[Blind]

I'm just curious... it seems that everyone makes a point of stating how quickly they were able to complete their pieces. Why is that? I think I'm missing the importance of it, because I just don't get it. What does the amount of time spent on a piece have to do with the end result? Is it just something to guage yourself on as you progress?

One of the things I love about art is that feeling you get when your left-brain shuts down and your right-brain takes over. Have some tunes on in the background, and you just lose track of time. Before you know it, hours have flown by. Why rush that?

[Sumaleth]

The point is not that you're painting quickly, it's that you're forcing yourself to approach the image in a different way. You learn to analyse the shapes and be able to represent them in fewer brush strokes.

At least that's what it's supposed to be about. I think a lot of people just use it as an excuse to not finish a picture.

Row.

[Gothic Gerbil]

Well here at school whenever someone sees a photoshop piece presented in design class someone always asks how long that took and scoffs whenever it was a short amount of time, even though the piece in question may be a really good design and a pretty polished piece, even if a bit simplistic at times. Yet they never ask about the more traditional pieces, even though I know that some of them were done just as quickly or even more so than the photoshop pieces and look half as finished too at times. I think it is related to the cliched terms about time and money and all of that. All the nice capitalistic mindsets. Pretty much the ruining influence of Western culture. In my opinion, at least, I'm sure many would beg to differ.

[Red Leader]

Another important point is that if you want to pursue art as a profession, you HAVE to be fast, or you
a) won't make your deadlines.
b) won't make any money.

Also, working faster forces you to keep from adding in superfluous details.

(Edit) Hehe, I Gerbil and I posted opposing sides of the same coin at the same time.

[ November 27, 2001: Message edited by: Red Leader ]

[Shaded]

Brian, that is a kickass sig! I was begining to think I was the only one on the planet who had seen that movie!

[Blind]

You know, the less time more money thing never occurred to me. I gueses that makes sense if you illustrate for a living. I only do it for personal reward (with no intention to do otherwise), so I just never saw it that way. Although, I think professionals are a minority in here, no? There's over 5,500 people registered on this board. I can't imagine they're all working pros, right?

[roundeye]

because in this context its relevant. its not a justification for a piece looking shitty in most cases, its simply relevant information. similar to the software used, tablet/mouse, reference? etc... in addition, if something brilliant is achieved with a few simple strokes thats more impresive to most people than the same excellence achieved with hours of manual labour. which all relates back to skill/experience.
also, if its not stated, it often asked about in my experience.

[Brian Despain]

Red Leader pretty much hit the nail on the head there. When you are working in a professional illustration gig, be it as a hired gun or as a full time employee, time is a resource that you'll often find in short supply. By learning how to make a good looking picture (ie by not adding superflous details, or more to the point not spending a great amount of time for little payoff.) you're not only making yourself a better artist, but also a much wealthier one.

However that is not to say that sitting back and drawing or painting for hours on end is an invalid form of expression, it just doesn't pay as well up front.


B

[S4Sb]

plain ego boost reasons

[Frost]

Agreeing with Red Leader. In the professional world, be it freelance or just holding any job in any art related industry, it all comes down to being able to do the greatest work in the smallest amount of time, being able to produce more and/or better.