PDA

View Full Version : Drawing and drawing well are two very different things.


Lunatique
05-04-2005, 10:55 AM
Just yesterday, someone asked me for advice and critique, and something came up in our conversation that I thought was interesting.

It seems that many of the aspiring artists don't realize something very important. The person I was talking to was under the impression that if you draw, then that automatically makes your 3D better. What I had to point out to him was that merely drawing and being able to draw well are two very different things. Drawing alone won't help you; stick figures are drawings too. You must be able to draw WELL in order to have that traditional skill benefit your 3D.

And how well is well enough to see significant improvement in your 3D? Basically, when your drawings aren't plagued by overwheldming number of obvious mistakes in proportions, perspective, anatomy, foreshortening, clothing folds..etc. If you can draw without glaring mistakes, then you're on your way. After that, you go to the next step and inject life and enerygy and expressiveness in your drawing--but that's at the most advanced level of drawing, and takes many years to get there.

Anyway, I thought I'd point this out, since I think he's not the only one who has misguided notions about drawing and 3D.

I'm not good at drawing at all, and it's something that every artist works on for his entire artistic life. But even though I don't draw very well, what I had was enough to benefit my 3D learning greatly. My first 3d model was a realistic human head--and that's not typically something one can do when first learning how to model, unless you have traditional drawing skills. With drawing skills, you can skip ahead to advanced modelling almost right off the bat, without having to practice all the basic simple stuff first.

sphere
05-04-2005, 11:06 AM
I think there is one point that you should highlight. That is that you can be excellent at 3D and not a good drawer at all. Being able to draw merely helps you. There are also many types of drawing and many types of 3D styles. One drawing style may assist one 3D style but not another. You may be a great cartoonist, but that necesserily may not help you model an anatomically accurate human. I think it's just one of those things that can be discussed until the cows come home. Hence the 'Do I need to be able to draw to do 3D?' threads.

jmBoekestein
05-04-2005, 11:19 AM
I hear and read from a lot of people that they are all the same game. In that you have an idea and use a tool. I think doing 3d has made me a better 2d'er and then back again. in 3d you can put the vertices in exactly how you want them without ruining a piece of paper, at the same time you get a far better understanding of how you thought form and light interacted. But I think it always comes down to getting a firm grip on basics, if drawing helps you experiment or develop skills for shading and or volumetric stuff, then it helps I think. But I find it a weird thing, when you draw you leave out some things because of no need for them and accentuate others. But in 3d you tend to want to stretch the capacity of the system and overdetail everything. They're two different pickles, and any training getting you to an answer probably helps, understanding the various aspects to a good image is what it's all about. Photography is probably an equally good method. But I don't really know though.

cha0t1c1
05-04-2005, 04:21 PM
I completely agree, when I first learned 3d I had enough knowledge in figure drawing to start withe the advanced stuff...

However there is a big difference between sketching with a pencil and sketching with colour, which I know I stated an abvious point. which brings me to this point:

are sketchers more impatient in 3d modelling than painters?

I think so... The two questions(the thread question and this) are relative.

if you are a good drawer are you a patient 3d artist?

this can also be argued to what good means. and if good means translating emotions better or translating the reality better.

I don't think there is a happy medium, since if you persue one objective you lose track of the other. Also, does that mean that timeless art(which was mentioned in a previous thread) achieves the happy medium.

Ariel
05-04-2005, 05:48 PM
One of the main reasons why I thik good draghtsmen have a tendency to become better 3d artists than the rest of the people is because for every 3d model that a modeler makes, an illustrator/painter can draw 15 pages (just a random number) in a sketchbook. When drawing, there are no image planes to solve your proportion issues, so the eye has to learn that by practice. On the other hand, someone who can draw with good proportion and design, can easily take that and learn to model in 3d (but usually guys who can do this are seldomly interested in doing 3d work, because they enjoy the 2d design process more, although there are exceptions). Same thing goes with sculpture. People who can draw well usually can just jump right into sculpture with better chances of success than soomeone who can't draw (so much so, that many sculpture academies teach you drawing before jumping into sculpting).

I don't think that you need to draw at all to be a 3d artist, though. But to be the best
possible 3d artist, drawing is a must.

------
cha0t1c1- "and if good means translating emotions better or translating the reality better."
-----

If you can comunicate the reality better, you will automatically comunicate the emotion. Emotion is not something that can be painted, because it isn't a specific value or hue and it doesn't have a specific shape or form. "That's why it is so hard to draw "fear" or "pain" when playing Pictionary :) " But if you draw accurately the proportions, angles, and shadow shapes of the face of someone who is in fear or in pain, then you will comunicate that emotion.

cha0t1c1
05-04-2005, 05:53 PM
I lightly disagree...Look at the painting "Scream".

in order to translate real emotion into a piece you need to exaggerate, because so many other senses are blocked when only looking at a visual translation...that's why an ugly person would look beautiful in a painting when translated correctly, due to the amazement of detail. yet a frightened person will have slight disproportionality in order to translate fear in a full spectrum visually...

ashakarc
05-04-2005, 06:44 PM
I might have a different view on this. Drawing is a skill enhanced by practice and practice and practice. By itself it is not a quality of a talented mind. What makes an artist a good painter is the sense of design. Design sense is a mental quality, and this is where talent resides.


Ultimately, a good designer (painter, sculptor, architectural, photographer, etc..) if given the opportunity to cross dicipline borders, she/he will excel, but with limitation to the medium and type of training.

In essence, you could have great drawing skills, great coloring techniques, yet when it comes to putting things together, you would fall short. This is where drawing and drawing well get differentiated.

Nice topic !

Nehym
05-04-2005, 07:17 PM
Very, very interesting topics, I agree with most of it; each things in life as various degree in it, and we need to know how to make the difference between them.

As some of you are talking about 2D skills serving 3D skills, i think it may even transpose itself on 2D in almost the same way.

As someone can do awesome linearts but be a aweful painter and vice-versa. But i believe the one doing good lineart could have an advantage over the painter in painting simply because s/he have a better understanding of the forms and would knowhow to separate them. A painter could have a bit more difficulty to do so when sketching, if too used to work in colors and forms rather than in lines.

And once again, one or the other can help 3D skills too. And being good at one thing does not makes us good in everything that can be closely related or not to the thing we are good at.

It may all be a matter of mediums, which can help each others but which we cannot all master at once. But knowing the others, or at least how they work, their base, definatly helps to improve.

If you take 2 cooks, one specialized in desserts and the other that is more of a general one touching various meals, which would improve better when taught a new recipe? The one specialized in one thing that may not really know specific things used in that other type of cooking, or the other one that tried and knows some things in just about every type of cooking? To me, obviously the ''general'' one would have an advantage. Okay, really ridiculous and crappy examples and i know cooking doesn't exactly works like that, but still, i guess it conveys the idea anyway.

NoSeRider
05-04-2005, 08:43 PM
This might be a mute question with the advent of Zbrush and Claytools, with the possiblity that normal mapping will become a requirement in the game industry.

Basically, Zbrush and Claytools are drawing tools, not 3D tools.

If you don't have traditional drawing skills, you'll probably be left behind anyway.

jmBoekestein
05-04-2005, 09:03 PM
I disagree!
You need the same basic hand-eye coordination. But essentiaally there are major differences. It's more prone to scuplture and wood carving techniques. It's very much different from drawing on a 2d plane. In Zbrush you can turn your model and work like ina package like Maya, which has artisan. Zspheres are a very much 3d technique also. Yes it will become more hands on and therefore more accesible, but no it will never be like drawing.

Tonik
05-04-2005, 09:09 PM
Interesting thread.

About ten years ago when I first went off to Art School having got top grades in Art at school I thought I was an awesome draughtsman. Only now do I realise how much I still have to learn. I'm currently taking part in as many of the Daily Sketches as possible to get some practice.

A sense of anatomy and composition can defnitely help with creating a 3d image. When learning how to draw you're not only learning to put down what you see onto paper but are learning how to actually look at things in the first place. When you can directly reference proportions against an image in a 3d program a knowledge of anatomy isn't quite as important but being able to tell when something looks wrong is something that is improved with life drawing.

Very interesting point Noserider. The borders between 2d and 3d cg definitely seem to be blurring.

StealthPharaoh
05-04-2005, 11:05 PM
i used to think that drawing and painting is going to help me learn 3d much easier but now i realized that drawing and painting actually doesn't help your 3d thaat much.

i know a lot of people who are better than me in 3d who are not good at drawing though i definatly didn't give 3d enough chance because i tried to start learning by modelling heads and it was kinda hard and what i noticed is that i had hard time modelling because i didn't have a good sense of space and 3d. doing something from different angles is totally different from drawing on a flat surface and giving it illusion of depth.

i was never into sculpting or doing something 3d traditionaly, i was always more into dawing and painting and what i'm trying to say is that traditional sculpting will help you in 3d modelling while drawing and painting is the part that will help you when it comes to texturing.

I didn't have hard time texturing because it was just like drawing and painting. i'm only worried about the flat surface. but modelling is something totally different it's more like building objects in space and doesn't really have much to do with drawing. If someone used to play with legos, build stuff or do sculptures when they were kids that will help them to have good sense of 3d and that expalins why some people are good at modelling withought being good at drawing.

so drawing and painting won't help ur modelling much but will def. help ur texturing

ozhaver
05-04-2005, 11:36 PM
I find The Scream terribly caricaturesque...when i think 'scream' it is not that mood, nor those colors which come to my mind. Modernism has burned that picture out so many times...

The emotional part of a drawing is an extra. When discussing drawing technique we stick to lines, shadows & light, texture, composition, etc. Not theme; emotions are part of theme/concept/idea (however you may call it). Emotions are not particular to drawing only, therefore it is not an element for which to judge drawing by. There is emotion in painting, music, acting (DUH? of course), etc. Good emotion projection doesn't make a drawing automatically good- it makes the experience nicer though.

As for the ones who disagree...there is a reason why in most artschools, if not all, every student is required to take Drawing classes before they start focusing on the rest. So shhhhh! :p

I heard The scream was stolen recently and rumour to be destroyed...

Patiki
05-05-2005, 02:27 AM
I'd just like to point out that good dawing skills do not come from hand-eye coordination. If you can write, you have the required amount of coordination to make you a good draughtsmen. Drawing is more to do with perception and understanding how to apply what you see, verses what you know.

Gord-MacDonald
05-05-2005, 05:17 AM
The great drawing instructor Kimon Nicolades (author of "the Natual Way to Draw" and instructor at the Art Students League) stated the following in his introduction to "the Natual Way to Draw":

"There is only one right way to learn to draw and that is a perfectly natural way. It has nothing to do with artifice or technique. It has nothing to do with aesthetics or conception. It has only to do with the act of correct observation, and by that I mean a physical contact with all sorts of objects through all the senses. If a student misses this step and does not practice it for at least his first five years, he has wasted most of his time and must necessarily go back and begin all over again"

I think his emphasis on "physical contact with all sorts of objects through all the senses" is bang on. His notion of drawing is one which very much embraces the "real world" in all of its physicality.

In the first chapter of "the Natual Way to Draw" he has a reproduction of a sculpture created by a person blind from birth - the caption reads "you need not rely on the eyes alone". Making ourselves "physically aware" is very important.
As an example:
a) imagine a figure in a pose (for now, one you can imagine yourself doing).
b) draw the pose
c) take the pose yourself - don't even look at yourself in a mirror.
d) hold the pose until it hurts! - 3-5 minutes? and focus your attention on where it hurts
e) draw the pose again - but emphasize with darker lines of varying degree, where it hurt, where it hurt less, where the pain eased off, when you were holding the pose.
f) compare the two drawings

Chances are pretty good that the second drawing will be much better than the first one - (it will have much more feeling in it) - you will have relied on more than your sense of sight to create it. (if you were to do this for an hour each day - lets say 5-10 poses, it wouldn't be long before you noticed a big difference in your drawing)

Virtually every important instructional book/course on drawing emphasizes the importance of "weight" in a drawing - there are other important topics (study of gesture, movement, light, anatomical issues), but "weight" very near the top of the list. It is at the core of the tension in our bodies - it is the manifestation of our continual resistance to the force of gravity.

IMO success in making a credible (realist) model, or drawing is based on the same thing - understanding the underlying properties of the object that we seek to (re)create. All good art is embodied with empathy - and while empathy exists on many levels, one of the most basic levels of empathy is understanding how our bodies relate to our surroundings - understanding our own physicality.

Gord

ozhaver
05-05-2005, 05:41 AM
That is īndeed a great book- every artist who's interested in drawing should have it and go through it. :D

Gord-MacDonald
05-05-2005, 06:02 AM
That is īndeed a great book- every artist who's interested in drawing should have it and go through it. :D

Indeed! one gruelling exersize after the next - all 375 hrs. worth! :thumbsup:

Gord

Boone
05-06-2005, 10:31 PM
Hmmm...actually, I find that my computer along with THAT book by Betty Edwards have both helped me to see what is in front of me. Since few of you know programming - I shall not bore you to death...you are artists afterall! :)

I have only one example to give you - Timothy Albee's book on Kaze: Ghost Warrior. In one section of the book he suggests we look at the siluettes of two characters - insted of the detail itself. This technique is in Betty Edward's book and I suppose it is a basic drawing skill - negative space. So, yeah - by improving your drawing skills, you can improve your 3D work.

I believe that if one wishes to improve their 3D modelling skills, then Betty's book is a good start. After that, its a never-ending quest for that photo-realistic image...

I personally bore of drawing what I see - I'm more interested in what I see in the imagination... :cool:

Geta-Ve
05-06-2005, 10:57 PM
I'd also like to add to look at anime. Simple shapes yet VERY expressive features. That is partially one of the reasons I love anime is because they are able to express emtion so easily and effectively.

Yet it is very difficult to translate anime to 3d, so in a way that doesn't exactly help you.

For me though what has helped most is being able to get general shapes down on paper, knowing where muscles go or how high or low the chest or what not should be. That helps in 3d, imo. And on the other end of the spectrum 3d has helped me with knowing HOW to draw the muscle shapes and proportions and such as Im forced to look at it from every angle.

(sorry if I was repeating anything)

noen
05-06-2005, 11:02 PM
I find The Scream terribly caricaturesque...when i think 'scream' it is not that mood, nor those colors which come to my mind. Modernism has burned that picture out so many times....

Wrong! Mass media does try to reduce great art to a caricature of itsself, but modernism? No....I don't see it. Edvard Munch *was* a modernist! It's called expressionism. And just because you don't approve of the colors he used, I mean, ....my my, how self absorbed can you get?

Some follks think it's about the holocaust, hun.

--

A drawing is thought made visible, so being able to draw would certainly help one to think about how you would go about creating a 3D object. It may not be absoultly necessary but It could only help.

CCDrkNrgy
05-07-2005, 12:35 AM
A drawing is thought made visible, so being able to draw would certainly help one to think about how you would go about creating a 3D object. It may not be absoultly necessary but It could only help.

Sometimes I draw without really thinking, though. I'll start off doodling, and all of the sudden, it's a drawing. 3D, I think, requires a lot more thinking because you're working on lots of detail you may not exactly pay attention to when you draw. I know I don't. To me, drawing is more of an expression or a feeling rather than a thought. My drawing style differs depending on my mood or feelings, which may not pertain to what I'm thinking about at the time.

Am I making any sense? I'm not so sure. lol

noen
05-07-2005, 04:37 AM
Sometimes I draw without really thinking, though. I'll start off doodling, and all of the sudden, it's a drawing. 3D, I think, requires a lot more thinking

Yes, you're making sense, you just have different filters for 3D than for 'doodling'. You put 3D into the 'it has to be commercial' catagory in your mind. Hopefully, one day 3D artists will free themselves from the shackles commercial art, big boobed women and fast cars.

Naw, check that, there is at least one in the fine art of Ray Ceasar. I would love to see his 3D doodles!

cha0t1c1
05-07-2005, 06:24 AM
well with 2d inspiration is the trigger of the shape, but in 3d an idea is the trigger.

To elaborate: with 3d it's just like sculpting, a plan is made then an action is commenced.

2d, however, you start with a simple observation, emotion, or mood. then u get shapes...

cheers

CCDrkNrgy
05-07-2005, 08:19 PM
Yes, you're making sense, you just have different filters for 3D than for 'doodling'. You put 3D into the 'it has to be commercial' catagory in your mind. Hopefully, one day 3D artists will free themselves from the shackles commercial art, big boobed women and fast cars.

Naw, check that, there is at least one in the fine art of Ray Ceasar. I would love to see his 3D doodles!

I really don't know enough about 3D art to actually use the software. The last time I used it was 10 years ago, when it was called Alias/Wavefront. That's one reason why it requires more thinking on my part. Another reason is detail. When it comes to detail, I'm totally anal retentive... a perfectionist, if you will. If I'm going to create something in 3D, it HAS to be done right. Photoshop is 2D, but I work on just as much detail. I guess there's something about the computer that makes me more detail-oriented, because I'm even picky about grammar, when I'm reading someone's document.

So I would say you're right... I DO have different filters, but I think it's more the medium rather than the commercialism. lol

hypercube
05-07-2005, 09:09 PM
I think the thing that's very difficult to capture in 3D vs. 2D is spontaneity, even modeling very fast there's still something you have to be more deliberate about with it..I think ZBrush goes a ways towards recapturing that, but even then it's still kinda hard to get the "sketch" portion of 2D into 3D, there still seems to be a middle phase inbetween the idea and the 3D. I've done a lot of designs straight in 3D and you can still have discoveries and happy accidents, but it's generally a lot more deliberate, I think.

I kind of came at the whole thing backwards myself, I never learned 2D past doodling before learning 3D..what served me more in strictly 3D was studying straight design, color and composition, and a lot of filmmaking and cinematography techniques. I got a bit more into 2D doing some matte and compositing work, and 2D effects animation, but still never really got too far on the proper drawing side of things.

What was interesting though is when I got into modeling organics and humans, I studied traditional art a lot more, and a whole lot of anatomy etc. all from materials meant for 2D, and it improved the work immensely, or at least I feel it did. I still haven't had time to take proper figure drawing classes or anything like that, but I have been working on it a bit now simply because I want to learn more and be more well-rounded. I think seeing and doing 'both sides' has advantages. I always had a good eye for perspective, 3D came more naturally to me, and especially doing matchmoving and integration of 3D objects into live-action that was a necessity, but I think that translates and helps in drawing as well, I can see what's off or not, I just have to get my hand eye coordination to work the rest of it out.

So anyway I think one can help the other, and vice versa, it's all in what you study and why.

ozhaver
05-07-2005, 09:23 PM
Wrong! Mass media does try to reduce great art to a caricature of itsself, but modernism? No....I don't see it. Edvard Munch *was* a modernist! It's called expressionism. And just because you don't approve of the colors he used, I mean, ....my my, how self absorbed can you get?

Some follks think it's about the holocaust, hun.


DUH!

I'm an art major student, of course I know where, when, who, what, how and where...I still don't buy it.

Just cuz a piece is about the Holocaust doesn't make it instantly meritful either...

And modernism is all about commercialization of art in many aspects, without the media it wouldn't exist.

It is still caricaturesque in the sense of anatomical distortion...being a caricature doesn't make it bad. But no big deal either...mostly it's all about the media making it famous...

noen
05-08-2005, 12:20 AM
modernism is all about commercialization of art in many aspects, without the media it wouldn't exist.

Of course it would still exist and it would still speak deeply to the vast majority of those who saw it. You talk about the commercialization of art as if it's a bad thing, but that very commercialization has allowed many many people to enjoy and benifit from all the great art the world has to offer.

Without mass media we'd still be in the dark ages and monks would still be scratching out their illustrated bibles. No presses, no books except those that are hand made, no radio, newspapers, TV, movies, no music except for live performances, nothing at all the we take for granted. Seems like an extreme position to me, are you sure that's what you meant?

Mabye you're saying that if the media makes something famous that, in your opinion, would not be famous otherwise, that that is a bad thing. *That* I could agree to, but I respectfully disagree. I think "The Scream" would have been famous whatever environment it found its self in.

chow-mein
05-08-2005, 01:42 AM
Of course it would still exist and it would still speak deeply to the vast majority of those who saw it. You talk about the commercialization of art as if it's a bad thing, but that very commercialization has allowed many many people to enjoy and benifit from all the great art the world has to offer.

Without mass media we'd still be in the dark ages and monks would still be scratching out their illustrated bibles. No presses, no books except those that are hand made, no radio, newspapers, TV, movies, no music except for live performances, nothing at all the we take for granted. Seems like an extreme position to me, are you sure that's what you meant?

Mabye you're saying that if the media makes something famous that, in your opinion, would not be famous otherwise, that that is a bad thing. *That* I could agree to, but I respectfully disagree. I think "The Scream" would have been famous whatever environment it found its self in.

Brenda, you are quite passionate in defending modern art, for that I applaude you. Yet, to generalize about how a certain piece will "speak deeply to a majority of those who view it"; takes your praise a little too far. A majority of people do not understand nor appreciate art as we come to define it. Most people who encounter a Willem De Kooning or Joan Miro for the first time will frown or scratch their heads in confusion. Do we blame the viewer for not "getting it" or the artist for not communicating well enough. Year after year the federal budget for supporting the visual arts decrease, many view the arts as a waste of tax payer's money and should be put to more immediate concerns like feeding the homeless. Why do so many people feel estranged to art? Do they look at old masters' work and compare their achievements to modern artists? Does the public at large desire more "finished" or "polished" pieces rendered in neo-classical glory? I don't know. The public generally holds art with a good amount of admiration, but also a good dose of suspicion too.

noen
05-08-2005, 05:13 AM
But people havn't looked on Munch, van Gogh or Andrew Wyeth and felt alienated from the work. These are examples that are both critically appreciated and popular. Less so with Wyeth, but that was just spitefullness on the part of the fine art establishment. My argument, in this thread, is that popularity is not always the result of the mass media.

Yes people do not understand modern art most of the time and no, it's not their fault. It's the result of a poor education on top of a culture, American culture, that depreciates art in favor of the almighty dollar. Ever spent much time in the Hispanic community? It's a real eye opener. They really support and value the arts. A friend of mine picked up everything and moved to Spain because he sold more and was appreciated more there than here. Not to mention he couldn't stomach what the US has become, can't say I blame him.

greynite1
05-08-2005, 10:07 AM
Drawing itself will very much help you with 2d and 3d however I was approaching it from a slightly different perspective. I was really motivated to start taking classes and learning to draw because I have a bunch of ideas in my head. My problem in 3d was that I could get the characters out as I imagined them because I had no reference. So thats what I first started learning to draw and learn to be a concept artist for. I wanted to be able to make my own image planes for my characters (Which directly helps you create something) and have designs and sketches for environments and objects so I have a field of reference for what i'm supposed to be shooting for in 3d. Other wise I'm always having to rely on other peoples ideas to practice my craft(s).

so aside from getting a better understanding of anatomy, depth and shade I feel that in this one function knowing how to draw can mean all the difference in the world. Because alot of 3d is planning. How your going to model something, whether to use box modelling or nurbs how to texture it and so forth.

I also can't think of a better motivator for getting all up to speed in 3d then wanting to model your own stuff and make them fully come alive and watch them move. Forgive me if this is somehow stating the obvious or something.

ozhaver
05-08-2005, 10:30 AM
noen, I don't think commercialization is a bad thing either. I think the only thing that we disagree in is that you like The Scream and I don't :P

This is a drawing discussion thread!

>_> let's leave painting aside for a while...

(if you want my real opinion on all the modern art movement search inside "Any thoughs on modern art" thread, no need to get into dead movements here...)

chow-mein
05-09-2005, 06:46 PM
noen, I don't think commercialization is a bad thing either. I think the only thing that we disagree in is that you like The Scream and I don't :P

This is a drawing discussion thread!

>_> let's leave painting aside for a while...

(if you want my real opinion on all the modern art movement search inside "Any thoughs on modern art" thread, no need to get into dead movements here...)


You don't like the Scream, and you call yourself an artist. LOL. This is the type of treatment I used to get when I attended art school. I voiced my strong dislike regarding Mattise one time while I was riding an elevator up to class, a faculty member's face literally turned red when she heard my remarks and she exclaimed "unless you learn to love and appreciate Mattise, you will NEVER be an artist!" I just laughed...with the tuition I was paying I can call myself whatever I wanted.

Ariel
05-09-2005, 07:19 PM
The Scream has no real merits in my opinion, no matter what art critics/professors think. As much "emotion" as it conveys, it doesn't stand to the emotion that I see in a Sargent portrait or a Rockwell ad, or even an old Caravaggio scene. Having said that, Munch seemed to be playing by a very different set of rules and it is hard to really compare it to the paintings that preceded it.

The reason why so many people think it is a masterpiece, is because someone else told them it is a masterpiece. I can't possibly imagine someone walking up to it for the first time without any previous ideas about it, thinking it is a great piece of art. The same can't be said about La Pieta, David, or Maddame X.

[Oz Haver] - De que parte de la isla eres? Saludos de otro boricua :)

Boone
05-09-2005, 07:45 PM
The Scream. Its very nice, I'm sure, but I think its a tad over-rated. :wise: C'mon - its obvious that a "flasher" has just exposed himself and the artist just painted what they saw of their model's reaction. I'll bet they were actually going to do a more serious piece, but all common sense just went straight out the window... :D

CGTalk Moderation
05-09-2005, 07:45 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.