>>5042740are you saying "if you can trace a line over an existing shape, then just draw the exact same line on it's own in an empty void"? that's what i tried to do and look how it ended up. if i had the ability within me right now to do that, then i would have.
if i was just drawing the silhouette of a head, i could probably more accurately put shapes inside of it, but that's not what he's doing in the video and i'm trying to follow along with what he's doing. it feels like every time i try to do my own thing to make the process feel a little more intuitive, it's met with "no you're doing it wrong, do it more basic than that" so after so many times of hearing this, i think "well if i did this thing it would contextualize the shape so i could draw it more accurately" but then i remember every other time i've tried to do something that was my own idea to make the process easier to comprehend and more accurately compare, and people tell me i'm doing it wrong, i'm not doing it rudimentary enough and my process is too complicated.
like for example, when i was a teenager i figured out that it was much easier to make a circle if i first drew a square, and then cut the corners to make an octagon, and now you can just subdivide it into a nice smooth round circle rather than just manifesting a circle straight out of thin air, because when you do that, it always ends up as a non-concentric blob. i just want to fucking do some shit to add some context so i can see if a line is wrong or a shape is wrong instead of flailing around in the dark and never getting anything right, but that's not how it is in the tutorial, that's now the instruction i've been getting in this thread. "just draw the circle" and i draw a bunch of blobs and get mad at myself and think well if i subdivided a square into an octagon into a circle then i could do it. "no, just draw the circle". it needs to first be contextualized so that there's something to directly compare it to
