On AI: it's a lot easier to dismiss it as a threat if you are already very established as an art authority with a comfortable income stream. It's a much bigger threat to new artists, especially those selling digital work.
More doesn't equal better. Like Jeff said it's on people to be skilled and hard working, and their stuff will stand out from generic crap, as always has been the case.
I often listen and learn from comedians and funny people. If your just "good" you're not funny. Why? It's timing and execution and vulnerability. Things people know they could say of our time but don't, but comedians will, and do it in a surprisingly human way. No?
😂 I was scrolling looking for this comment. For someone who doesnt know what the method is, this explained almost, literally, nothing Fun to listen to nonetheless but it’s funny
honestly Jeff's opinion on AI doesn't matter in the least as long as AI uses mass scraped non-consensual data and art, people are mad that their entire life work is being stolen for something that is replacing them as we speak, once the ethics of it get solved and we start seeing ethically sourced AI, then everything Jeff said about AI could be right
It's really weird hearing this man talk about Frank Reilly's method and in the same breath saying you can't successfully use a mathematical approach to color. A good chunk of The Elements of Painting goes over exactly this. When I first read it, an 11 value scale was revolutionary to me. He was multiplying and adding values like Photoshop layers back in the 60s. He had methods for tone mapping and exposure. Now with things like BSDFs and lighting equations there are so many ways you could extend the methods he pioneered. It doesn't have to be that complex, but it is solid framework in the otherwise subjective fields of color and values. If you are going to springboard off his ideas and reduce his curriculum to "rhythm", why call it the Reilly method and not the Watts method? It's already hard enough to track down info on his ideas without the competing namespace.
What’s up draftsmen, I miss the regular uploads. I have a question about letting go of your older and unsatisfactory work. Since 2021 when I started drawing again, I’ve been extremely productive, to the point that holding on to all my drawings and doodles is beginning to border on horsing disorder. I have four large containers of drawings, doodles and paintings and only about 10% are worth keeping and 2-5% are worth showing to another human being. I realise I will have to dump them eventually but the sentimental value is preventing me from doing that and actually causing me a bit of anxiety. How do you learn to let go?
Two fabulous artists and instructors. So talented and generous with their knowledge & skills. (Back off A.I.! No room for you, yet!). I’ve been doing Watts Atelier on-line program since last Fall. Excellent! Makes you feel you’re having a one-on-one experience with Jeff! I’m learning so much! Taking Sculpting, etc through Proko - the best! I could listen to Jeff and Stan (and Marshall) everyday. Love the podcasts. So inspiring. (Bring on the 1,000 monkeys!) Thank you, thank you!
Honestly, I'm already bored of AI. Most mainstream entertainment media (especially music and movies) is derivative, thoughtless garbage anyway. If you gave it over to the robots I wouldn't even notice. I switched to books and pre 2010's media years ago and haven't missed anything.
I really dislike when artists like you Proko say things like you're looking forward to AI art in some sense because people will be making art for the love of it, like how people like to dance. You're saying this from an incredibly priveliged position in the art world, you've made a career, AI isn't going to replace Proko and Jeff Watts isn't at threat either but did you forget that people have to work jobs? Did you forget that some people want that job that they have to do to survive to be art? well now that will no longer be possible for countless people, but hey! it's ok you can do art like how you like to dance to music! right? All said while Proko is not onnly not threatened by AI but possibly seems to monetarily gain from it if I had to judge based off of his old perspective AI tool.
Hey, there! Both Jeff and I are teachers and artists. If nobody feels the need to learn art anymore, we're directly negatively effected by AI. Teaching is what our business is. We don't speak about this topic from a privileged and safe position, but as people who are looking at the same problem as every other artist and with people who work for our businesses and depend on us for their livelihoods. On Draftsmen, we've talked about the struggles artists face as people who have overcome some them or learned how to deal with them. This is a new one that there's not an answer to yet. We'll keep talking about it and sharing what we learn and think about it.
As it;'s been stated before on this channel and others, the incentive to invest years of time and study to create and understand good art will begin to fade the more AI becsomes prevalent. Students will no longer need to study complex anatomy and techniques, and even more students will abandon the pursuit all together when there are programs that can draw any perspective and create compositions etc in seconds, when it takes years to learn to do well by hand. Perhaps the 5 remaining artists will still be valued, but I feel like the real problem is that most people will not feel the desire to even push past the difficult aspects of art when they need to put food on the table, with little incentive to ever gain anything from art. No one will have the time to study these things when there is no possibility to ever become succesful. Comparing this to digital art is not a fair anology, because that medium still required fundamental knowledge of artand the dance analogy is also sorely lacking in comparison. I am a hobbyist dancer, and I can still dance to reap the benefits of physical exercise or go out to social events and enjoy myself, whereas for me to feel proud of my art I need to invest hours, days, or weeks to create something deserving, and then months or years of study to acquire the techniques required for creating such images. I agree with you, its not a threat to established artists who already have a lot of money in the bank from succesful careers. I dont think these pros think about the repurcussions to the trade as I do and other students do. Iḿ dedicating my life energy just to get a foot hold in the trade. Why would anyone do this in place of working a job that pays actual money, why would anyone spend countless hours and days to learn when they know it will never provide them any economical stability? This problem is really a problem with the ego centric economy and society that we all exist in. In a perfect world, where people could just make art and do the things they love doing just for the fun of it without worrying about competing with the other guy, or the AI, so you can be compensated for your hard work. But we dont live in that world, and we as a society are far from that sort of utopia. We live in a world where you have to be better than average to make a living in your desired trade. And if the average is AI, and AI is the amalgymation of all great artists than the bar is and has been raised and the job pool has simply decreased signifigantly in a trade that is already very difficult to become succesful in.. so why would people keep studying when there is even LESS incentive and far less oppurtunity in the more lucrative fields such as the entertainment industry - comics, movies, games, book covers etc? I am still going to keep studying because personally this is a pursuit I needed to do years ago, so I owe it to myself. But Istill ponder the potentially dark outcome of the professional world of art.
1:08:10 I do excuse me, Proko, but I must beg to disagree, but AI may and/or might be dominant in the movie industry today and/or tomorrow, but there’s one thing AI and that industry can’t and shall not do, HEART AND SOUL, IN REAL ARTWORK! Thanks, and have a greater Mother’s Day for you and your Mom.
Yeah Hahaha. It was funny watching Stan trying to pull it back . He's like whoa whoa wait a minute. Also i remember him saying that he's in that Camp that had to learn to draw the technical way. He looked a little dishearten, and i felt bad.
Jeff is completely disregarding the ART THEFT side and ethical issues of AI which makes me disagree with pretty much everything he says about it. Does he not know? Or is he ok if his paintings came out from the fart machine as background for CSAM image for instance? Can we not wait until the issues are solved? Makes me sick. (And if you're ok with art theft it doesn't mean all other artists want their life's work distributed infinitely)
When it comes to that thing of something being unteachable, you need to be born with it and so on. i blame that on the teacher. think of it as a blind person trying to learn piano. goes to a piano teacher who only teaches how to read sheet music. off course that will not work. the teacher will blame the student. i say blame the teacher for trying to teach a blind person to read sheet music. learning to play piano is something a blind person can do as we all know. just like learning any skill it has some upps and downs. it's harder for some and easier for others. but a blind person just like a seeing person. both can learn to play the same classical music piece. but learning how may need to be different. and if a teacher blames the student for their bad teaching that's on them. not the student. some may need tools to help. others don't. some can take the staircase others need the elevator. but both reach the same goal in the end with the right help 👍 hope i don't sound rude, just don't know any better way to explain this.anyhow have a fantastic day!
Great discussion. The Riely method fascinates me and for the figure in particular, it opens up a lot of doors, however for portraits I find a lot the lines distracting and unnecessary but it is a really fun method for thinking about the forms of the face.
Now we need an episode with Marhsall, Jeff and Stan talking about.... whatever! Maybe how the AI thousand monkeys would link up via quantum singularity?
I teach 10 kids how to draw comics, they are 10-14 years old, 5 girls, 5 boys. We draw on paper with pencil and fineliners. We eat snacks, listen to music, sing along, love laugh our asses off when we do comic jams. They are all exactly like my brother and me 40 years ago, sitting at the kitchen table drawing comics in the 80´s. Some things don´t change and make you forget about A.I.
There's no right answer in art, just have a strong opinion about it. That's his strong opinion. He's not forcing you to believe it, but that's what he believes in.
I would really like to hear a episode where they talk about meaning of art, fine art that isn't related to illustrative, decorative nature of art. I did see a few times Stans lack of Art history knowlage that Marshall had to explain. Or myb its a topic that isn't idk for the general audience
Thanks Proko, one of the best episode of the Draftsmen Podcast. This one I really took my time listening and digesting. I would rewind again and again to understand what Mr Watts said. So pack that I had plan my time to listen to it, part by part rather than just making it background noise. Thanks Proko!
Hi. I randomly stumbled across an episode of Draftsmen the other day, and listening to you two instantly re-kindled my love for drawing after years of depression and anxiety trying to make a living out of creative work. I cannot believe I was unaware of you before. I just want to say thank you for taking the time to record these!
His AI take is understandable but downplays the economics of making art. Big corporations owning your art and the means to make it while the reference for said art starves is objectively not good.
I think I agree with Jeff Watts that some of these skills are not teachable. Just like you can't teach how to hammer a nail without hitting your fingers at a rapid rate. You can teach how to hammer a nail and thru time and repeat process you develop a sense of intuition of where your hand is relative to the hammer and the nail. However, the first few times you'll be timid in hitting that nail and you will probably hit your fingers a few times. So you can teach the technique but you can teach the intuition that comes from repeated use. In another example we can provide instruction on how to walk, but we can't teach how to maintain balance and/or keep yourself from tripping on everything. Even from time to time as expert walkers we tend to still trip even after 40 or 50 years of walking. Also guess what happens if you stop? The muscles lose the ability and you have to learn the process all over again (although it takes less time to learn it a second time). So you must continue to do your exercises to continue to be artistically fit.
Thank you very much for exposing us to such a new and talented artist, and I really did enjoy this episode of the draftsmen podcast. I do miss Marshall and hope he's doing good.
47:49 Kinda wish Jeff would talk more about trauma and being your true-self from self-healing, because it speaks to me a lot and I just made a sudden realisation that trauma was making it so hard for me to draw
I really think just like Jeff watts exp. with color! I always tell poeple that I paint with my gut and not with my brain. this is awesome. I have to look into this more. thanks for a great podcast
For the Reilly method i really like the "mastering drawing the human figure from life , memory, imagination " by jack faragasso he not only learned from frank Reilly but also worked with him and thought the mothods for over 30 years
I can see where master watts coming from when it comes to color, studying and rellying too much on color theory,wheel and charts can put you in a box where you dont try unique combinations or be more expressive with it
I don't think 'fun' is what's behind creativity. Instead 'need' drives it in most cases. Just like the quote, 'necessity is the mother of invention'. So in a world where the 'need' to create is no longer there because of AI, and art or anything creative is sidelined into a 'fun' hobby space, the overall quality of it would most likely degrade. After all, given the choice between being lazy and working hard for a similar result with minor quality differences, how many people would choose the later? As for AI art, with only mediocre art as its fuel, as long as it has no intent of its own, how far would its own quality go?
I love these discussions. Jeff is very energetic and inspiring. I have to be honest, for me the Reilly method is a bit limiting, especially when it comes to figure invention. It is great for copying what's in front of you, but it's heavy emphasis on abstracting everything into flat shapes can be a bit stilting. I take the rhythms ideas of Reilly and combine them with constructive sculptural classic method (like Vilppu's way) for the best of both worlds. BTW, I totally agree with Jeff's take on color: it is far more intuitive than people realize.
Wait for when Ai imitates your traditional style and print out that with a machine that draw with actual pencil on actual paper then say again oh I don't care I make traditional art.
@@buffwarriors it'll lose its value if it becomes artificial, look at "outdated" methods of painting, making pottery etc. They're highy more valuable because of the sheer fact that it took an artisan to make them, the value comes from the luxury of having it handmade. Even companies like Lamborghini, Steinway and Sons, advertise their things as HANDMADE to some extent, and it adds to the charm. Art won't die, it'll become more elitist and exclusive.
Wasn’t Reilly a student of Bridgeman and Burne Hogarth was a student of Reilly or something like that? I know there’s some kind of connection, where the construction methods flow from one group and then probably that original influence came from Davinci’s work.
Yeah, all those famous artists are kinda connected. Even Loomis is in there somewhere. Not to mention that Jeff was taught by someone who was Reilly's student.
Jeff Watts is my favorite art instructor, and I'm so happy to ear from him about his personal development as an artist, he reached a spiritual level of artistry and I'm so glad he acknowlegede It the way he does. What a life, what a journey as an artist, I can't wait to see what will come next
'Why let bad people use this technology for bad when you could use it for good?'' Because using the technology means giving money to the bad people and deliberately bolstering them and allowing them to further degrade the creative sphere? Because we don't wanna contribute to art theft on an industrial scale? Its pretty frustrating hearing Stan act like he can't do anything about this when he's in a position with a lot of influence where a lot of artist could bring their voices to court. Other independents are already trying to do this but he's just committed to fence sitting. I know that AI could just be a tool that artists use. I don't want to use this tool because its built on theft, and I wish bigger artists would acknowledge this instead of just telling us to adapt. People hate it for a reason.
In that comment I was broadly referring to all AI, though I see how it probably came off suggesting I was referring to generative art AI. This year I've used midjourney maybe 3 times out of curiosity. I've gotten quite bored of it. Much more enjoyable to just draw.. I've been using language models like ChatGPT regularly, which is the writer equivalent of midjourney. These language models will have a huge impact on jobs in most industries and they're being developed by giant corporations like, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Nvidia, which I don't see how I could stop paying for their stuff. Do you see a way to actually stop even indirectly supporting development of AI when these players are pushing it forward?
@@ProkoTV Its not about not supporting AI at all, its about doing something to change the legal framework surrounding it. And I won't blame people for having to use products made by these corporations, but that doesn't mean we have to rush to use these unethical tools. We did our jobs before AI, we can keep doing them without them unless the entire industry forces people to embrace them. You don't HAVE to use AI, its a conscious choice. Regardless, the tech won't magically disappear, but the legal framework around it still needs to be established. People in positions of power could be doing more to help push this along but they just seem to be throwing their hands up and going 'ehhhh I dunno'. There are some people doing their best to mobilize others and create voices of dissent about this tech... but way more are deliberately keeping quiet. Its disappointing since its very obviously blatant theft.
c'mon dude, just let the guy run his art business. He has already spoken out againts the unethical data scrapping of AI. How would you like Stan to use his position of influence to bring artists' voices to court? I dont want him to delay his courses or postpone lessons that I paid for. I got places to be, things to do with my art.
@@veryfilthything It's very easy to tell people to stop using AI, but difficult to do it yourself. You're saying this on your AI infused smartphone, while you consume content on an AI powered video platform. AI is in many of the tools you use daily. It makes these tools better. You would not switch to the old versions of these tools, because they're worse.
@@veryfilthything And I'm not the guy to go help "change the legal framework". I'm forced to deal with enough legal nonsense to carry out my business and I hate every second of it. There are plenty of artists that enjoy solving those problems and are much better than I am at it. I had Karla and Steven on my channel to help them spread their message.
One possible path this might take is that AIs will become personalised (run locally on your computer) to the point where you can feed all of your art into it, and it will help create new pieces. Meanwhile, publicly available AIs must only use art with permission (except for long dead artists) in their databases, and share royalties with artists in kind.
I watched the first 30 minutes of it but gave up. There is a commercial every 4 minutes and im not watching a commercial every 4 minutes for an hour and a half.
Just checked RU-vid's auto-ad placement and yeah, you're right. It's way too aggressive. We went back into the video and spread the ads out so there's much more time between them. Thanks for letting us know!
@@seanramsey thanks I always appreciate your efforts and understand ads are necessary to fund content. I am enjoying the Portrait Drawing Fundamentals by Stan and saving for more courses.
Great episode. I love it when you guys get people to interview or talk to. Really allows a shift in perspective. Hope to see more episodes, you guys rock.
The only reason to paint and draw anymore is because you love to do it. Spend an hour on Art station looking at AI generated work. Stylized, hyper real, character, costume, environment. AI can do it better than you today. Quit your dream of being an artist for a living. Don’t quit your day job, and if you don’t have a day job, get one, you are going to need it. If you can find a job you actually like that supports you, great. If not be ready for a life of meaningless work, it’s very likely you will fall into the later category. The amount of meaningful jobs will be shrinking very soon with the AI replacing most of them. Visual development for animation, concept art for video games and film. Those jobs are gone. The “Art” jobs that will be left in those fields will be unfulfilling. And most likely not pay well, why would they when soon enough most people will be able to do them. The idea that trained artists will use AI generators as a tool in their work in production, is a very short sighted thought.
Man I hate AI art. 1:05:00 you two sound incredibly naive when you say people would have actually time or resources to do art just for love of it when they can't anymore do it for living. As long as we live in heavily capitalistic society, If people are not doing art for living, then they will be busy making a living otherwise, anyway that has not been replaced by machines. To me that doesnt sound good for art or artists at all. Or do you two believe people will have more freetime, maybe universal basic income? Looking at sheer greed and evil of modern rich man and middle class passive naivety, I highly doubt we will get any form of real, humane UBI without global upheaval. People at top will push back and use brainwashed middle class that have delusions of having any chance to be at the top.
I have no clue what will happen. All I know is if I can no longer make a living from art, I will continue to draw and paint. I'm pretty certain most of my art friends would do the same. Obviously I prefer a world where we can continue to make a living from it though. "If people are not doing art for living, then they will be busy making a living". You don't do things you enjoy outside of work? Or do you not enjoy art? If UBI becomes a thing, I think each country will have different levels with success executing it. Some will do it really well and some will fail miserably. Either way, the transition wouldn't be easy. Uncertain time up ahead.
Your big mistake is thinking we live in a capitalist society. If only, I wish. We live in a heavily corporatist socialist society, ie the complete opposite. In a world of huge government, which is itself in bed with a handful of gigantic oligarchical corporations, where exactly is the capitalism you're seeing? Cause wherever that is is where I want to be, man. And another tip for you - the very people making these AI platforms are avowed utopian communists, so if you think you're fighting against the tide of AI stealing art and jobs by hating on capitalism, you're really barking up the wrong tree. That's why artists lose.
Ummmm the reason why the art industry is so big is because of capitalism. The comsumption of entertaiment in all forms such as movies, tv shows, games, etc, is the reason why so many artists are able earn money from art. Also AI and UBI is good for no one, because if every job is automated, no one has money for anything. Whos going to pay for UBI? Companies cant earn profits because no one has any money, governments cant pay UBI because no tax revenue. It;s just bad for everyone.
Lots of great colorists were guided directly by science. Seurat and Signac, for example, derived and pursued pointillism this way. Kandinsky wrote extensively about how color and form worked. Bauhaus in general.
