How To Draw A Bara Butt
"I know the anatomy isn't correct here, only it's my style", "This drawing lacks style", "I love your manner!" We use the word style a lot without actually grasping its meaning. Similar "love" or "art", we know it by center, merely information technology's not so like shooting fish in a barrel to define.
In this article I'll make an attempt to analyze the concept of way: What is it? Can it be judged? Are all styles equally expert? Can mode mask lack of talent? What makes the style realistic? What's wrong about copying someone's style? And, almost importantly, how can ane develop their own fashion?
The answers to all these questions lay in the concept of drawing itself. If you lot've never tried to understand what drawing is, the conclusions may be very surprising to you!
Fashion? What Style? I Tin't Even Describe!
Or tin y'all? Ladies and admirer, I'm pleased to nowadays you lot the ultimate tutorial about how to draw!
Pace 1
Take hold of something that makes marks when pushed.
Stride 2
Push the thing onto a material (something solid similar paper, wood, dirt etc).
Step three
Shift the thing with the force needed to leave a mark.
Sounds absurd? But that's actually what cartoon is! There's cypher nigh beauty or realism in its basic definition. That being said, everyone tin draw—even bullheaded!
However, this fully objective definition of cartoon has been fused with something more vague—style. It's often even more normally associated with one item manner: realism. Somehow the value of a drawing has been associated with how realistic it is. When a kid hears he'due south got talent for drawing, information technology's not because his lines are neat, or he manages to finish the moving-picture show without using eraser—it's only because people can recognize things he'south cartoon!
Maybe It's Talent—Possibly It'south Conclusion
When someone says "I can't draw" in most cases they're not talking near their inability to concur a pencil, lack of time or some kind of ban—what they really mean is "I don't know how to describe reality on a sail of paper". If they realized it, their problem would turn out to exist like shooting fish in a barrel to solve—if you don't know how to do something, detect someone who knows information technology and learn from them! Simply person saying "I can't describe" doesn't really use this construction in the aforementioned way as in "I tin't swim/speak Chinese/play chess [still]". They signal a hopeless inability—"some people can draw, but I can't". Where does this despair come from?
As we've said, in that location are two definitions of drawing: creating marks on a material and creating marks resembling something existent. Confusion of these 2 meanings may be fatal for an aspiring creative person. You lot know how like shooting fish in a barrel drawing is (smudging a pencil on a paper), but at the same time you can't do it (drawing a dragon). How else could y'all explain information technology if not by a magical skill some people possess?
You've just taken the get-go pace to understand the whole fuss about word "talent". A talented person isn't "born with an unlearnable skill learned by default". Talent is a predisposition of some kind, not as divers equally you may think, and not limited to fine art only.
Allow's make an example. Piloting a airplane is easy, correct? You only demand to sit, motion the controls and push some buttons from time to time... No, actually, nobody volition say that. We all can guess there's a vast noesis that needs to be gained in order to control a plane. A talented pilot isn't born with that cognition—however, he may be built-in with something smaller, like skilful reflex or common cold claret. These niggling features can help him in many professions, and if he becomes a pilot, they volition serve him well.
Talent in "practical" professions is more commonly associated with learned skills. Fifty-fifty when you say that a pilot or driver has a talent, you just treat it as a cherry on the acme, something that makes them stand out betwixt other proficient pilots and drivers. Simply for creative professions... well, it's a different situation. "Your works are crawly, yous're and so talented!" say people to every skilful creative person, implying that talent is actually obligatory to draw well. And if y'all can't draw well, information technology must be considering yous weren't gifted with a talent—so you're doomed as an artist. That's a skillful reason to autumn in despair, isn't it?
Let's say it over again—at that place'southward no such thing as "talent for cartoon". Just like in the pilot example, you can be built-in (or raised!) with small, general features like patience, sensitivity, curiosity, perfectionism or stubbornness. There may be more, and there's one thing linking them—they're not specific, designed for one particular skill, but rather they influence diverse areas of life. You can employ them to go a swell creative person—but you don't need to. You may go a programmer, or a watchmaker, and never bear on a pencil at all.
I believe that most of these features can be used in fine art in one way or other. What's crucial is that you need to realize drawing must be actively learned—this is not magic, this is skill equally difficult as learning how to control a plane. I'm serious! You lot need to gain basic knowledge not only from design, but likewise fields like medicine, architecture, math, and physics. But once nosotros've understood what drawing actually is, allow'southward go to this part of information technology you maybe tin't practise still—creating realism.
Realism
Basically, realism is a style of creating something that our mind will identify as "real" or "close to existent". We tin can easily tell a sculpture is realistic, but what about 2D canvas of newspaper with some smudges on it? How tin can information technology resemble something real? I described this in the commodity well-nigh light and shadow, simply here I'd like to elaborate this topic.
Our brain creates the reality we perceive out of series of notwithstanding, 2nd pictures created every fraction of second. Depth is made by comparison two snapshots taken at aforementioned moment, but in slightly dissimilar position (that'southward not the simply way to create depth, though, as even with one eye we can manage pretty good). Therefore, a cartoon can be considered as a "brain snapshot" taken out to exist seen past everyone, beyond the moment and place it was taken.
There are several problems coming from this:
- Although all the snapshots are saved in our brain, our consciousness isn't fast plenty to procedure them like this. Just like nosotros don't meet an private frame in a movie, we tin can't find a single snapshot—we merely see the move made by changes between them.
- The reality nosotros see is made of and then many different snapshots that it constantly changes. 1 twitch of the head and y'all realize how large something would be if y'all came closer (fifty-fifty though it's seen every bit modest at the moment). Perspective is such an integral part of our reality that we can't imagine a world without it—even though our perspective doesn't exist outside of our brain!
- Information technology's incommunicable to describe reality—one snapshot doesn't make it. Hence, every drawing or painting is some kind of compromise and a simulation of reality—unremarkably a few snapshots are merged into ane to make the scene complete.
- You tin can't movement your eyes inside a single snapshot. You can't look at something that's out of focus—it gets in focus as soon every bit you lay your optics on it, changing whole scene. Therefore, a drawing is a frozen snapshot from someone else's brain—when observing it, you're non the original observer!
There are many levels of realism. Our brain is well adapted to run into patterns, then nosotros can see things that aren't really at that place, similar a face on Mars or signs made by tea leaves. That'due south why information technology'due south relatively easy to accomplish the basic level of realism without learning too much—our minds are forgiving. I of signs of "talent for drawing" can exist an power to create these patterns very finer—but information technology's not a skill, it'south just a guesswork. If you pushed some buttons randomly and fabricated a machine work, it doesn't hateful you can operate information technology!
The deviation between talent for creating patterns and a real skill is like shooting fish in a barrel to spot—if y'all develop strong zipper to every pretty drawing of yours and you're afraid yous'd never draw it again if you lost information technology, that's the result of talent. Skill doesn't employ luck every bit a base!
The levels of realism are created by various elements our encephalon is looking for something to recognize. Some of them are more important than others, and they can differ among people.
Outlines
Lines are the meaning of drawing. However, they're not the same every bit outlines—an outline is a line meant to be seen individually, defining some "within" and "outside". We're very skillful at seeing outlines, even though they don't exist in the world in the form of lines. They're fully capricious—every artist may employ a different number of outlines for the same object.
This is the first moment where manner appears. If something is arbitrary, everyone can create their own version of it—and none of them will be more than or less correct per se. We demand to add another standard to gauge it by, and that'south what we usually do—we use labels similar "realistic" (resembling something real very closely), "cartoon" (thrifty lines, symbolic shapes), or "manga" (feature Japanese style).
If the difference betwixt realism and drawing is and so bully, why doesn't every non-realistic way expect "correct" and pleasant to eyes?
Every Style Derives From Baloney of Realism
If yous want to draw a cat, you tin't create something totally new and say it'due south a cat (unless you're a surrealist—but even then your intention should be not to depict a cat). You demand to take all the cat-specific things and change them to create a new version of the animal. And y'all need to know the rules to break them. If you've never drawn a cat before, and never studied its beefcake and proportions, don't await your drawing will wait correct—even if you're aiming for cartoon wait. Information technology's like if you wanted to build an enhanced car—if yous can't build the original one in the first place, there'southward no manner you lot do it.
Every Manner is Based on Rules
Everything needs to have a purpose—information technology's not similar you just demand to shift the elements randomly. That'due south why beginners normally have bug with redrawing their character—the first drawing was a issue of guesswork, and even if it looks good, the artist has no idea why!
When your "style" isn't based on any rules, it's not actually a style. Style must exist describable—and if yours doesn't accept any rules, how would you describe it? "The style of 10 is characterized by... the fact it was drawn past X". It doesn't make much more than sense than "a feature feature of a machine Y is that it looks like machine Y". "Spontaneous", "random," or "crazy" aren't really good descriptions of a manner either. At that place must be some definition—a recipe that you lot tin use once again and again—even if you're the only person that knows it fully.
Rules make the style repeatable; that's the very base of it. One picture doesn't brand a manner, there must exist more of it. This brings us correct to the next issue:
Style is Intentional
Yous may recollect "you lot said every style derives from realism, only what about abstruse art?".
First, fine art isn't equal to style. It's far more broad concept and nosotros're not talking almost information technology here. What's important for style is it tin can be described on a many levels of detail. A sample "tree" can look like this: drawing > black and white > manga > [put detailed rules here]. It's the same with abstruse art: painting > colorful > abstruse > [put detailed rules hither].
2nd, information technology may sound controversial, simply I call up brainchild derives from realism too—it's the negation of it. To create something abstract, you need to know what is not abstract. If you lot want to paint a nighttime film, y'all demand to know what colors you need to avoid—y'all need to know what isn't dark. A cat that doesn't look like cat considering you lot haven't learned how to depict one isn't "abstract art"—it's just a error. When the final picture show is totally dissimilar than the i in your head, and y'all pretend it was your intention, you're only cheating yourself.
Maybe I'm going out of my competence here—the definition of art is and so elusive that someone may call a stain made past pigments thrown at a wall an art (only because it's and so random and unintentional). Still, I wouldn't phone call fortuity a way— and fifty-fifty if I were to, the definition of this style would exist "drawing/painting that wasn't the intention of an creative person". Would you lot like to share your way with a 2-year-old?
Golden Ratio is the Measure out of Beauty
This is a big topic, only definitely worth studying. Basically, there's a proportion that volition brand your elements await good—and conversely, they'll look bad when out of this proportion. Our brain is somehow set for it—y'all can't modify it. At that place'due south a pure math behind every flower and leaf, and the same math should be applied to annihilation you create for your mind to take it as true, even when information technology'south not realistic
Of class, in that location tin and should be pocket-size deviations (perfect beauty is tedious, little defects can be very highly-seasoned), but the main "body" of your object should follow this rule at least roughly. So even when you resize a caput to create a drawing shape, there are sizes that will look adept and ones that won't—the ability to see them without measuring can be some other sign of "talent", only it comes with practice too.
Accommodation
In that location'due south i thing that can save your style, no matter how crazy and far from realism it is. It's called adaptation—when you lot look at something odd frequently, it becomes normal to you (but not to others). So if you'd shown your art to the same friends for a long time, they may actually start to empathize it. Being appreciated by them may lead y'all to a false supposition you lot've got a mode, but information technology'due south only misunderstood by others. Don't lock yourself in your comfort zone, but instead listen to opinions of people outside of your fan circumvolve. That's the only way to develop as an artist.
In that location's another side of accommodation, too. We tend to consider only things we're familiar with as "normal". That's why even a correctly drawn, only less known dinosaur may be seen as anatomically incorrect, and cat anatomy practical to a lemur may go unnoticed. Funny fact: neither four legs, nor ears placed at the height of the head are more justified than three legs and ears on the butt—they only happen to be seen frequently in our world and thus perceived every bit natural.
Light and Shadow
The first purpose of vision was to sense light and shadow. We're however very sensitive to information technology, and we don't need any outlines to meet shapes when light and shadow are present. This tin be another stage of drawing (shading with lines), or the first stage of painting.
We noticed at that place are a few elements that can submit to "talent for cartoon", like patience, perfectionism, ability to create patterns and to recognize golden ratio. Talent for painting (and shading in general) is much more rare. Its base would exist "an center for observation". The thought of world fabricated of outlines is and so fixed in our listen that information technology's very hard to actually see shapes made by calorie-free and shadows. Yous need to make a existent effort to visualize the world as it really is—covered with patches of low-cal and shadow. And fifty-fifty then an effort of painting this manner may cause a brain-muscle-ache (that'southward how it felt for me, anyway). Yet, this effort is worth making—a messy fine art made of lite and shadow looks far more than realistic to our eyes than a circuitous, refined masterpiece consisting of outlines only.
Light and shadow, and the grade they create, are as open for manner as outlines. The size and shape of brush strokes alone requite you a chance to create a countless number of totally different interpretations of a scene. When yous add your ain interpretation of light and shadow placement, yous don't need to be afraid of not being recognizable. Read more about light and shadow here—and wonder how yous can use these rules to create your own style!
Color
Color is a swell enhancement of vision, bringing a whole lot of new information to the scene. Now, likewise of value, nosotros become hue, saturation and luminosity. The more elements building the picture, the more possibilities of creating a distinctive style. Thinking with value just was a pain itself—now add three new aspects to this!
Y'all can be realistic—but you don't need to. I often run into artists that get good at drawing realistically (outlines) and then go straight for the virtually realistic colors possible—everything just as information technology works in our world. It'south not necessary—more, it brings you closer to slow photorealism! And the problem with photorealism (we'll talk more about it afterward) is information technology's a style that looks identical, no matter who used information technology. If you want your style to exist distinctive, to be truly yours, experiment with the rules. You need to learn them, of course, study the nature and the objects around you, but then change what you learned. Create your own rules!
Details
It may be surprising, but details aren't that important for a realistic painting, nor fifty-fifty drawing. Since we don't really meet the brain-snapshots, and a picture is just a simulation of a perceived scene, nosotros may take various actions to create it. Painting everything as information technology might have looked during a fraction of second just deprives yous of bodily pregnant of the situation. The meaning is spread over several, or possibly even dozens of snapshots. And if yous want to draw a movie, not to create a picture show or animation, you need to use some tricks.
That may be another part of talent, the ability to convert motion into motionless scene, while keeping the feeling of it. Sticking to details from the first can unintentionally prevent you from reaching this goal. When we run into a scene, the first affair we notice is some intangible sensation—nosotros see motion, fight, light shining on a sword, the red of blood—not unmarried hairs on the warrior'southward beard or masterly adornments of his armor.
At that place a lot of space for way hither, between shapeless blobs of shadow and a fully detailed scene. There are endless ways to accomplish the "feeling", and when you sacrifice details, you may very hands observe a personal fashion of yours. There'southward only one way to depict details realistically—and an infinite number of ways to create only a sensation of them.
Photorealism
What's the departure between realism and photorealism? Then far we were discussing brain-snapshots. What if someone takes a snapshot with a real camera? Photos take go something completely normal for united states of america. Nosotros treat them as a real representation of reality, not realizing a photographic camera doesn't work exactly every bit our eyes and brain. We're and so accepted to photos that sometimes they appear more than realistic to us than reality itself!
Photorealism isn't a college form of realism. It'southward just about creating things so precisely that they can be confused with a photography. But, permit's say it once once again, a photo isn't the same as brain-snapshot—a camera doesn't catch all the illusions and isn't as accurate as nosotros tend to think. How many times have you tried to take a photo of something, but it didn't wait equally astonishing as what you saw with bare eyes (moon, sunset)? With a bit of photographic knowledge y'all tin can can prepare information technology, but now it can be tempting to go fifty-fifty further and create an enhanced reality—something amend than perceived with bare optics! And I'1000 not talking about photomanipulation—a camera itself can exist set to "encounter" the world in many ways. And when you add your ain lights, not encountered in nature, yous go an appealing, but non-realistic effect. Learning from photos may non bring you any closer to realism then!
You can say "but photos are so realistic that it's actually the aforementioned". Wrong—y'all only remember they are realistic. Take a photograph and and so look at the scene with blank eyes—the difference can exist hit. There are technical differences, like lens flare (it doesn't occur in our optics this fashion), or the class of out-of-focus area (we see with two eyes, and then this area isn't simply blurred, information technology's as well made of ii shifted images), just also more elusive ones—camera catches but what there is, only our brain can make and then much more than of reality. You won't have a photo of a scene seen through eyes full of tears, or optics of a frightened person running through a dark forest in the dark. Nosotros don't only see, we also feel—and photos ignore the latter.
One more affair: I said before that it's impossible to draw reality. At the same time, camera attempts to have a perfect snapshot of reality. Information technology doesn't make photos more than real than what we see—they're actually as well objective and stripped of very of import part of our reality. But like going to a restaurant isn't but a journey to an expensive location to satiate hunger, reality isn't merely a prepare of visual signals.
Of class, that doesn't mean photorealism is incorrect. I just want to confront the conventionalities that a realistic artist should get as close as possible to photo-quality. These are two different styles, and none of them is "better" or "college". It's also important to observe the world with bare eyes and non rely on photos only. I know they're easier to obtain, merely sometimes grabbing a leaf and creating the subsurface handful effect by yourself will teach y'all much, much more than. Past learning from both reality and photo-reality y'all can create a completely new, unique mode.
Drawing From Imagination
What about things that don't really exist? Is it possible to draw them realistically, or in any mode deriving from realism? Yep, just yous need to draw them in a form they'd take in our world if they were existent. You may say "simply I want to use a not-realistic mode, for example a dragon with legs thin like matches and with a huge round head". All right, merely notice what you just said: "legs", "caput". These are things from our world, with certain course they take here. This is a starting betoken for your creations. You lot need to know what caput is to draw information technology, fifty-fifty if you lot desire to create some new kind of head.
By the way, I'd like to analyze one matter: why tin't you depict something realistically, even though you know how information technology looks? You tin can imagine a equus caballus very clearly in your mind, simply then on the paper it looks totally wrong. Isn't that, over again, lack of talent?
No, information technology'southward rather a confusion of two different processes again— identification and cosmos. Allow'due south take a good look at them with a unproblematic pseudo-lawmaking:
Identification
if (legs="long, thin, hoofed" AND body="big, potent" AND caput="oblong" AND tail="long, hairy) so fauna=equus caballus
When you run into an brute with a ready of features that in your mind are saved as horse-like, you recognize information technology as a horse. Unproblematic as that. You don't need to know every single feature of a horse to recognize it—just a few of them and you know what you see. The aforementioned happens when you lot visualize a horse in your mind—y'all don't run into the features y'all don't know, and your listen cleverly conceals the lack of them.
Cosmos
if (animal=equus caballus) then legs=x if (ten="hoofed") then hoof_width=? hoof_height=? hoof_roundness=? leg_length=? leg_width=? leg_height=? body_length=? body_width=? body_height=? head_length=? head_width=? head_height=? ...
The state of affairs is totally dissimilar when you want to create a equus caballus yourself. Of a sudden you need to know all these variables, and more! You offset to draw a hoof and suddenly you realize yous don't know what information technology looks similar—even though you can recognize it when y'all see i. That'due south why multiple-choice tests are usually easier!
All the problems with creation come from poor database of information nearly reality in our caput. Too often we but think nosotros know what something looks like, but when it comes to details, they just aren't at that place. When y'all read a volume, yous don't run into every blade of grass under the character'southward feet, really, sometimes you lot don't even know how his face looks like (until you encounter him in a movie and compare your elusive idea with reality). You're under impression your vision of the book's world is complete, but if someone painted it and showed to you, it would be full of gaps. If you want to create your own mode, start with learning about realism—build a database of everything yous come across.
Style and Judgment
- Commenter: "I recall these legs shouldn't be so long, the creature is so muscular that it looks as if it were to fall downwardly in whatsoever moment".
- Artist: "I like drawing it this way, it'due south my style, y'all tin can't judge it!"
- Commenter: "I love it! These flimsy legs are then cute!"
- Creative person: "Thanks!"
Don't yous see something odd here? Judgment isn't merely about negative opinions or positive opinions—information technology'due south about both. At the very moment you mail your picture online (or present it in any other way for people to see), y'all set it up for judgment. When yous practise it, but expect only positive opinions, it'due south similar this state of affairs:
- Artist (cooks a dish and puts it on the table): Hither you go!
- Guest ane: Mm, it tastes nice!
- Artist: Thank you! And what exercise you think almost it, Guest 2?
- Guest 2: Honestly, I don't like it, it's too salty
- Artist: Simply it's my personal recipe! You can't tell if y'all like information technology or non!
Illogical? Yeah, but when you post your motion picture to hear praises only, y'all don't really retrieve logically. Everyone can judge y'all, you can't deprive them of this correct. The thing is their judgment doesn't change anything most the object.
Imagine y'all have a stone that you honey, possibly a reminder of some important result in your life. You postal service a 1000000 of photos of this rock on your social contour and when friends start to grumble, you answer aggressively: "but it'southward my stone! Y'all tin can't judge it, you lot don't know how important information technology is for me!". All right, they don't and will never know—and so why do you post these photos? If it's a rock/style just you can empathise, why do you post it for others to see? Don't you actually desire them to judge it, just simply positively? Y'all tin can't force it into their minds. If you want your style to be accepted and seen as truthful, make information technology understandable (use the tips from previous paragraphs). If you don't—well, why post it then?
Style, as everything, can be judged. When a person says she doesn't similar the style of Lion King, it doesn't mean she'southward wrong, considering so many other people love it—it'due south only an opinion! The excuse "it's my style, you can't judge it!" is actually desperate entreaty "don't say information technology'southward wrong don't say information technology's wrong".
To respond the question raised in the introduction, considerately there's no "better" or "worse" mode, until you lot add another standard. A fashion isn't "ugly", information technology's "not realistic enough for me". Still, there may exist more or less developed styles, so beware not to utilise "style" equally a shield from critique.
Copying a Style
I judge most of the artists start this way, right after leaving childish-scribbles phase. They experience comfortable with a pencil (they're "good at cartoon" in the about basic significant), but at the same time their progress isn't as fast as they wish. So instead of learning from others, they outset to copy them wholly. All of a sudden their pictures wait perfect, and everyone loves them too. It unremarkably starts with tracing a picture, then copying it with your optics, and finally learning the rules of the style to create own characters and get a bit of independence. Is information technology really that incorrect? Let's observe out:
Pros:
- You're getting comfortable with a pencil and menstruum of lines;
- You're practicing eye-hand coordination;
- Subconsciously, you're learning about aureate ratio;
- Yous're learning how to accept fun with drawing;
- Yous're drawing without pressure to be meliorate, because you're already good;
- You're learning how it feels to be praised because of your skills.
Cons:
- Y'all feel you lot're good at cartoon and you lot don't demand to learn anything else, because y'all're already praised—so you stop your artistic development;
- Your creativity may be injure;
- You lot care for artistic stylization every bit something normal and true, something existent;
- Unlike the original artist, you ignore all the rules that led to creation of the style, so y'all'll never make the best of it;
- The style becomes a function of you and y'all can't go rid of it even when you try to develop your own style (that's a serious threat!);
- You're not able to gauge your fine art considerately, you—and others—see it but in terms of how close it is to the original;
- You lot're edifice a comfort zone that's very hard to get out;
- You're getting addicted to the praises and y'all're afraid of trying something new, considering information technology may non be equally skillful.
What well-nigh manga? Isn't drawing manga "copying a style"? Not exactly. Manga (or "the manner of Japanese comics") is rather a prepare of similar styles. Just like "Disney way" it may give you lot guidelines, a whole lot of helpful hints well-nigh proportions, but there'due south notwithstanding space for developing something on your own. It's a different situation than focusing on 1 detail style (of certain comics/animation), just information technology still limits yous to the rules created by someone else.
If the previous paragraph sounded encouraging to y'all, here's some bad news: every adept manga creative person with a personal mode is a good creative person in general too. You can exist certain they've got a lot of experience in realistic drawing, and they just chose to use manga every bit a base of operations for their way. If you lot've got no pick but drawing in someone else's style, can you really depict? Until you empathize what the manner was based on (realism), yous'll never exist able to alter it freely. You but won't know how to alter something without breaking it all!
Decision
Drawing is more complicated affair that we tend to think. And so uncomplicated in its nuts and then unimaginably hard when information technology comes to dragons and warriors. I think most of the problems of a beginner come from misunderstanding of their hobby—it's not about putting lines on the paper co-ordinate to some mysterious processes in our mind. When you lot understand how many aspects drawing has, it becomes obvious that every unmarried one of them can exist modified to create a new style. And since all styles derive from realism, get-go with agreement it—observe, stay alert, brand reality the only style you copy.
Lookout man other artists—search for traces of realism in their art, come across what they changed, decide how y'all can utilize this knowledge. Y'all're not developing as an artist only when holding a pencil—everytime you make an effort to actively meet and empathise something, your feel bar is growing!
Detect, wonder, ask questions—and then do what you desire with lines, colors and light to nowadays your observations to others.
Source: https://design.tutsplus.com/articles/realism-photorealism-and-style-in-drawing--cms-21630
Posted by: knighthattlem.blogspot.com
0 Response to "How To Draw A Bara Butt"
Post a Comment