FA+
Shop
1018
Views
Views
86
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Scenery
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 488 x 1000
File Size 76.5 kB
Report this content
More from berbalang
Listed in Folders
'tis a WIP. I expect to wrap 'er up this Thursday. Thursday is Berbie's Painting Day.
I find myself getting slightly more comfortable with letting the image evolve kinetically. My desire to render gets in the way of the flow but I'm learning to curb that, too, by inches.
I find myself getting slightly more comfortable with letting the image evolve kinetically. My desire to render gets in the way of the flow but I'm learning to curb that, too, by inches.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Scenery
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 488 x 1000px
File Size 76.5 kB
Listed in Folders
*grins* You're a kind bug-bean for saying so. Have I ever told you how cool I think your 'sona is? I don't think I ever have. How many people here have a bug-sona? A bugatar? Hardly any at all. Somehow you've managed to make a fly *cute* and that's one neat artistic triumph.
What makes my color choices so identifiable, do you think? Is it the colors I tend to use, or the way I use 'em, or something else?
Honestly, I'm not sure I *have* a method. It seems like its forever in flux. Yet I must have a few patterns working otherwise I'd never finish anything. A better way to put it might be: I'm letting the painting dictate what it becomes, working only from a vague idea of what I want. I'm not telling myself beforehand "I'm going to paint a guy at a lighthouse!" and then planning out my image the way I'm used to doing as an illustrator. I'm letting my heart drive, if you will. Or maybe it's my inner seven-year-old. I'm trying to develop a concepting technique when I reach some mind of meaningful emotional storytelling conclusion by the last brush stroke. I want to evoke a feeling, or feelings. I've spent too much of my life rendering.
Honestly, I'm not sure I *have* a method. It seems like its forever in flux. Yet I must have a few patterns working otherwise I'd never finish anything. A better way to put it might be: I'm letting the painting dictate what it becomes, working only from a vague idea of what I want. I'm not telling myself beforehand "I'm going to paint a guy at a lighthouse!" and then planning out my image the way I'm used to doing as an illustrator. I'm letting my heart drive, if you will. Or maybe it's my inner seven-year-old. I'm trying to develop a concepting technique when I reach some mind of meaningful emotional storytelling conclusion by the last brush stroke. I want to evoke a feeling, or feelings. I've spent too much of my life rendering.
You have bestowed some four-star compliments on me in the past few days. I've re-read them multiple times, here and on your recent journal. My heart has been several sizes larger ever since. They've made my present circumstances easier to face---I'm not joking---and that's helped keep my creative fires burning.
It's odd thinking of this as a work in progress. It is rough, but in ways which strike me as finished - there are these big obvious brushstrokes, which I like, and they also play into the idea of verticals, that the whole landscape is really steep. Is it that you're going to put more detail in the bushes/trees, or that cluster of three arches in the front? Is that what you were talking about when you said desire to render gets in the way of the flow, wanting to focus on stuff like that rather than the whole image?
There's a balance of forces in any finished piece. Recognizing when you've achieved that balance...now there's a challenge for you. When should you stop?
I'm no different from the average monkey. I love getting lost in the details. Here's the thing I've learned about details: so long as they serve a purpose, they're okay. You need to stop as soon as those elements are on the verge of attracting more attention than they should.
This piece started as "Spanish Afternoon (Alpine Style) WIP", some time last year, I think. I hacked at it and chopped and cut, folded, mutilated, bastardized and brutalized until something came free of the mess and said "Here. Here's a direction you can take me". Most contemporary concept artists seem to start this way. Places like Art Center push understanding light and form, which is great; it gives you the means to take that rough, splattery start and shape it into a lit stage quickly. (This focus on technique is also the reason why the vast majority of concept art all looks alike today, but that's a grump for another occasion.)
I am not comfortable working this way. I started my career twenty years ago, when the design process tended to be much more methodical and the pace, slower than that of today. When I'm designing a scene I want to figure out the feel beforehand so that it translates smoothly to a finished piece of art. This approach survives in theatrical animation and in game design outside of the USA. Stateside indie studios often use this method for creating their worlds. It's not what most ADs want to see any more, however. Don't get me wrong, they love the fruits of the methodical approach. They all have the Studio Ghibli and Disney Art-Of books, the Pixar books and so on. But when it's time for you to start generating ideas they want volume. Crank the ideas out fast and in a form that will translate easily for the money folks.
It's not that concept art has changed, per se, from methodical to improv. My explanation reveals my own preferences more than than anything. What I used to do with marker is now done in Photoshop and often taken to a higher level of polish. It's still a matter of getting to the heart of the idea. Concept art suggests what illustration states. My default state of mind is that of an illustrator. When I concept, I'd rather work like Brian Froud than Feng Zhu. What I'm doing with pieces like this is learning how to paint in a more improvisational manner. I may never be as good as Uesugi or Ross (Neil Campbell, not Bob), but if I keep working at it, I'll find my own way to wear these new clothes.
Does that answer your question?
I'm no different from the average monkey. I love getting lost in the details. Here's the thing I've learned about details: so long as they serve a purpose, they're okay. You need to stop as soon as those elements are on the verge of attracting more attention than they should.
This piece started as "Spanish Afternoon (Alpine Style) WIP", some time last year, I think. I hacked at it and chopped and cut, folded, mutilated, bastardized and brutalized until something came free of the mess and said "Here. Here's a direction you can take me". Most contemporary concept artists seem to start this way. Places like Art Center push understanding light and form, which is great; it gives you the means to take that rough, splattery start and shape it into a lit stage quickly. (This focus on technique is also the reason why the vast majority of concept art all looks alike today, but that's a grump for another occasion.)
I am not comfortable working this way. I started my career twenty years ago, when the design process tended to be much more methodical and the pace, slower than that of today. When I'm designing a scene I want to figure out the feel beforehand so that it translates smoothly to a finished piece of art. This approach survives in theatrical animation and in game design outside of the USA. Stateside indie studios often use this method for creating their worlds. It's not what most ADs want to see any more, however. Don't get me wrong, they love the fruits of the methodical approach. They all have the Studio Ghibli and Disney Art-Of books, the Pixar books and so on. But when it's time for you to start generating ideas they want volume. Crank the ideas out fast and in a form that will translate easily for the money folks.
It's not that concept art has changed, per se, from methodical to improv. My explanation reveals my own preferences more than than anything. What I used to do with marker is now done in Photoshop and often taken to a higher level of polish. It's still a matter of getting to the heart of the idea. Concept art suggests what illustration states. My default state of mind is that of an illustrator. When I concept, I'd rather work like Brian Froud than Feng Zhu. What I'm doing with pieces like this is learning how to paint in a more improvisational manner. I may never be as good as Uesugi or Ross (Neil Campbell, not Bob), but if I keep working at it, I'll find my own way to wear these new clothes.
Does that answer your question?
Huh. I would have thought that you'd work pretty fast, given things like this. This might be something really obvious to anyone not self-taught (I started out thinking of being self-taught as all macho, and then I realized that it meant I didn't know stuff), but it sounds like you're saying that speedpainting is all about concepting on the fly, where more traditional product and movie concepts rely on a lot of thinking things through before stylus hits tablet?
You need to stop as soon as those elements are on the verge of attracting more attention than they should.
That generates a different question. This sounds easier to do in painting, since that lets you do the Frazetta trick of having everything be expressionistic until you get to the big areas that you want viewers to focus on. But, would you have any advice for how to pull that off in drawing rather than painting? Since everything's in pretty defined focus, I'd imagine there's a lot of composition (this chunk of figure or landscape is undetailed, here's an area with a lot of really detailed activity) - but am I wrong about this? Is there more that I might need to think about?
You need to stop as soon as those elements are on the verge of attracting more attention than they should.
That generates a different question. This sounds easier to do in painting, since that lets you do the Frazetta trick of having everything be expressionistic until you get to the big areas that you want viewers to focus on. But, would you have any advice for how to pull that off in drawing rather than painting? Since everything's in pretty defined focus, I'd imagine there's a lot of composition (this chunk of figure or landscape is undetailed, here's an area with a lot of really detailed activity) - but am I wrong about this? Is there more that I might need to think about?
I am pretty speedy, all things being relative, but I'm not a rocket like some of my peers. This piece came together in about three hours. I'll probably put another couple hours into the beast before I'll call it complete. (We'll find out today!)
In real general terms, yes: video-game concepting has become all about pounding out the ideas rapid-fire. Jpeg-bashing is the perfect technique for quickly making something out of nothing. There's some great illustrative work derived from 'bashing, too (check out Stephan Martiniere for an example). Compare the work of James Paick or Jaime Jones to that of Lou Romano or Andy Gaskill, or Matthieu Laffray. All four are outstanding artists. All four approach their work differently.
Go Go Gadget Teacher Mode! *ka-chunk*
Composition is the tool by which you guide the viewer's eye to the star of the piece--the point towards which all the tension, all the dynamic energy is aimed. It's the same wrestling match, regardless of the media, and the best starting point for answering your question would be "Who (or what) is the center of gravity of the piece?" That's where you get tight. That's where you say the most with your use of detail. Everything else can fall away.
http://www.dutchartevents.com/site/....._man_Met-2.jpg
Here's a Rembrandt sketch in pen and ink. Check out how tight he got on the features and compare that to the noodly marks he makes to suggest a background. He's not using many kinds of strokes, either.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/everystockp.....-2977359-o.jpg
Here's Gustav Kilmt in action. He's using an even smaller variety of marks--mostly variations of a swoop that travel in the direction of the form, looking at the right-hand side, the figure side, with similar, shorter marks on the left. Check out how those shorter left-hand marks form a series of vertically-oriented "humps" like dunes or waves traveling down the page. Between the marks on the left and right you get a neat V shape that frames the face like a flower in a sheaf of black paper.
http://dart.fine-art.com/posts_imag.....0714121340.jpg
Henry Yan! See how that big mass of black hair acts like an anchor, securing the rest of the drawing to the page, with just a hint of similar values down by the hand? Check out the different marks he used to signify different surfaces: hair, skin, fabric.
Here's the stuff I think about when working in pencil:
1. Composition: what's the story you're trying to tell?
2. Value structure: is your use of value driving the story?
3. Marks: are they serving a purpose (defining textures, space, light, form and so on)?
Does that answer your question?
Comments