Giotto Concept( Reloaded)

[Guest Taro]

"Acura/honda/renault and Big3"

 

i dont see it.

[Guest lokilabs]

http://www.core77.com/blog/featured_items/...lland_12752.asp

 

Advancedboy.....All the bashing aside you should really take the time to channel all of that design energy and emotion into several concepts based on one theme. You have certain skills that if focused might be able to move you in the right direction. Lets see you move forward and take the time to show us your ability to develope the finished form from many concept sketches to the final iteration. Take a look at the above link and you may begin to understand why so many may not agree with the shapes you have presented. Form is very rarely quantified as is true art but people and consumers know exactly what they are looking for in thier products.

[advancedboy 5]

If you zoom in, you can see that I mostly used square with rounded edges. plus negative inclination shapes inwarfs. in some places i joined rounded square plus negqative inclination. You can clearly see that hood stampinfis in rounded squares, headlights, hood shape, front bumper air intake, side vent. The front hood stamping is repeated in its inclination in door and fender stamping. Even the small window behind the side door is rounded square. Negative inclination shape is also in rearview mirrors. The only thing i will modify is side air intake in front bumper as it loks somewhat blant and remove some lines from front bumper as it looks a bit tense. So I don`t get what exactly is wrong here. It is not that I am exploiting completely unmatchable shapes ina chaotic mess. I try to avoid the language of Bangle which is contradicting in many aspects of sophisticated v. elegant muscularity. Anyway I am slowly preparing to build a concept model, unfortunately it will take a lot of time, as it is going to be of a complex shape. Don`t expect from me to be a traditionalist here, i have come here to take a path less walked by......

[Guest Taro]

i am not exactly sure if this is your problem, but do you think when you are designing, you think of each little parts of the car as seperate pieces?

 

like, if you design the rear bumper, you will make it as you say, really good. then you move on to the front head lights, and you make that good. So on and so on. But when you place all of them together, they don't match.

 

It is like when you look at a person's face, individually, his eyes may be souless, his nose may be flat, his lips may be thin, but when it all comes together to form a face, he is a handsome guy. You can't expect every single part of the car to be perfectly designed, but as a whole, it can look nice. And it applies to all car, not just the BMWs, Audi, etc etc.

[advancedboy 5]

I believe that every car is as beautiful as its ugliest detail. because people will always look for glitches , then concentrate on that glitch and discard the idea of buying the product.. For example i can`t stand gaps betwen panels, that`s why no matter how i love oldsmobile Aurora design ( including concept vehicle) ,I would simply never buy just buy seeing those monster gaps between headlights and bumpers, you name it. generally speaking even BMW 6 coupe is nice looking, but I simply get repulsed buy the way the rear trunk lid is attached, the way how tiny the front bumper lip part looks, or the way 3 plastic gray A/C knobs look. We love designs not of the whole picture, but probably because we can`t find any details in the design that would contradict in an unpleasant way. The wholeness of design, to my mind is rather expressed by proportions of body.probably what I should reconsider in design is the in-depth of shapes. I sense that the tinier the detail is the more aggressively I have to bend it, while the bigger parts should be bent more moderately. So I guess, Now on I will bend surface of massive parts more carefully. i also believe that our eyes concentrate on one massive point in the car, and that our eyes want the design either to be leaning forward as in agressive jump, lean backwards ,as if catching up with acceleration, or stand straight up. I believe that the whole design then grows around this massive center with tinier parts, which are then proportioned to it. probably the leaning starts with a-pillar.The problem with front bumper is that there is no center of mass, as many parts are agressively big, so I will erase most of them leaving one massive detail . If we look at ,as you mentioned person`s face, we usualyy look for healthy genetics, that is - right side symmetry to the left, and well proportioned parts of face, like size of chin, shape of head, distance of eyes between each other, height of forehead,hair thickness. In the same way, probably people evaluate good designs. They concentrate on details and how they contradict each other.

[Guest lokilabs]

Once again you dance around our suggestions and completely miss the point. Look at all you have written above...people tire of reading it. Products are not created in vaccuum. They are created by a team of well guided professionals. Can you do concept sketches? You immediately jump to the details. I want to give up on you but the goal of this forum is to teach and learn from others. That's why people still comment on your work. Please take their advice.

[advancedboy 5]

here is re-edited version with less massive details at one spot. if you are professionals, hit the problem one by one, a part by part. You are like, now ok, go and improve, and when come back compete with Gm labs. i can`t do it , unless I am directed by small steps. the more obscure the direction, the more I swerve. Once you critique, target directly, like lamps look bla bla, bumper opening is bla bla. of course the best way is when you show your works how to design cars, not direct to some ubersite.

[Cyberdemon 17]

This was built to your original image and I see some things have changed but your overall issues are still there. You are drawing areas that just don't make sense (take the back fender for example) The wheel is tucked inside the fender, but the fender is drawn as if it curves straight into the body.

 

Also your rendering style just doesn't work. You add so many reflections (of what I don't know - it looks like it is reflecting outerspace) and rather than communicating the actual FORM you are comminicating the wrong highlights for surfaces that appear to be bending in 3 dimensions (your old A pillar).

 

You keep saying "well it shouldn't be about my technique, it should be about your design". I just had your picture up on my screen and my colleague walks up behind me and flat out said "What is that, other than the ugliest thing I have ever seen in my life". Heres a legitimate question. Do you think we are ALL crazy? That you see something that we don't and we can't possibly recognize why your ultra complex forms are visually unappealing? Or are we all just jaded designers who are used to thinking BMW's are actually generally nicely designed vehicles.

 

Take a look at this page which shows sketches from dozens of designers, dozens of manufacturers, and tell me if you think you could put your drawing up there and it would fit in.

 

http://www.simkom.com/sketchsite/

 

There are plenty of wacky, unconventional, completely unique designs on that page but they are all communicated well. The form and emotion of the sketch visually makes sense.

 

Instead of being inspired by other peoples work you make comments like "This speaker looks like it was installed by a hillbilly". Really?

 

Part of what design school teaches is humility, the ability to understand your own errors, and respond to feedback.

 

Your issue is you want us to tell you your door line isn't perfect. Then you will tell us why you think your door line IS perfect and why everyone elses is wrong. So you won't EVER learn ANYTHING. And you REFUSE to understand that your design fundamentals are total @#$@#$ and that there are 15 year olds on this board that are more receptive to feedback, they incorporate that feedback, and as such you can look at a 6 month progression of their work and see how much they've actually learned.

 

You refuse to go back to the basics of a ball point pen sketch and learn how to communicate form. The result is your overworked paintings that no one finds appealing and it's not because we're crazy.

 

I'm really not sure why people bother anymore. I've been on this board for I don't even know how many years and only 1 other person was this unreceptive to listening, and he quit after 6 months and went back to engineering.

[advancedboy 5]

I admit that it is a bit off perspective, as this was the last one done without grid and was based on the previous giotto sketch. I was more concentrated on continuity of elemnets and their proportionate size. To some of your point I agree, some not, you ain`t God, even if you are pro, and I accept those points that are directly concerning perspective and troublesome mechanics with lighting. From now on i will choose one point of lighting, rather than just playing around with shades. Many of those designs on tnat site are great, many are average to my mind, although all of them have good perspective. So far i haven`t mastered the texture of light, so no surprise that my sketches don`t look like photos. I improve what I can, and what I can`t , i ignore for a while, simple as that. Don`t forget that you are a professional designer, my field of specialty is completely different, and I try sketching in my spare time., so logically it will take more time. IAnd i don`t lack humility, I am straight forward, if you see those bimmer interiors perfect, so be it for you, not for me. You can say that my design is the worst you have ever seen ( which it is not), and I can`t say anything critical of other designer works? nOTHING WOULD INSPIRE ME TO WORK HARDER THAN A COUPLE OF GOOD WORDS, INSTEAD OF THAT YOU ARE DESTRYING ME. But don`t even hope that I will quit. We are about to see.

[Guest Taro]

"unless I am directed by small steps."

 

then why don't you move by small steps? you can't even do concept and idea sketches, why bother jumping to rendering? It just pulls you down. You might have been a 6, after rendering, it pops all the error and drags you to.. uhh..

 

"my design is the worst you have ever seen"

 

agreed.

 

"nOTHING WOULD INSPIRE ME TO WORK HARDER THAN A COUPLE OF GOOD WORDS, INSTEAD OF THAT YOU ARE DESTRYING ME. But don`t even hope that I will quit. We are about to see."

 

go and be a writer or a poet why don't you? learn to get inspired by sketches and images more instead of those nice things that you hear. School started for a month and a half now and I haven't heard a nice thing about my stuff yet. Understand why those designs and those sketches get to be at the top, learn why BMW( which you seem to hate) get to be so successful, while your design hurts the eye.

 

You have to realize, when the whole world (and i mean the world that are willing to see your sketches) say that your style and your sketch has a problem, THERE IS A BIG PROBLEM. so.. when you are not willing to accept anything, you shouldn't be in the area don't you think?

 

Again, i would love to see you in the design field sometime in the distant future, but you really have to learn to accept and not argue crits. It doesn't take professionalism to say it is a bad looking picture. So please stop saying stuff like, why do we think we are professional or gods, we r not, at least i am not. There is NO such thing in this field that gaurentees you ONLY get crits from the pros. Let me tell you, often the ones told by a stranger that is completely out of the field... they are the real ones that will make you realize.

[Cyberdemon 17]

I admit that it is a bit off perspective, as this was the last one done without grid and was based on the previous giotto sketch. I was more concentrated on continuity of elemnets and their proportionate size. To some of your point I agree, some not, you ain`t God, even if you are pro, and I accept those points that are directly concerning perspective and troublesome mechanics with lighting. From now on i will choose one point of lighting, rather than just playing around with shades. Many of those designs on tnat site are great, many are average to my mind, although all of them have good perspective. So far i haven`t mastered the texture of light, so no surprise that my sketches don`t look like photos. I improve what I can, and what I can`t , i ignore for a while, simple as that. Don`t forget that you are a professional designer, my field of specialty is completely different, and I try sketching in my spare time., so logically it will take more time. IAnd i don`t lack humility, I am straight forward, if you see those bimmer interiors perfect, so be it for you, not for me. You can say that my design is the worst you have ever seen ( which it is not), and I can`t say anything critical of other designer works? nOTHING WOULD INSPIRE ME TO WORK HARDER THAN A COUPLE OF GOOD WORDS, INSTEAD OF THAT YOU ARE DESTRYING ME. But don`t even hope that I will quit. We are about to see.

 

This has NOTHING to do with your pictures looking like "photos" did half of those renderings look like photos? My entire point has been you need to go back and start SIMPLE. Nothing about your designs is simple. Not your forms, not your language, not your sketching style.

 

If you would have listened to that feedback many times and gone back to just doing a dozen ballpoint pen sketches on paper (instead of focusing on 1 or 2 incredibly detailed designs) you would improve your ability to understand and communicate form.

 

I gave you a link to a DVD which I think is essential for you to understand how things are constructed in 3D, but you grazed right over it since you don't think you have a problem. And until you realize what your problems are you won't get any "good words". Your design isn't good, your rendering isn't good, and until you step back and start with the BASICS OF DESIGN you will stumble to improve.

 

This isn't a case of us purposely smacking you down - this is a case of you repeatedly not listening. There are a billion designs out there and someone can love and hate every one of them. But design is about COMMUNICATION - whether it be visual or written, and you are missing those abilities. You are trying to do everything your own way because you believe it to be correct, and that the ways in which the other hundreds of designers operate to be wrong.

 

Going back to just doing 20 simple sketches a day with pen an paper only would improve your skills. Stop drawing cars and learn how to EFFECTIVELY draw and communicate simple things like a stapler, water bottle, or telephone. Instead you are trying to refine a single design which will get you nowhere fast.

 

This is the reason in design school you spend weeks drawing straight lines, boxes, and ellipses. Because you need to master the fundamentals before you can progress to something as incredibly complex as a car. You've skipped over too much of your fundementals and the result is evident in your work.

 

If you just want to draw cars for your own amusement thats fine. I'll keep my mouth shut.

 

If you actually want to learn how to progress as a designer consider listening, watching, observing, and absorbing all of the resources you can online, in DVD's and books to improve your skill set.

[Guest dwdy]

forget colour and shading for now, you need to build good foundations before you can start perfecting with colour and shading, focus on linework and u will make noticeable progress.

[advancedboy 5]

it`s not that I am not listening, it is that some things I only notice later, and can learn how to execute mathematical perspective through failure system. i have some issues ,because I am drawing with pencil, then I am photographing the sketch then downloading it to computer. Only now I have noticed that if I use a3 format, it is too big and the camera bulges the image, so I shifted to a4 format. Then , I can`t get done with layers as well a bit. Unfortunately during aplying colours I change the design elements, and I am doing it with mouse, so I can`get those elegant lines at that point. I can get nice curves in simple paint program, not in sketch pro, which only offfers ellipses , not bending of straight lines. Another issue is that I don`t have an eraser that only erases the last applied line, sketch pro eraser erases everything including previous applications of background. I am learning a lot of things, why so many of you are so obscure about styling - like learn fuundamnetals,-work on lines. I have some principles which I haven`t learnt but which I follow, because I get them from nature observation. Principle number one- justfiable proportions. When i draw a car I try to match the proportions of front to the rear, so the front overhang would be comparable to rear overhang. so that front fender height would be comparable to rear fender height. When I add elements, I try them to be comparable in thickness and bending sharpness. Another principle I have is that things tend to go parallelly, even if they are disrupted by some other element in the middle. By the way, they don`t have to go parallelly in horizontal way, they can do it in any sloping. Another thing I have observed in nature is that things tend to grow perpendicularly the center of gravity. So I Imagine some gravity center within a car and allow some lines to go at 90 degree angle. usually I imagine the line of gravity going along roof line or hood line. Also i try to imagine the mass center of the design . When you see a panther jumping , you can observe that she has her mass center near stomach around ribs, then all the other design seemingly grows around it . In this way I try to find this mass center ,then decide on sloping direction, - either the panther is sloping forward in leap( like Dodge hemi8,) leaning backwards in anticipation( like Dodge viper), or bending straight upwards, like most of buses do.

Another principle I have is the principle of belonging, or integrity. meaning that each part must have at least one angle or line going in harmony with something else. You can see this principle observed in most of japanese cars, where shape of loudspeakers have at least one line following direction of either dashboard or door panels. You can see the disruption of this principle in many BMW concept` headlights, including the last one. the thing I am only discovering is that inclination of positive bending and negative bending tolerate different levels of agression- meaning if the shape is bent inwards( like dimple) it accepts more shallow inclination ,while outwardly bent shapes tolerate more agression( like nose), I presume when bending panel surface inward inclination must be done very carefully, as opposed to outward bulging. Another principle I observe is usage of basic shapes throughout the whole design philosophy- like triangles, squares or rectangles. Say, VW beetle exploits round shapes everywhere( not in windows edges), while mini seems to be distorted by agressive assaults of sharp edges on a-pillar, front air scoop, etc. I observe a lot and then try to use common sense why it is done so. I have also observed that Volvo S80 or BMW 7 series have worse exterior fit and finish and precision of part edges than a 16k hyundai i30 or getz. isn`t that weird? i believe that magic starts somewhere in the sloping and bending of the front hood/fenders as in this place a designer must find a compromise between air drag and overall design philosophy of the due car. I allow completely opposing shapes if they have to do it by a function or add spicing to a boring design. maybe I am wrong, but I won`t go against the nature itself, as she gives me the inspiration. But I can add some more principles . What are your principles?Oh, almost forgot, finally I have the principle of `fake perspective`, meaning the parts seem to be bigger in the imagined area of mass then seemingly slope in a way that they diminish in size when going away from this mass center. Like windows tend to slope in a way that they become smaller once going out of this center. By the way, I have observed that nature can not strictly follow the 90 degree rule( perpendicularity towards gravity line), but always tends toward it. And last thing I observe is the functional thichkness of elemts, like door handles are proportioned in size comparatively to the heaviness of the door, not actually to the size of your fist. You can observe this ,when opening the door of a tractor or cupboard- as both have different sizes of handles depending on strength to be applied to open them.Ok, your principles?

[advancedboy 5]

oops, almost forgt, I also observe the principle of `lensing`. When sun rays meet a dark object ,they seemingly confront each other as both are of completely different shapes. one is straingt line, the other is round. And I believe that they can`t live close together. That`s why the light rays bend slightly around the orb of the planet. seemingly compromising the shape.You can see this compromise when toyota installs emblems . As her emblem is oval , but in many cases front grille, or rear window have straight lines, the emblem seems to be lensed and has some `bulging` either within the window or grille.So my belief is when two objects of opposing or completely different shapes go close to each other, the `lensing ` takes effect between them. You can again, sorry, see the lack of lensing in front grilles of mercedes emblems, or when round loudspeakers meet door panel rails in Bimmers, or when an Audi emblem is squeezed in between rear window and trunk. The` lensing`strenght is dependent on the mass of 2 objects that meet, . Logically the biggest `shape lensing` will come from the heftiest object. Well, I will always follow this principle, sorry if it is fundamentally wrong.i am stubborn.

[Guest Live Design]

any chance you could summarise that in a few bullet points?