I think that learning from the masters is better. Because its like someone already analysed nature and real life and did a painting or a drawing of it. Its like a "slice" of all those things you can find in real life. And even if you dont understand everything you are looking at, you pick up things in a subconcious way (Like composition or whatever) by trying to emulate what you have watched in that work. Just looking at nature and real life as a beginer is harder cause theres just too much. Just my opinion 😁
As a beginner myself, studying masters has helped me better learn how to use my tools, brushes and paints, because it frees me from having to think/decide about composition, color, value, etc. Those decisions have already been made by the master and so I can focus on simply learning how to create those same colors, shapes and values with the tools that I have. That said, I find myself moving back and forth between master studies and working from life. So, long story short....both.
You should study both. This vid made me have the thought that Nature presents us with the problems Masters presents us with a solution for those problems, but not THE solution. you can just study nature, but that takes time when you can also study from those that have figured it out. if you just study masters, it will be hard to make sense of their solutions because you don't know what the problems were in the first place.
I see Marshal's point why you don't automatically go to life drawing as a beginner. A simple example would be hair. If a beginner tries to draw hair from life, he's mislead by a concentration of fibers and shadows so dense it's information content might as well be television static. Whereas if you look at Stan's drawings on his portrait course, the hair he draws is very lifelike, but doesn't actually match the reference very closely because he's very skillfully and sensibly designed the hair rather than trying to copy it exactly. A painter will often create the impressions of trees, rocks, and clouds just by making indistinct marks on the canvas that and only give the illusion of texture or detail. The art of gesture in figure drawing is all about capturing what isn't there. A spine might show the gesture, but it's not the gesture. In order to draw an arm or a leg properly, you have to practically ignore the reference and visualize the the rhythm before you put in the contour. The idea of drawing from life -- or any reference -- has in it the presupposition that all the information the artist needs to learn is in the reference and it is therefore assimilating it a mechanical activity on his part were he has to reproduce the what's in front of him, whereas it's actually a mental one more like taking an idea and putting it into words. Or in this case, taking some patterns and putting them into forms. You're not drawing the model. The model is simulating the thing you want to draw. That's one way I think of it. I think a beginner should get some instruction first before studying from anything. Studying from a master can show some of this mental trickery at work, but it's useless if the student doesn't have the understanding to see it; doesn't see that masters make their drawings look more real by intelligently cutting corners and looking at things holistically rather than trying to count the pores on a person's skin. Personally, I think perspective is best studied though abstract exercises, like drawing a a 2D circle rotating in 3D space. This is they way I learned it by watching Mark's Drawing Tutorials, not that I'm an expert or anything. Anatomy is studied because all human bodies share some general characteristics. Perspective is like the anatomy of space itself. So looking at a particular object can create distractions similar to looking too closely at individual strands of hair or looking for fundamental structures in a finished drawing. The argument against masters is that learning from them limits your thinking. You see one way to draw light and without even noticing you get locked into the sense that it's the only way. You want to learn their tricks so you can exploit them in your own way, not become wrapped up in somebody else's illusion. Case and point, even talking about art has made me melodramatic.
this is a perfect example of how stan and marshall work perfectly together. both views are so valid and work for different types of people but they're giving us the gold which is how.
I agree. When I've done master studies as a beginner, I just copied without really understanding. Master studies are much more informative when you have enough knowledge to comprehend what's working.
Interesting discussion. I sort of think when it comes to perspective type things, Drill and study comes first. And more generally for drafting. But I think photo references are great for learning lighting and drawing. Since the composition is done for you, and the subject have already been lit by studio lights or somethiing. Or more generally films. Didn't expect films to be mentioned but I hearily agree there. I am not really a beginner generally, But I am very new to oil painting, I have drawn and done digital art for awhile though.
In boxing terms “drawing from life” is equivalent to sparring. And learning from looking at masters is watching someone with experience demonstrate things correctly and you try it yourself in practice, shadowboxing and in sparring to see what you get and have a reference. Like boxing I think both are more for intermediate beginners who are still new but know enough to know what to look for. I think having someone to teach you the fundamentals correctly and drilling them until they have a solid understanding of the principles work maybe better for completely new people. Agreed. Sidebar I’m new myself.
I don't think limiting yourself to one study type is good. I think you should always be open to analyzing everything you can when it comes to art. This includes things such as the perception of art (learning how non-artists perceive and react to art is helpful in finding ways to communicate with your art), and even those who aren't good at art (studying non-masters or even people who are downright bad can lead to you understanding what NOT to do without going through the trial and error of finding it yourself).
I'm team Marshall on this. Beginner musicians don't start by making their own music, they copy other songs to get an idea of the structure of sound and familiarity with the instrument. I also think it's important to see how the masters have simplified and boiled nature down before trying to do it themselves. Basically we learn my mimicry. But I could be wrong haha
i didint even know you guys had a seperate channel for the podcast i was watching a old episode and it mentioned you were going to make a seperate channel so here i am, nice to see new stuff i was watching the old stuff
Hey proko and Marshall. I really love the podcast, specially the first season. I must have watched the first one twice. Its really full of valuable stuff. I feel you are running out of ideas and are struggling to find subject to tackle on the videos. I d like to suggest a few things, hopefully it makes your life easier and more joyful. You could do regular types of podcasts. I mean categories. One day you could do general art talk like you usually do. Another day you could bring an artist and interview them particularly about themselves. Not about general art stuff, thats for the other category. The important there are the artists and their personal knowledge. And another category could be what you usually do about taking requests, but focusing on about 5 of them and really going deep. Maybe criticizing some art from us, that can surely give you some starting point to ramble on an share useful stuff like we all love. Those are just a few ideas that aren't all that innovative. But I wish to help you so you can keep this beautiful podcast and sharing amazing knowledge to us. The first season of draftsmen taught me a LOT and I laughed a bunch. I really love you guys and I wish you the best. Thanks for everything
You can talk about specifics artists you love! It's surely nice to talk a lot about a particular artist you love, and try to analyse it and understand it. Maybe talking about the artists personal life. Theres so much beautiful stuff to talk about. (also there's a lot of great stuff in the second season of draftsmen don't get me wrong. But season 1 was full packed with the best stuff you could think and I love it)
I love when you talk about something that isn't related to the fundamentals, or the technicalities of drawing. When you touch on feeling and subjectivity. Stuff that isn't ONE WAY AND ONE WAY ONLY. That also allows a better debate between you two. Which is great! You could talk about how you feel when you draw, why do you draw, try to imagine a world without drawing, imagining a world where every person is a master artist. I don't know, sorry for the excessive brainstorm, I hope it helps and gives you some comfort. Again, love you two🙏❤️
They are not the only options. It's best to study from a source that explains a theory (e.g. perspective), and illustrates it using nature, such as an photo of a road with fenceposts leading into the distance, and a masterwork such as Vermeer's tiled floor patterns. Then you can see how masters use the theory to create something both realistic and beautiful, and perhaps more beautiful than the original natural scene.
I would really want to be on the podcast and have a talk with these two legends really I love art and philosophy !! Marshall and Stan love what you doing !
I think that learning from the masters is better. Because its like someone already analysed nature and real life and did a painting or a drawing of it. Its like a "slice" of all those things you can find in real life. And even if you dont understand everything you are looking at, you pick up things in a subconcious way (Like composition or whatever) by trying to emulate what you have watched in that work. Just looking at nature and real life as a beginer is harder cause theres just too much. Just my opinion 😁
If you're a beginner, draw what you like. When I was a kid, I copied Smurf, Garfield, Tintin, as I grew up I copied He-Man, Transformers, etc. Those were my master copies. I didn't study from life.
Do you think a beginning artist should focus on nature or masters work?
RULES OF NATURE
Both
I found that doing any master or nature studies will be problematic without a focus of why you are doing it.
I think that learning from the masters is better. Because its like someone already analysed nature and real life and did a painting or a drawing of it. Its like a "slice" of all those things you can find in real life. And even if you dont understand everything you are looking at, you pick up things in a subconcious way (Like composition or whatever) by trying to emulate what you have watched in that work.
Just looking at nature and real life as a beginer is harder cause theres just too much.
Just my opinion 😁
I think studying masters who have studied nature to be the best way
As a beginner myself, studying masters has helped me better learn how to use my tools, brushes and paints, because it frees me from having to think/decide about composition, color, value, etc. Those decisions have already been made by the master and so I can focus on simply learning how to create those same colors, shapes and values with the tools that I have. That said, I find myself moving back and forth between master studies and working from life. So, long story short....both.
You should study both. This vid made me have the thought that
Nature presents us with the problems
Masters presents us with a solution for those problems, but not THE solution.
you can just study nature, but that takes time when you can also study from those that have figured it out.
if you just study masters, it will be hard to make sense of their solutions because you don't know what the problems were in the first place.
I see Marshal's point why you don't automatically go to life drawing as a beginner.
A simple example would be hair. If a beginner tries to draw hair from life, he's mislead by a concentration of fibers and shadows so dense it's information content might as well be television static. Whereas if you look at Stan's drawings on his portrait course, the hair he draws is very lifelike, but doesn't actually match the reference very closely because he's very skillfully and sensibly designed the hair rather than trying to copy it exactly.
A painter will often create the impressions of trees, rocks, and clouds just by making indistinct marks on the canvas that and only give the illusion of texture or detail.
The art of gesture in figure drawing is all about capturing what isn't there. A spine might show the gesture, but it's not the gesture. In order to draw an arm or a leg properly, you have to practically ignore the reference and visualize the the rhythm before you put in the contour. The idea of drawing from life -- or any reference -- has in it the presupposition that all the information the artist needs to learn is in the reference and it is therefore assimilating it a mechanical activity on his part were he has to reproduce the what's in front of him, whereas it's actually a mental one more like taking an idea and putting it into words. Or in this case, taking some patterns and putting them into forms.
You're not drawing the model. The model is simulating the thing you want to draw. That's one way I think of it.
I think a beginner should get some instruction first before studying from anything. Studying from a master can show some of this mental trickery at work, but it's useless if the student doesn't have the understanding to see it; doesn't see that masters make their drawings look more real by intelligently cutting corners and looking at things holistically rather than trying to count the pores on a person's skin.
Personally, I think perspective is best studied though abstract exercises, like drawing a a 2D circle rotating in 3D space. This is they way I learned it by watching Mark's Drawing Tutorials, not that I'm an expert or anything. Anatomy is studied because all human bodies share some general characteristics. Perspective is like the anatomy of space itself. So looking at a particular object can create distractions similar to looking too closely at individual strands of hair or looking for fundamental structures in a finished drawing.
The argument against masters is that learning from them limits your thinking. You see one way to draw light and without even noticing you get locked into the sense that it's the only way. You want to learn their tricks so you can exploit them in your own way, not become wrapped up in somebody else's illusion.
Case and point, even talking about art has made me melodramatic.
this is a perfect example of how stan and marshall work perfectly together. both views are so valid and work for different types of people but they're giving us the gold which is how.
Agreed you need to be smart enough to even notice what a master is doing
I agree. When I've done master studies as a beginner, I just copied without really understanding. Master studies are much more informative when you have enough knowledge to comprehend what's working.
When does the podcast comeback?
of course I've watched the whole season but revisiting them with these short clips feels really nice. thank you for uploading them. :)
Simple, just learn from natural masters like Stan and Marshall.
Interesting discussion.
I sort of think when it comes to perspective type things, Drill and study comes first.
And more generally for drafting.
But I think photo references are great for learning lighting and drawing.
Since the composition is done for you, and the subject have already been lit by studio lights or somethiing.
Or more generally films. Didn't expect films to be mentioned but I hearily agree there.
I am not really a beginner generally, But I am very new to oil painting, I have drawn and done digital art for awhile though.
In boxing terms “drawing from life” is equivalent to sparring. And learning from looking at masters is watching someone with experience demonstrate things correctly and you try it yourself in practice, shadowboxing and in sparring to see what you get and have a reference. Like boxing I think both are more for intermediate beginners who are still new but know enough to know what to look for. I think having someone to teach you the fundamentals correctly and drilling them until they have a solid understanding of the principles work maybe better for completely new people. Agreed. Sidebar I’m new myself.
I don't think limiting yourself to one study type is good. I think you should always be open to analyzing everything you can when it comes to art. This includes things such as the perception of art (learning how non-artists perceive and react to art is helpful in finding ways to communicate with your art), and even those who aren't good at art (studying non-masters or even people who are downright bad can lead to you understanding what NOT to do without going through the trial and error of finding it yourself).
I'm team Marshall on this. Beginner musicians don't start by making their own music, they copy other songs to get an idea of the structure of sound and familiarity with the instrument. I also think it's important to see how the masters have simplified and boiled nature down before trying to do it themselves. Basically we learn my mimicry. But I could be wrong haha
i didint even know you guys had a seperate channel for the podcast i was watching a old episode and it mentioned you were going to make a seperate channel so here i am, nice to see new stuff i was watching the old stuff
Hey proko and Marshall. I really love the podcast, specially the first season. I must have watched the first one twice. Its really full of valuable stuff. I feel you are running out of ideas and are struggling to find subject to tackle on the videos. I d like to suggest a few things, hopefully it makes your life easier and more joyful.
You could do regular types of podcasts. I mean categories. One day you could do general art talk like you usually do. Another day you could bring an artist and interview them particularly about themselves. Not about general art stuff, thats for the other category. The important there are the artists and their personal knowledge. And another category could be what you usually do about taking requests, but focusing on about 5 of them and really going deep. Maybe criticizing some art from us, that can surely give you some starting point to ramble on an share useful stuff like we all love. Those are just a few ideas that aren't all that innovative. But I wish to help you so you can keep this beautiful podcast and sharing amazing knowledge to us. The first season of draftsmen taught me a LOT and I laughed a bunch. I really love you guys and I wish you the best. Thanks for everything
You can talk about specifics artists you love! It's surely nice to talk a lot about a particular artist you love, and try to analyse it and understand it. Maybe talking about the artists personal life. Theres so much beautiful stuff to talk about. (also there's a lot of great stuff in the second season of draftsmen don't get me wrong. But season 1 was full packed with the best stuff you could think and I love it)
I love when you talk about something that isn't related to the fundamentals, or the technicalities of drawing. When you touch on feeling and subjectivity. Stuff that isn't ONE WAY AND ONE WAY ONLY. That also allows a better debate between you two. Which is great! You could talk about how you feel when you draw, why do you draw, try to imagine a world without drawing, imagining a world where every person is a master artist. I don't know, sorry for the excessive brainstorm, I hope it helps and gives you some comfort. Again, love you two🙏❤️
They are not the only options. It's best to study from a source that explains a theory (e.g. perspective), and illustrates it using nature, such as an photo of a road with fenceposts leading into the distance, and a masterwork such as Vermeer's tiled floor patterns. Then you can see how masters use the theory to create something both realistic and beautiful, and perhaps more beautiful than the original natural scene.
I just love the way these two talk.
I would really want to be on the podcast and have a talk with these two legends really I love art and philosophy !! Marshall and Stan love what you doing !
why did you guys remove the "yeh" from the intro??
Can you please make an episode about the best master to study for different art fundamentals like perspective, lighting, anatomy, color, etc...
It seems like the idea is for one both, but also, it's easier to make a good drawing (or anything) when you've seen a great or good one.
I think that learning from the masters is better. Because its like someone already analysed nature and real life and did a painting or a drawing of it. Its like a "slice" of all those things you can find in real life. And even if you dont understand everything you are looking at, you pick up things in a subconcious way (Like composition or whatever) by trying to emulate what you have watched in that work.
Just looking at nature and real life as a beginer is harder cause theres just too much.
Just my opinion 😁
It would be interesting to get a glance on the books on Martial's book shelf ..
there is a lot of books he recommends in his website
@@elfynde8863 thanks i would look for it.. :)
Both ways and back and forth all the time !
Both
Please make an episode on Colors. I'm stuck in colors and rendering.
If you're a beginner, draw what you like. When I was a kid, I copied Smurf, Garfield, Tintin, as I grew up I copied He-Man, Transformers, etc. Those were my master copies. I didn't study from life.
I feel like you guys barely come to one solid conclusion :) but it helps in seeing perpectives
I'm not ready for Takehiko Inoue
HI GUYZ :)
IT DEPENDS
The answer is "both" .....