Mine is that I think that you should always begin a portrait drawing with a skull or it should be drawn at some point during the process, and I think any other method that doesn’t include the skull will end up anatomically inaccurateHere's my unpoopular take: People that think that likeness accuracy is the absolute peak of art are no fun at parties. Its a valid goal, sure, but if it means you have a take like OP, you need to get your head checked.
How could you possibly accurately draw a fucking skull that you cannot see? Do you think everyone's skull is identical?>>7427076 Drawing a skull in general will attain more accuracy than not drawing one at all. That’s the point. Same way if you draw a figure and start with a skeleton (which you also can’t see), it’ll be more accurate because it’s something every human has. It’s not that difficult of a concept to comprehend>>7427100 Ok, if you're talking about drawing construction lines, thats acceptable if you want to get precise alignments based on general relationships. Its not an unpopular take at all.
But thats different to "drawing the skull first". If you're actually drawing the skull before drawing in the muscle, fat and skin etc... this is something NOBODY should do unless they're drawing a zombie or studying.>>7427115 Why would you not draw the skull before drawing muscles, when the muscles attach to the skull?>>7427064 Anatomical accuracy isn't that important.>>7427119 It is extremely Important>>7427118 Because im drawing a face?! All I need is basic anatomical knowledge to INFORM my decisions. I don't need to actually draw them.
Am I crazy here?>>7427121 no anon, you're not crazy>>7427121 You form the foundation of that basic anatomical knowledge by drawing a skull first, and then laying features ATOP that skull. It is how you make a portrait as accurate as possible, you simply CAN’T do that without the skull. I think drawing it is necessary, more so than “knowledge”, because it’s easier to make mistakes if the skull is not visually present.>>7427120 Its really not. "Looking right" is more important than being right.>>7427064 >any other method that doesn’t include the skull will end up anatomically inaccurate people draw accurate heads without drawing a skull all the time, probably most of the time>>7427123 This is 100% just bait or you're conflating "skull" with "rough guidelines".>>7427123 Right, so do you then draw the skull at every possible angle? Y'know, for accuracy? Alright, you win. Carry on wasting time drawing stuff that doesn't make the final cut. The worst thing is if I saw your work and compared it to the subject, I GUARANTEE I would find inaccuracies.>>7427126 How can something “look right” without “being right?”
>>7427129 That’s fine, good for them. I will never subscribe to the idea that you should start a portrait without the skull because that’s how you end up making anatomical mistakes>>7427133 >How can something “look right” without “being right?” I can't wait for you to encounter your first optical illusion>>7427131 It’s not conflation. I didn’t say you had to draw a super complex skull, even a rough sketch of a skull would be better than NOTHING.
>>7427132 You’d see inaccuracies in any portrait because it’s impossible to make anything 100% accurate. However, if you want the most accuracy, it’s ideal to draw the skull, even if roughly
