Ehhh, I just see these skill levels as labels people throw around to feel better about themselves (or not). Besides, everyone has their own pace of learning--you can't really pinpoint what exactly an "intermediate" artist has to be.
I am the prime example of intermediate. I've got the simplistic shading down, simple anatomy and all of that, but I have a long way to go before I consider myself "expert".
A person who's intermediate in my opinion is good at drawing, but not fantastic at it. Mainly due to problems with proportions and shading. Also, there's the whole perspective and foreshortening stuff. Again, I can do SOME of those things, but most of the times, I end up with something... rather crap.
So yeah. Intermediate meaning GOOD but not VERY good. Very good means the person knows focal point, value, shape, negative space, anatomy, and all of that stuff, hence why their drawings come out looking so awesome; because they know how to apply those lessons and use them in their artwork.
Way back when I first got into digital art, I used to draw at an oekaki website that had their boards set up according to skill- beginners could only draw at the beginner boards, intermediates could draw in intermediate and beginner boards, and advanced artists could draw anywhere they liked. The problem with that set up was that the admins had varying views of what was beginner, intermediate and so on. I can remember posting drawings on intermediate boards and one admin allowing them only to have another admin delete them the next day, with a message saying I was still at a beginner level. Anyway, the moral of this rant story is that I think the idea of an intermediate artist is pretty subjective.
To me, once someone has an understanding of basic drawing principals but can't quiet execute them at a professional level, they are an intermediate artists, but even that is very subjective (i.e. my idea of professional level may differ from someone else). Virtually every artists I know thinks of themselves as an intermediate artist, myself included. I think that's because we're never satisfied with our level of work and constantly aspiring for more, which is a good thing, of course.
Oh man, are you talking about oekaki central?? I use to moderate that place hahaha! I never dug the arbitrary "skill rating" system either, especially considering next to none of the mods had a properly trained eye :I I mean, their criteria "advanced" art included "LOTS OF SHINU DETAILS DESU @www@" if your background wasn't competing with your foreground for attention in an eye gouging manner, you weren't "advanced" enough lmao.
I am! Talk about a small world, lol. I liked the community and different rooms, but I was never a fan of their skill ratings for the same reasons as you. If the detail wasn't packed on, the picture wasn't the almighty advanced level. Of course, back then I rating system because I was forever getting my pictures removed, haha. I felt like I was gambling- cashing in all my hours of work to see what happens. I can remember about five of my drawings getting removed a year after I made them because they were no longer up to standards. I didn't even know that was possible.
Who knows. All I'm certain of is that industry-wise, I'm still a beginner, and most people who vocally identify themselves 'intermediate' probably aren't. The work should speak louder than the artist when it comes to that.
Intermediate is subjective I think, its like asking someone where does the arm finish and the hand start. We all have our own beliefs and as a result go by how we perceive rather than the persons actual skill. For instance, a drawing I find to be amazing might be rubbish to a talented artist with years of experience in drawings. The fact art itself is very subjective doesn’t help, there are no rules so a “beginner” or a “master” can have a legitimate reason for both sides of the spectrum. Basically I would not pay attention to gauging the level people are on, its works better for subjects that can be tested but not so much for art.
man that's such a gray area.. largely based on each person's opinion. I'm sure everyone's vision of 'master- beginner- intermediate' levels is different. I've been labeled intermediate before although I've worked in animation studios and have an internationally published graphic nove and comicsl D=. Oh wells lol. I would never call myself a 'master' tho, since I'm never satisfied with my work. It's a neverending road to continued improvement...
Simply put: Someone who has decent skills in art but not yet expert. At least, that's the way I see it. I usually classify anyone who "missed the basics" as a beginner and someone who's "almost got it" as intermediate. But that's me though... I'm sure everyone has a slightly different opinion. For a visual though, I'd classify my art as intermediate...
Perhaps by offering a few more stages to the journey we can better define 'intermediate'. I see it much like learning to play a musical instrument.
Aspirant: One who enjoys making things creatively and likes the idea of one day making art. Someone who dabbles in drawing, painting or sculpture. Beginner: One who has begun the initial stages of training. Someone who has a modicum of control over their medium. Intermediate: One who has completed the basic techniques and is pursuing the craft more actively. Someone who can finally use the medium to make artwork. Advanced: One who has finished technical training and learned to control their medium. This is much like a someone who has learned to read music, and freely play their instrument. Master: One who's medium has become an extension of their creativity, yet as such, are always the student.
When I talk about training I'm referring to the craft of making art not specifically art school or collage. Many of which don't teach the craft. Without training you end up spending countless hours floundering in frustration. Self taught is actually the hardest way to learn anything. You have to learn the techniques to have skills.
Just because you're a "professional" doesn't mean you're an expert. That's not to say you're not any good (you're a million times better than me) but if you look at a lot of the popular musicians, they're not experts at all, but they're still professionals. Like I said, that's not to slander your art any, it's just a definition of terms.
I think it largely has to do with experience also. I mean, the more different kinds of subject matter and skill you display in each area you can show the more likely people are you view you as more than just intermediate... but I mean..people don't throw the word master around lightly - calling yourself or someone a master begins to compare them to classical masters like Da Vinci and Michelangelo and Monet, it's kind of a stretch for most artists nowadays. I've seen very few who could really be compared. Sorry to jump in on that. I just had a thought.
Hmm. I suppose just about everyone who has a basic understanding of composition, anatomy, lighting, and various other elements of creating art could be called an intermediate artist. I suppose you'd become advanced the stronger your understanding of these principles and the more you develop your own style/can successfully interpret someone elses. =/ That's a tough thing to define. I'd say you're intermediate bordering on advanced.
Well, anything can be broken down into a innumerable amount of different levels. 3 is just the easiest sort of umbrella categorization. I assumed you were referring to this type of categorization because of your reference to an "intermediate" artist.
A middle stage? I think once artists understand beginner concepts like proportions, anatomy, lighting, shading, colors, and the use of most tools whether they be digital or traditional, they could be considered at an intermediate level. But it's really hard to categorize since everyone learns at a different pace, and not everyone who draws traditional is familiar with digital means, and vice versa.
Well, since what schools teach and techniques constantly seem to be changing, are you considered a beginner just because you haven't learned the 'up-to-date' method of doing something? It seems rather silly. It's a great topic you've brought up though, as I cannot come to a perfectly concise opinion.
Which is why I also included in my statement: But it's really hard to categorize since everyone learns at a different pace, and not everyone who draws traditional is familiar with digital means, and vice versa.