>>5748992I agree and disagree; I think we're not looking at things in the same way.
>It will always feel like your skills are lacking, no matter how much you grind.Yes, and what you describe about the process through which this problem occurs is accurate.
I would add that, if you *really* can do figure drawing well, this mean that you have a certain appreciation of more fundamentals notions (proportions, volumes, color mixing, temperature, etc.): learning landscape shouldn't be that hard. But I may be biased, as I personally tried to learn to draw pretty much anything from the beginning.
>Skills are not an essential part of artThe word "Art" comes from latin "ars", precisely meaning "skill, craft".
>ESPECIALLY when there is a strong idea behind it.I agree. Like picrel, according to western's style/standard, is technically poor, but (to me), it's marvelous.
I think that we're looking at things from a different perspective: you seem to consider art as something the artist needs to express, while I consider art as something a random person will need to receive.
And I think a modern random person is likely to have higher standard regarding technical abilities. It's a bit sad in a way that appearances matter that much, but if your ideas really are worth it, why not dressing them as finely as possible?
But obviously from the artist's point of view, such rigor isn't as necessary.
>>5749183I'm a trad; I just don't understand how people can find any joy in drawing on a computer! Though I think some computer drawing skills can be handy in a professional settings, like to test out a few ideas more easily, etc. But man, I wouldn't want to have to do art on a computer.
