cheap advice thread

i have noticed the importance many place on "photographic mimesis," ie, duplicating exactly an object. in this case it is a car.

to begin with, some people are "out-of-the-starting-gate" a racehorse going to glory and just drawing effortlessly, it seems, this photorealism thing. and that is all good.

some who cannot get-with-this-bandwagon of photographic mimesis are frustrated artists who may think they suck. this may be true in some cases, but, i strongly feel, in many cases, it is *not.*

inborn talent, skill, philosophies aside, i will interject this one piece of advice for all who are straight-jacketed by seemingly impossible goals to draw "exactly" what is manufactured by an automaker:

learn to *sketch*: do not bog down in show-and-tell wonderment -who cares. the tortise will beat the hare: sketch loosely, freely, badly, quickly, often, and with great fun. do it for years. make time to take walks or go on vacations and just see the world, sketch it. be loose, use bold strokes with your *entire arm* and see objects as only shapes without names. every object is only an assemblage of triangles, circles and squares, and all shapes in-between derived from those.

-shaves as close as a blade or your money back.

i think the reason i try to draw things exactly is becuase i started out just drawing portraits and other stuff like that. when you draw a person it has to be dead on or you can't tell who it is. i only started drawing cars around this winter or so. ive drawn them before but some of you guys can remember my car drawings looks a lot worst when i first discovered this forum.

i think that everyone has their own ways to draw kinda like everything else. yes, there are ways that will work for a lot of peole if not everyone but not everyone does everything the same. i think that it just takes time and practice to discover what works with you and your style. but you can't go and get into a drawing thinking that you've got to discover your style or you methods. that will just make it worse. just relax and draw. thats what helps me. :2cents:

tyler

here is a simple 2-point perspective lesson. it is freehanded and just done loosely, yet controlled:
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/500/55975two-point_1-med.jpg

i dont get it

lol...ill try and draw up one quick with a car and show you what he is talkin' about.

its about perspective and helps with ellipses. :biggrin:

here is an off-the-cuff conceptual sketch of a car to show how 2-point perspective works:
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/500/55975two-point_2-med.jpg

between the first sketch and this one, those who don't get it should begin to get it.

you basically choose two points on a horizon line, and project rays, like spokes on a wheel, outwards, towards the rays of the opposite point. you can construct simple cubes this way; within the cubes, you can lay elipses in there.

it is easier to just see it than explain it, so just look at the sketches. it is important to understand recession into space for any flat photograph to make sense. people who do not understand basic perspective constantly mess up elipses, and even the body of the car, as it recedes into the distance.

dang you bonz i just drew up one!!! oh well ill put it up any way. this isn't some cool concept car because i made is square so you could get the idea if you still didn't get it.

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6917/pers.jpg

it is good that you did one, as well. you got the box shapes cubes going on there very clearly. it should have preceded mine. your diagram is very helpful and clear. :)

Wow bonzelite thats a lovely advice. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

no prob, rb26dett-gtr. my pleasure.

thanks for the helpful advice bonzelite, but i have one question: how do you determine the exact degree of the ellipse for the wheels?(you know i've always had problems with those)

btw, castback: thanks for your drawing as well, but i hope its purpose is to show the 2 point perspective, not your talent in drawing cars lol.

your perspectiveis a little off there bonzelite, the rear is too big, I think? Still very good advie nonetheless, the big the I still am struggling with is using my whole arm and still have that "controlled" line quality.

I have pretty much given up on trying to be "perfect everytime out, sloppy gets the job done for me.

thanks for the helpful advice bonzelite, but i have one question: how do you determine the exact degree of the ellipse for the wheels?(you know i've always had problems with those)

btw, castback: thanks for your drawing as well, but i hope its purpose is to show the 2 point perspective, not your talent in drawing cars lol.

dude what are you talking about!!!! it is the new concept for the hummer 3 :rofl: or tha new scion or the new element :rofl:


oh and for the elipse problem..
see how my wheels are in a little box i drew...well alls i did was

1. draw the vertical lines for the side of both tires

2. decide on your front tire... where you would like the top of the tire to be.

3. make the line fron the top of that tire to your vanishing point.

4. on the back tire the line you just drew will be the top of your back tire.

5. now figure out where the middle of your rim is on your front tire.

6. mark it and draw a line from that point to the vanishing point.(i drew arrows and wrote "same line" pointing to what i am talking about)

7. now that line should go through the center of tha rim.

i hope this helps you guys. it was kinda hard to explain. just look at the drawing for a long time and you'll figure it out. :biggrin:

your perspectiveis a little off there bonzelite, the rear is too big, I think? Still very good advie nonetheless, the big the I still am struggling with is using my whole arm and still have that "controlled" line quality.

I have pretty much given up on trying to be "perfect everytime out, sloppy gets the job done for me.

yes, the rear is too tall; needs to be shaved down so the rear spoiler does not rise above the roof. or, you can 'accept' it the way it is, as it is a fantasy. the detail of the rear would be worked out if the drawing were to be taken farther, more seriously. the point of the sketch is to showcase a car in a projection of 2 points from a horizon.

thanks for the helpful advice bonzelite, but i have one question: how do you determine the exact degree of the ellipse for the wheels?(you know i've always had problems with those)

btw, castback: thanks for your drawing as well, but i hope its purpose is to show the 2 point perspective, not your talent in drawing cars lol.

you determine it by projecting lines, rays, from two points on a horizon to the foreground, like in the sketch, and building a box in proper perspective relative to the points and lines you project. see the first sketch: it is rough, but the principle is explained. it also takes intuitive skill.

"how do you determine the exact degree of the ellipse for the wheels?(you know i've always had problems with those)"

You might be missing the point of the post, the method to determine the "exact" dimensions of the ellipses takes a lot of time (it may even require a graphing calculator--to find foci, major & minor axis) why do that when you can use a rough perpective and be really really REALLY close.

To add it is all about efficiency, you want to be able to the foundation quickly, so you can get to the fun stuff. If you are spending 5-30 minutes on getting the perspective "exactly" right that is too long imo especially when you could rough it out and then tailor it so that is just about undiscernable.

Remember mistakes are ok, that why (most) pencils come with erasers.

"how do you determine the exact degree of the ellipse for the wheels?(you know i've always had problems with those)"

You might be missing the point of the post, the method to determine the "exact" dimensions of the ellipses takes a lot of time (it may even require a graphing calculator--to find foci, major & minor axis) why do that when you can use a rough perpective and be really really REALLY close.

To add it is all about efficiency, you want to be able to the foundation quickly, so you can get to the fun stuff. If you are spending 5-30 minutes on getting the perspective "exactly" right that is too long imo especially when you could rough it out and then tailor it so that is just about undiscernable.

Remember mistakes are ok, that why (most) pencils come with erasers.

:1:

yes. like he said: use intuition even when constructing perspective. apply the principles whilst remaining loose and free. do not kill it with technical details. do not lock yourself in prison. use the basic principles and just take off. elipses are just things that require time or templates!

i will often find mistakes in a drawing after i have "finished" it. most people will not know they are there. and if they do, then it typically doesn't matter as long as the whole piece is strong and convincing.

Good tips guys, thanks for sharing them with us:)

Cool. I learn't 2 point at school a while ago.

You should try 5 point LOL! (architects use that, which is what I want to be)

Well the advice is cheap, but the perspective tutorial is worth a million. :)


your perspectiveis a little off there bonzelite, the rear is too big, I think? Still very good advie nonetheless, the big the I still am struggling with is using my whole arm and still have that "controlled" line quality.

Well that is the artside of it. Everyone has a little style in his or her drawing. Bonz's cars portray action and he does that by exaggerating certain perspectives. IMHO :) Someone tell me to shut up if I talk too much.

Luv it holmz, I admire your action scenes.

Al

seems like too much work to me.

you gotta draw all these lines and guess stuff and draw dotted lines(which are even HARDER to draw than normal lines)

not for me

:lol:

i get it though, makes more sense now, good tutorial/advice/whatever its called.

Its best to do light solid lines, and it takes about two minutes SeCrEtMoDdEr.

If your drawing concepts its best to do this before you start, maybe even print out a 2 point perspective page that you can use again and again for practice?

For drawing cars from reference, the grid method is probably the best, although I prefer freehand.

i agree /\

i don't use the perspective lines like that on cars that i have a reference picture for. even if i did the vanishing points would be way far away on most pictures and i would have to tape my picture on the table and make the points totally of the page.

yea the grid method is awesome for referce pictures.

this is what would do


perspective lines--concept cars/ no reference

grid-- drawings with a reference

the illustrations of the perspective constructions are there for the sake of learning the method behind the madness, as it were. as for me, i seldom construct projection lines, as someone said they'd go off the page into the next room.

when i do vanishing points on larger drawings, i will use non-photo blue prismacolor or extremely light pencil lines that will not show up on hi-contrast copying.

i usually bullsh!t the perspective scenario based on intuition. and if i see the car is getting too strange looking, i will project lines to correct myself.

moreover, i tend to get a rise out of the technical underpinnings of things. so i dig this. however, i know it is not for everyone: many people are alienated by technical things and tend to "shut off" at first sight of it, even if it is simple, like perspective. but we are drawing cars -they are made by robots.

personally, i never used grids. never saw the point of them. didn't need them. i eyeballed everything, then grasped the nifty gift of tracing. then combined both. but these tools are tools: gridding, tracing, templates, etc. and they are just tools.

the problem i have with only-tracing, or only-gridding, is that the person puts themselves in prison: they are limited by the grid. ie, they cannot take a pee or sh!t without carrying the grid to the toilet with them. it is very confining and rigid. there is no room to explore multiple angles of anything, there is no spontanaeity with a grid or tracing.

unless the artist succumbs to a life of drawing only from photos, and/or gridding a photo and then drawing in the 'quadrants' (which is essentially tracing, by the way), they are forever in jail. they cannot just toss out a sketch off the top of their heads, exploring uncharted waters, concepting scenes, and maybe even entire vehicles.

it seems like to use only grids or trace, which is one in the same to me, the artist is forever using training wheels. to be able to use it all, plus eyeball the subject to where it pretty much looks like it was traced, is a more respectable goal and state of existence.

personally, i never used grids. never saw the point of them. didn't need them. i eyeballed everything, then grasped the nifty gift of tracing. then combined both. but these tools are tools: gridding, tracing, templates, etc. and they are just tools.

the problem i have with only-tracing, or only-gridding, is that the person puts themselves in prison: they are limited by the grid. ie, they cannot take a pee or sh!t without carrying the grid to the toilet with them. it is very confining and rigid. there is no room to explore multiple angles of anything, there is no spontanaeity with a grid or tracing.

unless the artist succumbs to a life of drawing only from photos, and/or gridding a photo and then drawing in the 'quadrants' (which is essentially tracing, by the way), they are forever in jail. they cannot just toss out a sketch off the top of their heads, exploring uncharted waters, concepting scenes, and maybe even entire vehicles.

it seems like to use only grids or trace, which is one in the same to me, the artist is forever using training wheels. to be able to use it all, plus eyeball the subject to where it pretty much looks like it was traced, is a more respectable goal and state of existence.

I agree w/ you on most points, to only use grids is limiting.
I like grids because it can encourage people to keep drawing and hopefully learn to see and transfer what they see to paper w/o always using grids.

Bonzelite if you can teach people to draw w/o gridding pls do because another point of grids is, I believe it to be nearly imposable to teach someone how to draw online.

With your style I see no need to grid because you are rendering romantically.

Well, I think griding is tracing after looking it up--I was going to disagree with you--however the mere act of drawing what is seen is tracing too.

Check it out:

v. traced, trac·ing, trac·es

To draw (a line or figure); sketch; delineate
To form (letters) with special concentration or care.
To copy by following lines seen through a sheet of transparent paper.
To follow closely
To imprint (a design) by pressure with an instrument on a superimposed pattern.
To make a design or series of markings on (a surface) by such pressure on a pattern.
To record (a variable), as on a graph

Anyway just my view, a person w/o a formal art education other than high school. :)

Art is art and there is no superior ideology, that is why it is called art and not science.

:2cents:


Alfred

al, i am not against grids or tracing, as i trace all of the time; i'm not trying to shimmy my way out of tracing or place myself "above" it -a grid is a necessary tool. as i ponder what you say, i think the literally-drawn/superimposed grid helps people to generate a good start, like you say.

i cannot speak to literal grid use personally, but i hope those who start using them move on to other things, ie, create the grid in the mind when drawing things. i align objects horizontally and vertically constantly with my mind's eye, else i would not be able to draw anything at all. i am, therefore, imposing a mental image of the grid upon everything anyway.

like i said, i trace stuff to this day. and that is "worse" than a grid because i am literally tracing all of the proportions, cheating, when i use that tool.

i support the 'mere act of drawing is tracing, too..." thinking. this thread talks all about that>>>: http://automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1846345#post1846345

al, yes, it is difficult to teach drawing online. i have attempted to lay the groundwork for this in the "cheap advice thread." i suggest that a first place to start is an understanding of basic perspective. going straight to a grid will leave the beginner forever at a loss for future growth, IMHO.

only rendering great is not a comprehensive state of draftsmanship. i suppose this is my whole message. it is like a band that plays only cover-tunes, top-40 hits or classics, but never explores music outside of that "grid."

does any of this make sense? am i being unreasonable? i feel that the more i go on about this, the more i tend to alienate others, but i am talking about simple things.

if someone is happy with what they have, then go with that. i know that no two artists are going to employ the same approaches.

"Art is art and there is no superior ideology, that is why it is called art and not science."

Well not to disagree, because I agree sort of, but the word "art" does have connotations of superiority in most contexts.

If you mean art as in expression I agree, but in the way most people would see it, I think art is comparative---a this is better than that type thing. I would never refer to myself as an artist though people may classify what I create as art.

That is why I love the name of this forum "sketching & drawing", enuff said.

as a storyboard artist, i am often regarded, and have been told outright, that i am *only* a mechanic.

perhaps in that mode, storyboarding, there are instances of that. and sometimes it is artistic. i am a realist, so i often agree with "them," yet i don't fully.

Well in that case I am conflicted, because I have seen a few storyboards and they have veried from the bare minimum to multiple fully rendered panels.

The only reason I can find to not call it the a word is that the emphasis is not so much on looking spectacular but to illustrate ideas, stage position, camera angles, etc.

Even with that said, the couple of people that I have known to do storyboard on the proffesional level were immensly talented and I would consider them artists.

This is a most entertaining and enlightening thread. It's much more than cheap advice. I once scratched myself in a very sensitive spot when I took my grid to the can. :)

Freehand, tracing, perspective, grid method...those are all staples in any art field. It's like funadmentals in music or sport. If I trace and I learn...good for me. If I grid and my piece leaps off the page...good for me.

I learned many many methods in art school way back when, and after all this time I just wing it. I think time is the real method. By time I mean time in craft. Time on the table. I have not found anything that is inaccurate in any post within this thread.

I thank Bonzelite, Al and all participants for opening the mental side of this game a little for all of us. I too see grids, and vanishing points in my mind. I see bullet turn signals for a '66 VW Fastback hidden 3 transfers down the line. I also see great value in AF for all of us. Awesome stuff guys.

-Lemorris

p.s. I found this pic. I've seen it in art books before. It's old school grid method. I asked my wife if she wanted to try it.....The couch was cold and lumpy that night. I made mental notes to not offend the wife again. :)

http://www.58vw.com/af/gm.jpg

like i said, i don't agree fullly with the mechanic label. it is that, definitely. but sometimes it is not. defining art is often difficult.

lemorris, i've seen that engraving/etching before. and lookee there: the old grid method. it is as old as the hills.

make sure when you go to the john you don't sit on the grid and soil it. (hehe).

there's more cheap advice on the way...

Kind of cool how this is staying so civilized.

Bonzelite, great idea to start this thread.

I must say your perspective image is good. I have never tried to explain perspective even though I know what is going on my paper. Kind of cool how we have some peops here who actually went to art school because I have missed some very important stuff, like perspective.

It is a humbling experience too.

Your point is very true about just starting out with grids. We need that perspective. I have recommended books that demonstrate perspective and books that teach drawing (drawing w/o grids and such).

You are correct, I think, to start out with grids is probably more harmful than good. It is better to learn how to see first. Some may never leave those training wheels as you mentioned.

How about point of ref. as a drawing technique for beginners?
You know learning to draw cars first is probably not the best thing either.

Well all this has reminded be to start sketching again, perhaps use point of ref. I think Lemorris mentioned sketching every night before he goes to bed.

Alf

like i said, i don't agree fullly with the mechanic label. it is that, definitely. but sometimes it is not. defining art is often difficult.

I don't see how your story boards are mechanic. They seem very artistic to me. The are full of life and action, that is why I like them.

My Silvia that is mechanic, less artistic.

You are correct, I think, to start out with grids is probably more harmful than good. It is better to learn how to see first. Some may never leave those training wheels as you mentioned......
.......How about point of ref. as a drawing technique for beginners?
You know learning to draw cars first is probably not the best thing either.
Alf

do you mean reference photos? if so, then of course. either that or go out and find the actual car. we are not born knowing what these damn things look like. since cars, too, are so specific, ie, if the artist gets just a bit of it wrong, everyone instantly sees that and it becomes distracting. it just may be true that cars are a bad first-choice for the uninitiated. the emphasis then becomes to get the car to look photorealistically perfect as soon as possible, by whatever means possible. and this may inadvertently have the young artist skipping past miles of essential steps in becoming a draftsman only to short-cut to the coveted photorealism that so often garners the 'oooohhhhhsss' and 'aaahhhhsss' from non-creative peers. but shove a pen or pencil in front of this artist on an off-day, tell them to draw a frog on a lillypad, or a scene of two old men playing chess in the park, and they cannot.

this is why in art school or art classes they do the still life and 'life drawing' thing. this is the 'boot camp' part of seeing, to actually mentally trace the arrangements of random objects, of the body, without aid of anything but the pencil. the pencil can be held up in the air as an alignment tool, as well, a 'grid,' eventhough it looks pretentious.

for the record, i never went to actual art school. my family and i could never afford such a thing. i did take mechanical drafting in high school. and i did go to a state college and got a degree in commercial art, but that was more of a review than awakening. i attribute most of it to my dad who taught me 2-point perspective when i was 7 yrs old and a man who became a mentor for a couple of years, post-college, who draws storyboards. i did not get fully serious about pursuing drawing professionally until after i was out of college. the cold world really got my priorities straight real quick!

I don't see how your story boards are mechanic. They seem very artistic to me. The are full of life and action, that is why I like them.

My Silvia that is mechanic, less artistic.

thanks, al.

your S15 rocks, though. to jazz it up for 'art,' copy the picture or scan it. print it out (keep the original unmolested). take the copy on bond and color it. throw in a background -anything. a setting. a park. a desert horizon. draw in someone lying dead beside it. or crying. add some type of visual symbolism that may tell a story. then, bam --you got art. :rofl:

Oh Point of ref.:

That is using a pencil to measure the length (part of your object) and using that object's length to measure lines and distances of everything else. OOps I see you said that Bonz, not trying to step on your feet, my bad.

If someone uses a photo for ref. it is easy. Just measure the wheel (ref.) with and index card. On the other side of the index card (I don't mean flip it over I mean other edge) mark of a distance that will be used for your drawing surface. So when you lets say use the diameter of a tire you measure your entire ref. image w/ that tire length. Then on your drawing board you use your enlarged tire length (some arbitrary distance you selected but never change once you set it) to measure everything on your drawing surface.

Kind of cool because you are gauging distances and such but not using grids so you are relying more on free hand skills.

Plus, the image is enlarged to scale, or it should be. :)

I can do a demo for everyone. Nothing crazy like my Sil. but just a nice decent sketch of a car using "point of ref."

Al

You know I just realized something Bonz,
You brought it to point w/ this thread.

I have been talking about fancy books, tools, and etc. But we do need to work on freehand skills.

It is cheap plus it makes you a better artists/draftsman.

I am going to start drawing more cars freehand w/ just my index card as measuring tool (like pencil, but better for photos). I am also going to do ellipses using the major and minor axis w/o ellipse templates and no french curves. Time to get back to basics anyone going to join in?

Alfred

Bonz, Lemorris, and anyone else w/ freehand and seeing tips lets start posting em.

I will start w/ the first. :) Well actually second. I think Bonz's perspective sketch is 1st. :)

Listen to music w/o words while drawing.

It allows you to focus and concentrate.
Words actually can distract your mind from focusing on seeing and drawing lines.

I like classical and drum and base music for drawing.

listen to "music for airports" by brian eno.

or draw on an elevator..... trust me it works

or draw on an elevator..... trust me it works

what? i don't understand. you mean ride the elevator for minutes and minutes and draw in there? what is the point of that? :rofl:

there's nothin there to distract you except the elavator music but it's also fun buggin people that get in and out constantly

well i listen to death metal while drawing, i guess you cant really hear the words so i guess thats ok...or

TECHNOOOO unst unst unst

yeah... when drawing at home i listen to punk, rock, metal or techno

there's nothin there to distract you except the elavator music but it's also fun buggin people that get in and out constantly

i'm an odd person, i admit. it is clear. but that idea of yours is just bizarre. what the f@%!@$k do you draw in the elevator?! :screwy:

anything you can think of..... if your like me stuff just kinda pops up cars buildings people it is a small calm area with no windows or anything like that so you can concentrate completely on your drawing... and it doesnt have to be an elevator it's just hard to find a room with NOTHING in it at all and btw i can take you in being odd any day lol

anything you can think of..... if your like me stuff just kinda pops up cars buildings people it is a small calm area with no windows or anything like that so you can concentrate completely on your drawing... and it doesnt have to be an elevator it's just hard to find a room with NOTHING in it at all and btw i can take you in being odd any day lol

hmm. interesting idea.

i think this warrants a thread: "i can take you in being odd any day." if you don't start it, i will :devil:

bring it!

i listen to alkaline trio or saves the day(even though i hate the new album it is relaxing). also i listen to some techno ..... www.purevolume.com/djdjham :biggrin:

bring it!

you're gonna get it! :naughty: