>Agreed. I can't put my finger on a single detail, but the aggregate changes form a nicer, more convincing portrait. The face might look muddled to you, but I'm not seeing it that way.
From what I gathered, the likeness of a face is determined by very specific and very sensitive variables in the proportions of the face. Distance between eyes, nose to lips, corner of mouth to center of eye, etc. As long as you get those right, everything else doesn't really matter. It's the reason caricatures work. It's sort of a non-linear information encoding system. Very small changes to certain proportions will make the face look like a different person. Meanwhile, overall shape of the face can be completely different, but as long as those tiny details match, you get likeness.
>I'm still working on this one.
I really like the way you did the perspective, it's very dynamic.>>22672
You know I love blabbering too much about the philosophy of art to ignore this question.
But it's a difficult question. It's like asking "how do you build ans ground attack aircraft?". Where would you begin explaining that one? Do you list all the individual components and what they do, but miss the whole picture? Do you explain what aircraft are in the first place, and the principle of converting heat energy from fuel into lift? The historical context that led to the existence of such a thing as aircraft?
And although your average Ilyushin Il-2 is far more complex than some blobs of color on a 2D surface, visual art is similar in that it's a system of nested ideas that all depend on each other, and when arranged in a certain way, create a unique "Thing". There are infinite ways to combine the various parts of a plane (from the level of atoms, to individual components), and only a very, very small number of resulting combinations will produce something good. Same applies to creating art. In a way, it's an exploration of the infinite possibility space of visual images in search of one unique combination that is "good".
The question is, what are those "parts" that we are combining, in the case of art? Now, there are different layers of abstraction you can use, from the level of individual atoms, to large literal concepts like "person sitting next to a table". We need to find the smallest level of MEANINGFUL abstraction, so atoms won't do. Neither will concepts too large, as they will limit us to one particular type of object, rather than all possible objects. (not all paintings contain a person). This smallest level of usable abstractions is, I think, what defines a certain medium / field / style, etc. In the case of building planes, it's engineering concepts that pertain to aerodynamics, thermodynamics, mechanics, material properties, etc. For art, it is shapes, colors, lines, tones, and the relationship between those. There are ways to combine shapes to create a pleasing result, and ways to combine colors to create a pleasing results. Then there are more ways to combine those results with each other, to create a pleasing combination of pleasant shapes with pleasant colors. And the complexity keeps going deeper and deeper. Creating art is the methodology of finding that one unique combination in this infinite sprawling graph.
That's in theory, starting from bottom up. In practice, a lot of times, especially beginners, start from the largest concepts, and then move towards the smallest layers of abstraction. So the biggest level of abstraction would be "I want to draw a person", then you move down, deciding the shape of the person, trying to make that shape appealing, to the smaller shapes of the details on his face, etc. etc. So you would try to place his shoulder line in such a way that the resulting shape is pleasant. Same with the head and other individual parts. Then within those larger shapes, you place the smaller ones, such as nose, eyes, fingers, etc. so that they look pleasing inside THOSE shapes. And so on recursively.
Now, everything I wrote above is an absolutely awful way to teach art, but for someone looking to analytically dissect and analyze art, I hope it's satisfactory.