Comic Genesis Forums

I was having a conversation with someone and this subject came up: "How do you understand three dimensional theory when you're working in a two dimensional medium?" And the only answer I could REALLY come up with was, basically, "I just think that way!" without any tangible explanation. This started me wondering how many other self-motivated artists out here had to ACTUALLY study dimensional theory in order to be happy with the appearance of your artwork?

What the what and the what now?

I'm a bio major personally. Art theory....never really got any of it. Just didn't sink in ><

Studying photography should do the job?

Something about toes?

... I think spacey is the word you're looking for

geekblather wrote:Something about toes?

Don't get me all hot and bothered, dammit! :p

Grade three and four kids generally don't use big made up words like that. We just draw.

OK? Thanks?? Guess i wont bring this subject up again! LOL!

well, yes, one does draw on a 2-dimensional medium (even though paper itself is 3-dimensional in nature), but the trick being that one provides the perception of actual depth and texture, if you think about, no matter what, most modern entertainment mediums that rely on a visual context, even live action would be fairly 2-dimensional in outward look to the viewer, as it's being displayed on a screen, it's the various objects, and angles that would give anything the perception of being a three-dimensional object.

It all comes down to learning how to see what you really see, instead of what you think you see. A forshortened plane is at such-and-such an angle, and any other angle looks weird.

That said, it takes a lot more than knowing about transfering three-dimensional space on two-dimensional paper to be happy with your drawings. Line quality, shading, and accuracy of detail also play a part.

Black Sparrow wrote:It all comes down to learning how to see what you really see, instead of what you think you see. A forshortened plane is at such-and-such an angle, and any other angle looks weird.

That said, it takes a lot more than knowing about transfering three-dimensional space on two-dimensional paper to be happy with your drawings. Line quality, shading, and accuracy of detail also play a part.

yep, pretty much what one can do to create the illusion of depth, etc.

also various little artistic tricks can create the perception of motion and time, but that's an entirely different discussion

spatial...

things like art, music, dance, etc all take place on the right side of the brain, where literal translations and analysis really are quite meaningless. To anyone unaccustomed to using the right side of the brain, they can only see a meticulous process when someone draws... to those of us who exist a little too much in the right hemisphere, it's as easy as pie: we just draw... that's all there is to it.

there is a certain level of spatial capacity that you've got to pull from when you're attempting to visualize things like lightsources and how they interact with clothing, skin, materials, metallics, etc... A lot of traditional art is actually done from stock, or some other available source. In that situation, the light is right there for you to study... that's merely re-creating what you perceive (don't get me wrong, it's still very much a viable creative process and an excellent way to learn how light reacts to the world we perceive). But when you just doodle something direcly out of your noggin and apply shading as it would logically happen, well, that's quite a profound process, really.

or maybe it's not. I dunno.

DeadbyDawn wrote:"How do you understand three dimensional theory when you're working in a two dimensional medium?"

Play with it! Nearly every chance I get I depict things from odd angles, or use exagerated foreshortening. Your eyes will tell you what works and what doesn't. Eventually, you learn.

It's four dimensionality that's hard.

... 'Three dimensional theory'? WTF is that?

Am I right to assume you mean basic perspective? Um, I think we covered that in 9th grade art class.

Honestly, with my comics I tend to think in layers of 2D more than in proper 3D. I'll create a foreground (a character, etc.) then a basic midground (chair, table, bushes), and finally a very simplified background (Usually only an outline for outdoor shots). They're all basically 2D, but layering them gives the illusion of depth. The trick is making sure all of the layers have the same angles/horizon line, etc. so you don't make your readers seasick.

I don't tend to overthink it (as is clearly the consensus on this thread) - but I hope my musings help give a little insight into how one could approach it.

My logical half of my brain says "just work out where your char is, and where everything else in the environment is in relation to each other, and cross-reference the location with relative lighting positioning."

Or in another words, "know what you want to draw." A little doodle of rooms that your chars inhabit and things like that can help in relation to where things are, in case you forget. Then you can just pose the charcater and let the world "rotate" around them.

All that comes to mind is to think about what one would draw if you wanted to draw yourself in your bedroom. Which wall is the bed nearest? Windows? Doors? Ceiling height? etc etc etc....

Dimensional theory? Bigger on the inside than on the outside?

Or are you just talking about drawing in perspective? I usually don't worry too much about measuring out my persepectives if I'm focusing on the characters, but for background pieces and setting the scenes I either have to break out the rulers or at least make it look like I know what I'm doing. Or break all the rules on purpose.