alternatively, u might not need a flower brush for the effect u want.


By azarimy

this is a drawing i did about a two years ago. it's based on a lineart, then painted over on several layers. one of the layer is a batik pattern i downloaded off the net. i cant remember exactly, but using a shade pattern, i "wrap" the batik pattern over the curvature of the fabric. it's much easier and more realistic than to "paint" the patterns over it.

i cant remember exactly how i did it as it was quite a long time ago. if i have the time i'll dig it up. but u can just google pattern wrapping or mapping images in photoshop.

the pattern is totally up to u. it doesnt have to be full. just find whatever pattern u like or paint one urself. the pattern should be painted flat, like batik on a stretched canvas.

using shade map, u will "wrap" the pattern around the fabric. it doesnt really wrap in 3D like in those 3D softwares. hence why i use the inverted commas. u can find the tutorials on the web.

animous,

the texture wrapping technique is called "displacement effect". google for tutorials. here's one that might be useful to u. should be self explanatory.

tutorial source

By azarimy

gaaram, female version of gaara.

my drawings almost NEVER grasp anything properly. it's part of the grace that i wanted to show. i learned silat, and most of its weapon techniques are against holding a weapon too tight. it should be firm, but not rigid. so this principle is translated in most of my drawings.

and she's not bathing. more like splashing wine on herself. and yes, she's drunk, so it doesnt really matter how she's holding her sword .

By azarimy

gaara: ribut pasir

new one i just did about 1 and a half hours.

By azarimy

an exercise learning on lighting. no reference. i'm gonna do another one, but this time with reference. just wanna check how different it's gonna be.

as always, looking nice and crisp, mclelun!

vector art is perhaps the least thing i'm able to do. maybe i should start learning illustrator. been stuck to coreldraw for way too long.

that's brilliant, akakuma. 10-15 hours might be well worth it. it's not something i can do anymore. most of my paintings have a maximum 4 hour limit. cant spend too long on a particular painting.

that's my shortcoming lol. i'm trained as an architect. the difference between a good and a not so good architect is the ability to achieve certain standard within a limited time. we believe that a not so good architect CAN achieve the exact same standard as the good architect, they just take longer .

artists, on the other hand, strives to achieve perfection no matter how long it takes. it's been this way since hundreds of years ago. and amazingly, artists can concentrate in a particular job for a long duration of time. sometimes years.




so fundamentally, architects are sprinters while artists are endurance runners .

first of all, i'm not generalizing all architects or engineers. i'm saying that i let my discipline determine how i work. other people may switch between an architect/engineer/whatever into artist mode as freely as they want. me? i'm governed by the principles of my discipline.

but architects, being in architect mode, are entirely ruled by time. it's not something u can argue against. the primary rule about being an architect is the ability to work within time. it's what u can do within the time that really matters. even in architecture education, students are measured by the work they produce by deadline. they wont be measured by "what he might have done if he was given more time". anyone can score an A if u give them all the time in the world. heck, malaysian architects can design KLCC or KLIA if they were given all the time (and money) in the world.

but it doesnt work that way, unfortunately . so architects are always trained to measure themselves against time. achieve the best within the given time.

it's just as u said:



architects can become good if they train alot and get more experience. but there must be an objective on what u do. do u want to learn to chop onions very fast? or do u wanna learn to serve 60 people within 1 hour? even professional chefs MUST work within a time limit. if not, people will walk out of ur restaurant and u wont get paid.

whatever it is, some people switch between being who they are and being an artist. some people let the artist within to take over their life. i'm an architect and i will always will be. u asked me why i work within 4 hour limit. hence my answer .

okay let me stop u right there. i shall explain my position for u to be REALLY clear about what i'm saying.

i'm an architect by training and profession. i'm also a lecturer of architecture. i also hold a masters in virtual environment which involves alot about programming and digital architecture. and finally, i'm currently in my final year of my doctorate, specializing in architecture education, which hopefully by the end of next year makes me a specialist in educating and developing an architect.

now lets go over ur points:



yes, it shows my discipline, but also any architect's discipline. it's central to the architecture discipline, which i've explained briefly.



i never said others didnt work by deadline. dont add things that i did not say/write .

architects ARE measured by deadline bcoz if they couldnt complete it, it's still can be measured. which is difference from other courses, where if u cant finish it, u FAIL. an incomplete work cannot be measured/graded. there's a big difference here.

also, regardless of working or studying environment, people arent gonna wait for the architect to produce his BEST design. that'll take forever, coz the stop point of work is deadline, not perfection. artists would prefer to stop at perfection.



mahathir did not design KLCC. it was design by the cesar pelli, an argentinian architect based in the US. he specializes in hi-rise buildings bcoz his firm also houses a number of engineering experts. the usage of the islamic pattern is also caesar pelli's idea, which mahathir agreed upon. mahathir suggests that it has islamic image to it, which pelli interpreted by using the pattern. feel free to find books on caesar pelli and read about him.



we do everything within a time limit. life has a limit. architects just made this central to their life. architects are lateral thinkers, they juggle between numerous tasks in the same time. usually architects work with 3-4 different projects simultaneously at different stages. if u dont work within the time limit, u just wont be able to function.

yes, i'm working. but the architecture education is actually very similar to architectural practice. architects learn by doing. the design studio is a direct simulation of the architect's office, bcoz the best way for us to train an architect is actually to dump them in the office and let them learn by doing. so the design studio in universities are actually a simulation of the real world. they just take out the risks involved and also substitute the reward (payment/salary) with grades.

i dont switch off the architect in me. so why do u keep arguing?



i didnt say everyone is equal. i didnt even generalize. architects are who they are bcoz the training is the same all over the world. however, the training is different from what u normally see in other fields. just ask any architect friends. see if they disagree with me.

i didnt argue that knowledge is important or not. the measure of the architect is the output, not input. this is different from other types of education. during SPM, u're measured based on what u store inside ur brains. u memorize everything, put a bit of analysis on it, and u should be able to regurgitate everything and get a good score. architecture doesnt work that way. it's what u do with what u have to maximize output that's important. a person could read less but still produce outstanding results.

what i'm saying here is, it doesnt matter about how long it takes for an architect to gather knowledge. architects are known to extend their studies by 1 or 2 semesters. it's normal. but like i said, we're not measuring input. it's the output.



sorry, but in respect to architecture, there is only one perspective. u just see more the higher u climb.

i'm not sure why u're getting too worked up. like i said, there's nothing wrong of being or thinking like an artist. they strive for perfection irregardless of resources. i'm saying that architects have a very different frame of mind. and i dont understand how that upsets u.

we've already established that architects and artists view things differently. which i'm sure u agree right now. u wanna work on ur art for however long u wish. perhaps u're still viewing it as a hobby. but hey, that's how artists work, which i've said several posts earlier. but that's NOT how i work. so i would appreciate that u dont tell me how i work, or how architects supposed to think or function .

This post has been edited by azarimy: Nov 1 2008, 10:22 PM

that's not generalization, when i speak of common characteristics.

it's like saying "all architects design buildings". are there any architects that DONT? is saying "all architects design buildings" a generalization? u see my point? all the stuffs u've listed i said are not generalization, but common traits, things that ALL architects do. like i said, all architects go through similar training and do the same things.

i cant really describe it in any other way. are u saying i cant say "all students study", bcoz it's a generalization?



suggestions from a client doesnt necessarily make them the designer. yes, it was taken into the design process, but it's the designer/architect's call to fully accept or reject the idea and make it his. it's going to be hard to deal with copyright and ownership issues if all suggestions from clients, consultants or anybody involved in a particular project had to be given certain rights.

i mean, lets look at ur artworks. lets say i suggest u to use "darker shadows". u follow and abide. does that make me part owner of that artwork? no, right? coz u're the artist. u can credit me for the suggestion, but u really dont have to.

well, when anyone disagrees with me, i always make sure he understands what he is disagreeing about and ensure he has all the right arguments to support his standings. hence i tabled out my arguments, to ensure u understand my points. but if u still disagree, then it's totally up to u. i'm always open to arguments .

no need for apologies, bcoz i'm not offended. although i should apologize coz i think somehow somewhere i've offended u.

i'm sorry to be an arse, but i still disagree.

being an architect is not just being able to draw or design buildings. i dont like to name drop, but people like prof. nigel cross and prof. bryan lawson, both leading experts in architecture education, have helped established that architects have a very different frame of mind than most other professions. they've drawn research from educationists like john dewey and donald schon, both whom have done an extensive amount of work on psychology and education.

architects subscribe to the "designer protocols", a guiding principle that governs how they work, function and think. which is also what i'm a part of. medical practitioners subscribe to the hippocratic oath that governs how they work and live, but doesnt affect how they think.

it is not an assumption that architects "think" in a specific way. it has been established in academic journals, international symposiums and conferences. it is a characteristic of all architects to be this way bcoz of the training. i believe u have not met alot of architects or architecture students, have u? well, u'll understand this when u met a few of them. if u cant find them, try other designers like interior, landscape, graphic, industrial or even fashion designers. they all follow the designer protocols in one way or another, but it is more prevalent amongst architects.

i know it's hard for u to accept that architects or designers have a specific way of thinking. i totally understand.

i'm sure u have come across edward de bono's "lateral thinking" concept (1967), right? try digging a bit on de bono's works, u'll find that the concept of lateral thinking run parallel to donald schon's "reflective practitioner", a research on the architects way of thinking. nigel cross also have proposed that architects utilize very specific part of the brain actively than other people, and eventually bryan lawson coined the "designerly way of thinking" in the early 90s, cementing the concept of a separate and unique frame of mind that the architects have.



so there. i'm not generalizing nor playing with words. individual architects are unique in terms of style and abilities, but they all subscribe to a similar frame of mind. but like i said earlier, they could switch it on and off. but once they've gone through the training for 5 years, they'll have it embedded in their brains whether they like it or not. it is part of becoming an architect that makes them this way.

This post has been edited by azarimy: Nov 2 2008, 07:33 AM

i appreciate ur opinion, but that wasnt what the argument was about. well, atleast that part of the argument have been sorted out.

i'm just standing on my statements that architects subscribe to a specific mindset, which animous conveniently called "generalizing". i understand his opinion, assuming he's not familiar with the design world. so i elaborated my points further to illustrate that being an architect is not just graduating with an architectural degree. design is a mindset. it's an attitude .

lol, it's not about winning. it's about clarifying the common misconception. i have no problems accepting ur opinion, but not before i've exhausted all means to convince u otherwise. people always assume architects and other designers are artists, belonging to the "art family" as opposed to "science family". but actually we're not. artists are artists, designers belong a union of both groups. infact, there are characteristics of designers that doesnt belong to either groups, which suggests that designers (referring to all in the design group) are an entirely different family altogether.

remember how this argument began. u asked me why i let myself be governed by the designer protocols. which i've explained, but somehow u argue against. which is funny, coz u dont seem to accept why i hold on to my principles .

i'm not here to win. i'm here to clarify.

sure, lets stop.

thanks. this piece was featured in last year's HP/AMD coffee table booklet for comic fiesta 2008. i reworked and added a few more details in it to meet the submission deadline




This post has been edited by azarimy: Mar 13 2009, 11:52 AM

it's more towards armored core actually hehehe

i havent submitted anything here for a few months now. here's a fresh one.



This post has been edited by azarimy: Mar 22 2009, 04:16 AM

someone i used to chase.