• Don't insult other visitors. Offensive comments will be deleted without warning.
• Comments are accepted in English only.
• No swearing words in comments, otherwise such comments will be censored.
• Your nickname and avatar are randomly selected. If you don't post comments for 7 days, they both are reset.
• To choose another avatar, click the ‘Random avatar’ link.
This taught me something very important about paintings/drawings as well. It entirely changed the way I look at drawings, paintings - and photographs.
If a picture, created using whatever technique, does nothing but SHOW something, it has no significant value to me. If an artist shows his abilities simply by showing what might as well be created with a camera, why not use a camera? Your artistic merit is proven not by pictures showing, but by pictures beeing something!
Don't get me wrong: Some of those drawings certaily "are" something - I like several of them very well. But that is NOT because they show the same as a photographer might show, using his camera, but because there is something else. Something that a photographer might also create, something beyond the "showing" part.
But why should an artist with a pencil spend energy on trying to impress by his abilities to duplicate a camera? That is a waste of energy and good artistic resources! So, leave to the camera what the camera can do more easily, and focus on creating drawings that ARE something, whether it shows something "faithfully" or not!