detail, veins branching into ever smaller veins. When I look, I see everything. And the world is filled with an overwhelming amount of detail. How are you supposed to draw all that? Quite simply, you can't. Or I can't. And why would you? That's what photography is for. No, I think the advice they needed to give, or at least the advice I needed to hear was, "Interpret what you see." You don't have to draw every leaf on every branch. You don't have to painstakingly draw each blade of grass. You don't have to draw every grain in a plank of wood. Not because it isn't there, not because you don't have the ability to take a month to draw it. But because figuring out what to omit, how to express the idea of the object without putting every detail in, knowing how to simplify what you see, that is how you find your style. Yup! To be honest, I've always loved realism, but like... if it's just a picture-perfect replication of what's in front of you, then that's kind of redundant, since, as you've said, we have photographs that do that for us in 0.000005 seconds (or whatever is the ridiculous snap speed now). And some might argue that photographs completely render art useless, but I beg to differ--photographs actually helped advance art, since now we don't have to worry about standing outside in variant weather with the lighting constantly changing to make our art. On the other hand, I do think that, for my style, I prefer to try to emulate reality, and then pull back and add in my own interpretations when I'm more comfortable with the subject. Life drawing, in my completely not-professional opinion, is still the best way to learn how things in the world works, and then after you've got a decent grasp of it, it's easier to distort and interpret as you wish. But it's not -fun- for artists that just want to do, say, cartoon animation or digital illustration to have to draw from life before they get to the fun stuff, and even I avoided life drawing like the plague when I was younger, too. And I think that's okay; you need inspiration to do art, and if real life doesn't inspire you, then don't make yourself do it. But on the other hand, as Ginz ❤ said, who's to say that you -can't- put your own spin on life drawing, too? if you want to draw everything down to the last skin pore, go ahead. If you just want to get the overall idea, that's totally awesome, too. On the subject of hyperrealism, it's super impressive. I mean, people who can take colored pencils, graphite, or pastels and basically recreate an entire photograph from scratch, and you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference. But that takes so long, and at the end of the day it's more a show of technical skill than expressing yourself through art. But I think what you just described, June, is the entire idea behind impressionism. XD Which, along with old Dutch artists and American naturalists, is one of my favorite types of "old" art. But I agree, there's too many details in the real world, and even our brain doesn't process it all at once. I especially love artists that use their own vibrant colors to interpret nature and declutter the backgrounds to bring out a few choice things in the foreground that they thought were worth noting. I think it's these kinds of interpretations nowadays that separate traditional art from photography. But bottom line, though: art has no hard rules. You do what you like, and if you like what you see, then that's all that matters. =) (unless you're trying to make money from your art, in which case you might have to cater to someone else's tastes XD)
|
|
|
Post by Twillie on Jan 13, 2017 1:44:20 GMT -5
Whaaaaat, who's been saying that, I'll fight them =o Photography is basically a branch of art all its own, with professional photographers selling and getting into galleries for decades. And agreed that photography also functions as another art tool. Not only can you get more dependable references from it, but you can use the zoom function to see better detail from a distance. On the main subject, not sure I have much else to add as I agree with most of what everyone else has said x3 I'm not one to fall back on realism in my free time, but I still think that observation drawing is a good skill to have, and it's something that I try to practice every once in a while. Going off of Ginz ❤'s hand example, by observing real life, you learn not just the fine details, but the basic shapes that compose every day objects. My natural style is cartoonish, but where do I turn when I want to improve my hands? I look to real photos, my own hand, anything I can find in real life. From these references, I can understand not just how the hand looks, but how it moves and positions itself, and from there I can put my own spin on it to incorporate it into my art. I feel like observation drawings help a lot with the technical side of art, and practicing them helps make you a smarter artist in knowing how objects interact with their environment and with themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Twillie on Jan 14, 2017 1:14:11 GMT -5
Is Deviantart an impossible code to crack when it comes to attracting attention, or am I just really bad at it? X) I think I've gained more followers on Tumblr in the past month than I have on my DA in over three years (discounting inactive accounts or friends that followed me just for the sake of it). I'm really wondering if it's just a sea of art I'm fighting against, or if I actually need to step up my game with consistency or whatever (plus if it's worth doing so in the first place).
|
|
|
Post by Moni on Jan 14, 2017 2:05:02 GMT -5
It's true that photography changed the course of at least Western Art. For a very long time, the highest standard in art was to recreate life as it was, but since photography took that place, visual artists had freedom to expand and be more... hmm... creative in how they rendered and composed things. TwillieDeviantart has a lot of people. A lot of people, and unless your art is really pro-level good or happens to hit on a fandom or trend that's really popular at the time, it's not going to be very social media-y aside from whoever you make friends with.
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Jan 14, 2017 3:25:00 GMT -5
Is Deviantart an impossible code to crack when it comes to attracting attention, or am I just really bad at it? X) I think I've gained more followers on Tumblr in the past month than I have on my DA in over three years (discounting inactive accounts or friends that followed me just for the sake of it). I'm really wondering if it's just a sea of art I'm fighting against, or if I actually need to step up my game with consistency or whatever (plus if it's worth doing so in the first place). DA is funny, because you can get completely lost in the shuffle even with totally killer art. I'll occasionally see super amazing people with almost no views, because DA is more about exposure time. Just being online increases your views a bit, because you appear in the online widget which people can find you through, same with just being in a chat room. What really got me views was sitting in the portfolio chat (the name escapes me but the chat where people can come and dump their last 5 works to be viewed) and just saying what I liked (directly @ the poster) about anything I liked. Also going through categories that I enjoyed like sculpture and mini painting and commenting whenever I saw something cool and had something of note to say about it. That all got me way more views/comments/follows than just posting art, even if I tagged it very well. The other thing that improved art exposure was joining a relevant, large group and posting to it. The problem with all this is that it is very time consuming and the improved attention stops shortly after you do. As I'm not a pro and I have nothing to sell, it's not worth the work (though I'll still go on commenting sprees because I like to). Maybe in the future it will be.
|
|
|
Post by Rabbit ♠ on Jan 14, 2017 13:44:49 GMT -5
This is probably the farthest I've gotten away from my art style and probably the farthest I'll get for a while. I don't know how I did it, but I don't care. I'm proud of myself. :'D
|
|
|
Post by Zoey on Jan 14, 2017 14:15:40 GMT -5
Is Deviantart an impossible code to crack when it comes to attracting attention, or am I just really bad at it? X) I think I've gained more followers on Tumblr in the past month than I have on my DA in over three years (discounting inactive accounts or friends that followed me just for the sake of it). I'm really wondering if it's just a sea of art I'm fighting against, or if I actually need to step up my game with consistency or whatever (plus if it's worth doing so in the first place). Just gotta be in groups, message people, make friends, etc. I personally just use Deviantart as a way to store my more finished works (and interesting doodles in the scraps), and anything beyond that is just bonus. XD The forums are sometimes interesting to read and discuss in, too. I also find that people on Deviantart expect more high-quality finished work, while the fans on tumblr are equally as excited about simple sketches as they are about finished stuff. If you do a lot of fanart and want to contribute it to a fandom, tumblr is definitely your calling. People who scroll through the tags will reblog anything and everything related to their beloved fandoms. On Deviantart, even if you are doing fanart, people generally won't notice it unless a) your profile is already popular, or b) it's ridiculously high-quality (I should clarify that by "high-quality" I mean a really rendered/painty digital art piece that may or may not have anime inspirations, which seems to be the aesthetic of most digital art sharing sites nowadays; not high-quality in the more traditional sense in that the art took a lot of skill and thought XD) and sparkles like a unicorn and a few people will actually take notice. On the other hand, tumblr won't really build you an artistic reputation unless you become one of the "big fanartists" in a fandom. Sure, your doodles and artwork might garner way more likes and followers than on deviantart, but I think tumblr was designed to be a rapid sharing site in the first place, so people will like, reblog, and follow much more easily than on deviantart, where people tend to be more selective. In both cases, though, being an artist on social media is a fair amount of work! It's all about that networking and taking the time to reach out to people. XD Although, for traditional artwork, I hear that Instagram is a pretty popular platform for it now.
|
|
|
Post by Twillie on Jan 14, 2017 16:54:36 GMT -5
From what's been said, that definitely makes sense with Deviantart x) I had a feeling that it was more about getting into groups and socializing rather than posting, but I wanted to make sure if others noticed similar things about the site, or if it was just me XD I'm not the best at social media anyway, so it's interesting hearing the nuances of each site. And funny you should mention Instagram, Zoey, because I have one of those as well. It's a little funny, though, because Instagram doesn't have an easy way of posting pictures via the computer (at least, not that I could see). So, while it's possible, they seem to encourage phone pictures much more x) Rabbit ♠ Ooh, what's this drawing for? I'm curious to see it now :3
|
|
|
Post by Zoey on Jan 14, 2017 17:07:35 GMT -5
I'm not the best at social media anyway, so it's interesting hearing the nuances of each site. And funny you should mention Instagram, Zoey , because I have one of those as well. It's a little funny, though, because Instagram doesn't have an easy way of posting pictures via the computer (at least, not that I could see). So, while it's possible, they seem to encourage phone pictures much more x) Yup! Exactly why traditional artists are starting to gain followings there Because we all know how badly traditional art scans/photographs, but the digital artists can't even upload their media at all unless they want to make a print and take a pic of it, so it's basically a goldmine for traditional artists. XD
|
|
|
Post by Twillie on Jan 14, 2017 17:11:57 GMT -5
Interesting x) Well, I can't say I do a lot of traditional art right now, I sort of go through phases, so not sure if that really helps me right now XD Although, I have an idea where I can save a digital art piece I posted elsewhere to my phone and then upload that to Instagram =o
|
|