art - natural or learned?

Sup lizardcommando?

There is no such thing as an artist being a "natural talent." What you see is intuition and a lack of being shy and dishonest. It's not the same thing. The great masters that you and I know about didn't just pick up a pencil and express beauty on paper. Even they studied, and practiced their technique. They drew and painted every day; they studied previous masters by drawing copies. Look at Peter Paul Rubens. Look at how many studies he sketched to perfect his skill. Look at all the contemporary artists like Claire Wendling who clearly portray an Alphonse Mucha inspiration in their linework. You don't understand. Anyone CAN express themselves with honesty. A lot of people just choose to go "by the book" because they're initially timid. Who are you to judge or determine their permanent mark in the world of art at such a stage?

99% of the people who enter an art school and say they can draw are just lousy. It just takes time to learn. Some people will look better than others because they apply what they learn more quickly than others. Underline, all of the students in a class can quickly learn and remember simple and basic composition rules but some of those will just apply it more quickly. Some people will just apply and reapply the book rules until they have it in their heads and then be experimental.

Do you know who Jon Foster is? Right now he's a highly distinguished illustrator who's won golden awards in the Spectrum Magazine over other artists such as Peter de Seve. (I am not saying he's a better artist than Peter.) Know his background? He was rejected from an art school out of high school. (omg how is that possible if he's such a natural talent!?) He then reapplied to the same school but went to another one and was a "MEDIOCRE" student there, quit, then came back years later. And only AFTER that did he start to really understand what he was being taught and applied it. THEN his work started to become recognized.

Nathan Fowkes is another really (oh lets use the badly misunderstood term) talented artist. He said so himself that he went through endless "disastrous" paintings in college before he finally applied what he had learned about control with color and light. Look at his quick sketches now!

James Jean is a hard-working artist that has made his way into the Society of Illustrators. But there's the key, hard working. Lots of practice and observation. The most important thing is.... you gotta love it. It can't be a chore, it can't.

Please, PLEASE do not say that there is anyone who just comes in the door and is defined as "natural" because that term seems to be used around here to separate him/her from "phonies." No such thing, we all have emotions and creativity. Some are just late bloomers but in the end anyone can make it. Some people are just bottled up with all the wrong influences brought over by lousy anime, for example. It's just why now it may seem harder to find oneself. IF YOU CAN WRITE YOUR NAME, YOU CAN DRAW. Believe in yourself, don't be timid and work hard. You'll make it.

Uuuh, ok. I'll show 2 examples of my soft pastel plein air paintings. They were done with soft sennelier pastels, on 5x8" and vice-versa canson paper within 40 or so minutes. One from a month ago and the other from several days ago. The first is just lousy, the second shows you something. All I did was practice. And that doesn't just involve to continue painting. You GOTTA KNOW WHY YOUR LAST PIECE DIDN'T WORK before you hide it.

People who still think there's this rigid and existing divide between "natural" and "unnatural" artists are probably not producing any solid work themselves at the moment. Break from it. Every professional artist/instructor will say, "You've gotta practice. It's up to you." Guys from Pixar, Dreamworks, gallery artists, etc. who teach at my school will agree. Hey if you don't land a job there now just means they'll tell you, "Keep at it and work hard" even if you're a late bloomer.

Most amazing jew boots

Leaving a deep impression on someone with a drawing that can seem bad to someone else leaves your discussion to be subjective. I do not want to waste my time arguing about fighting game art being amazing for someone (JUST IN CASE!) on these non-gaming gaming forums.

Drawing what you observe alone isn't what consists being an artist. If I can draw an insect I see on paper with pencil as it is, you're missing other important things. You're not applying composition or thinking about it if you're just drawing what you see without thinking of the best way to express that sight. You're not pushing and pulling/exaggerating certain features and values in order to maximize the impact if you're just "doing something beautiful from observation." In a way, that's just mapping out something. That's a mimic.

Do you have any examples of someone's drawing that came without anyone's advice and/or teaching (there is no necessity for it to be formal) and is flat-out amazing on professional standards? For someone to say he/she has had no influence whatsoever is BS.

I'm saying it again, no one picks up a pencil for the first time and draws something amazing. I don't emphasize formal education. Observing in itself consists of a lot and can be education. Just looking at something and replicating it or studying someone else's sketches and understanding them, etc., can mean a lot and not just one word in itself: observation.

And no, saying everyone is a learned artist isn't injustice to anyone. As a matter of fact, it's your twist on my subject. How can you be so good by not learning anything from someone else either directly or indirectly. It's surprising that things have to be explained to the most infinite detail here, not so that someone can understand but so that there isn't a retort that indicates points flying over a head.

Here's a fourth "natural genius" example. Have you read Van Gogh's Draughtsman book? He had mediocre paintings, sketches and studies when he first started to draw and take art seriously. Look at his stuff years later, the stuff we usually see!

Ask Sarah Simblet the same question. It's getting old. Just show those amazing examples. I've yet to find someone who draws with negative 100% influence from anyone else whether it be drawing or observation and has been recognized as something amazing world-wide. Not even Leonardo or Michaelangelo.

What you saw in some people centuries ago and see even more now due to easier methods of communication is "potential." It's just different in definition from "natural" and it's different from what you've said. One thing to clarify with potential is that when he/she first sets down that brush on paper and leaves an impression then this person is not afraid to express him/herself, there is subtlety and feeling, but not tension. So people will say to this person, "You have potential" when in reality they're just one step ahead. I mean, seriously, if you take 30 3 year olds to paint one house, how do you say who's better since at this stage there isn't much influence? So in reality the hardship involves become a grown-up child, not a grown-up adult. I'll just leave it there whether I've convinced one person or none.

There's nowhere I can't reach.