>>5627278to me its like specialization and individual style. it doesn't matter, you get different but sometimes overlapping bemefits, either way. in shorthand,
1. detail guy's studies:
pro: understanding of rules of rendering, good for detail in illustration, making real and imagined materials look believable
con: limited familiarity with overall subject types and construction (in the same time it takes the doodler, you'll have only done a couple because you'll be fully rendering.) limited understanding of underlying cohesion of constructions
2. quick sketch guy's studies:
opposite of 1,
pro: basic understanding of form-feeling/ construction of a wider range of subjects, good for line fluidity and stylization, deepening structural understanding, good for rapid design
con: might have tendency to never really be able to take things beyond the sketch, limited believability in how real their subjects look if trying to incorporate texture, complex light/shadow-delineating-form areas might appear sloppy, since they had only ever suggested these places in studies, and hadnt deep dived into general rules of whats really going on in these areas.
dont think theres any wrong way to do these, because youre doing what feels right to you and growing the skilset your own stylization will naturally fall under.
success stories run the full gamut,
for detail guys, from the realists and the old russian masters like shishkin, crazy detailed chinese paintings now, etc,
to for the sketchy guys, some insane product or robot or architecture designs, to beautiful shape language like arthur rackham, etc.
even for the most extreme detail guy and sketchy guy, you'll still get some overlap/ some of the benefits of both, just more for whichever tendency you fall under.
just my lengthy take.
