Just in time for Halloween
Stephen Morgana
"Still life with scull, dead sunflower and shell"
(maybe better to call it a still death)
http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000/oil/scull.jpg
Trick or treat!
--
Stephen
http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alison A Raimes
deja.com> writes
>Here is a painting I did in painting class:
>"Still life with scull, dead sunflower and shell"
>(maybe better to call it a still death)
>http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000/oil/scull.jpg
Took a very quick look, Stephen - it's difficult because our phone lines
are notoriously bad for downloading images and costing a lot of money in
the process, so I wasn't able to give it the attention it deserved. Glad
your Summer hiatus is over though !
From the glimpse that I got it seemed like a standard life drawing
exercise. Was it in water-colours ? How did they light it ? Any direct
lights and dimmed backgrounds ? How much time did you have to complete
the exercise ?
Incidentally, when did you do the portrait of *Scott* - don't remember
seeing that one. Something very strong about that drawing.
>
>Trick or treat!
Either is fattening .........
>
--
Alison
Paul Mesken
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>Incidentally, when did you do the portrait of *Scott* - don't remember
>seeing that one. Something very strong about that drawing.
Yes, that's a very nice one. I like the way how the nose "works" and
its transition to the right eye area (for viewers the left eye). Very
outspoken, very powerfull rendering of those two features (also how
they're working together). They seem to strongly convey a "likeness
facial expression", the way someone's face normally looks (mine is an
evil grin ;-) From the way it is drawn I feel Stephen really
"understood" that part of the face. This part was given the most
attention and was in focus (as was the chin). In Liz #1 most attention
seems to be devoted to the forehead for example with its outspoke
shading and the light side of the hair which has very good texturing.
For all the portraits I'm not completely happy about the eyes
themselves however, I miss the roundness which is conveyed especially
by the shape of the eye lids and their shading, they also could use
some wetness by applying some strategically placed high lights. The
lips could use some more roundness as well and the ears are too
basically denotated for my taste.
(don't look at me like that! if I wouldn't criticize from time to time
then my presence would be quite useless :-)
Stephen Morgana
Alison A Raimes <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> deja.com> writes
> >Here is a painting I did in painting class:
> >"Still life with scull, dead sunflower and shell"
> >(maybe better to call it a still death)
> >http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000/oil/scull.jpg
>
> Took a very quick look, Stephen - it's difficult because our phone
lines
> are notoriously bad for downloading images and costing a lot of money
in
> the process, so I wasn't able to give it the attention it deserved.
Glad
> your Summer hiatus is over though !
>
> From the glimpse that I got it seemed like a standard life drawing
> exercise. Was it in water-colours ? How did they light it ? Any direct
> lights and dimmed backgrounds ? How much time did you have to complete
> the exercise ?
>
overhead fluorescent lights. Not watercolors, I'm learning oils in this
class. I only had two three hour sessions to work on it. It turned
out that I'm the only one in the class that worked on it, the person
next to me didnt like the setup because it was basically lots of shades
of browns and they wanted to work on something more chearfull.
> Incidentally, when did you do the portrait of *Scott* - don't remember
> seeing that one. Something very strong about that drawing.
> >
I actually did that one last winter in portrait class.
> >Trick or treat!
>
> Either is fattening .........
> >
> --
> Alison
>
--
Stephen Morgana
usu...@euronet.nl (Paul Mesken) wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:45:40 +0100, Alison A Raimes
> <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>
> >Incidentally, when did you do the portrait of *Scott* - don't
remember
> >seeing that one. Something very strong about that drawing.
>
> its transition to the right eye area (for viewers the left eye). Very
> outspoken, very powerfull rendering of those two features (also how
> they're working together). They seem to strongly convey a "likeness
> facial expression", the way someone's face normally looks (mine is an
> evil grin ;-) From the way it is drawn I feel Stephen really
> "understood" that part of the face. This part was given the most
> attention and was in focus (as was the chin). In Liz #1 most attention
> seems to be devoted to the forehead for example with its outspoke
> shading and the light side of the hair which has very good texturing.
> For all the portraits I'm not completely happy about the eyes
> themselves however, I miss the roundness which is conveyed especially
> by the shape of the eye lids and their shading, they also could use
> some wetness by applying some strategically placed high lights. The
> lips could use some more roundness as well and the ears are too
> basically denotated for my taste.
>
> (don't look at me like that! if I wouldn't criticize from time to time
> then my presence would be quite useless :-)
>
>
Thank you for your criticism. I do find eyes and ears to be dificult.
Especially ears, I dont know why but even though I can SEE whats going
on in an ear, I dont managage to render what I am seeing. It could be
that I basically leave the ears for the last and I'm not spending
enough time on them.
Paul Mesken
Well, I learned the ears in a single day by just completely devoting
my time to drawing them. They're a bunch of arcs (or tubes, either
hollow or solid). I always find hands the most difficult (when
grasping, holding, etc. any interaction with objects)
Alison A Raimes
deja.com> writes
>Yup a standard still life. Unfortunately it was only lit by the
>overhead fluorescent lights. Not watercolors, I'm learning oils in this
>class. I only had two three hour sessions to work on it. It turned
>out that I'm the only one in the class that worked on it, the person
>next to me didnt like the setup because it was basically lots of shades
>of browns and they wanted to work on something more chearfull.
Well three hours isn't much and next time I would ask them to do
something with the light - no wonder people were bored before they
started ! I would be tempted to keep working on it now - after all, it
isn't the finished product that matter, is it ? Wouldn't it be
interesting to change the scale and pace of it. I mean, try and see how
it works with the skull as either a huge proportion of the composition
or as a tiny part. I would mess around with the colours - and definitely
with the light. Set up maybe half a dozen canvases or boards and try
various different compositions and painting methods.
I always work in series - for every painting I accept as finished there
are probably ten more which are rejects. Doing that now - I started a
new series this weekend and made a sort of *discovery*. After that I
just want to explore its potential. So I primed seven boards and five
canvases which are all at various stages of the inquiry. Its going slow
because the temperature dropped here and the studio is an ice box. I
will work like crazy for the next couple of days and then walk out of
the studio and not come back for a couple of days. If the excitement of
the process which is all engulfing me at the moment, is still there when
I see the work in a few days time then maybe it's got something good
going for it. We will see !
You might want to consider taking some prints of the jpeg image and
sketching on them with coloured pencils or pastels. For the last two
years I have been teaching an inmate on Death Row in Pennsylvania to
draw. He sends me his *still life* exercises and I xerox them and make
my suggestions on the copies. He then does his own versions taking into
consideration my suggestions. It seems to work really well.
--
Alison
Alison A Raimes
<usu...@euronet.nl> writes
>Yes, that's a very nice one. I like the way how the nose "works" and
>its transition to the right eye area (for viewers the left eye). Very
>outspoken, very powerfull rendering of those two features (also how
>they're working together). They seem to strongly convey a "likeness
>facial expression", the way someone's face normally looks (mine is an
>evil grin ;-) From the way it is drawn I feel Stephen really
>"understood" that part of the face. This part was given the most
>attention and was in focus (as was the chin). In Liz #1 most attention
>seems to be devoted to the forehead for example with its outspoke
>shading and the light side of the hair which has very good texturing.
>For all the portraits I'm not completely happy about the eyes
>themselves however, I miss the roundness which is conveyed especially
>by the shape of the eye lids and their shading, they also could use
>some wetness by applying some strategically placed high lights. The
>lips could use some more roundness as well and the ears are too
>basically denotated for my taste.
>
>(don't look at me like that! if I wouldn't criticize from time to time
>then my presence would be quite useless :-)
>
That is probably its strength - Stephen focused on a particular part and
the rest seems to have just fitted neatly around it. Maybe if he can
transfer that to his still life painting it would give it more power. I
certainly wouldn't be worrying about ears at this stage - though eyes
are important. Wait until you see the hands on some of my older life
drawings !
Erik A. Mattila
observation. Or maybe Gombrich's "schematta" is a better term. BTW,
Stephen, if you haven't read "Art and Illusion" already, I reccommend it.
It's really a terrrific book. Sir Ernst Gombricvh, "Art and Illusion."
So Giovanni Morelli, a hobbyist art historian, discoverd that paintings
could be identified by looking carefully at insignificant details. He was
able to prove, around the turn of the century, that about 2/3 of the
paintings in European museums and collections attributed to Rembrandt were
fakes. In this case it was based on a study of how the artist painted lace
and eyes. The funny thing about Morelli's career was that he became
extremely hated, since his method devasted the monetary value of several
collections. He even published under a pseudonym, but it all came back to
haunt him. If you can stant to read run-on sentences in boldface, here's an
interesting page on Morelli on the web:
http://www.lightspeed.bc.ca/ART/gr9.htm
Erik
Paul Mesken wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 00:47:16 GMT, Stephen Morgana
> <scm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <38161e48...@news.euronet.nl>,
> > usu...@euronet.nl (Paul Mesken) wrote:
> >> On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 20:45:40 +0100, Alison A Raimes
> >> <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Incidentally, when did you do the portrait of *Scott* - don't
> >remember
> >> >seeing that one. Something very strong about that drawing.
> >>
> >> Yes, that's a very nice one. I like the way how the nose "works" and
> >> its transition to the right eye area (for viewers the left eye). Very
> >> outspoken, very powerfull rendering of those two features (also how
> >> they're working together). They seem to strongly convey a "likeness
> >> facial expression", the way someone's face normally looks (mine is an
> >> evil grin ;-) From the way it is drawn I feel Stephen really
> >> "understood" that part of the face. This part was given the most
> >> attention and was in focus (as was the chin). In Liz #1 most attention
> >> seems to be devoted to the forehead for example with its outspoke
> >> shading and the light side of the hair which has very good texturing.
> >> For all the portraits I'm not completely happy about the eyes
> >> themselves however, I miss the roundness which is conveyed especially
> >> by the shape of the eye lids and their shading, they also could use
> >> some wetness by applying some strategically placed high lights. The
> >> lips could use some more roundness as well and the ears are too
> >> basically denotated for my taste.
> >>
> >> (don't look at me like that! if I wouldn't criticize from time to time
> >> then my presence would be quite useless :-)
> >>
> >>
> >
Paul Mesken
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>It looks like a lot of artists lean ears and noses by formula, rather than
>observation. Or maybe Gombrich's "schematta" is a better term. BTW,
>Stephen, if you haven't read "Art and Illusion" already, I reccommend it.
>It's really a terrrific book. Sir Ernst Gombricvh, "Art and Illusion."
>
I second that, it's a great book
In books like "drawing the human head", "drawing animals", "drawing a
likeness", etc. one can see different methods. There's always some
framework used that serves as foundation. Some people start off a
human face by rendering the nose and have it serving as an anchor
point. Some take the outline of the face first and see whether it's
rectangular, round, triangular, etc.
The framework one uses also determines the system of observation. In
the above example one looks at the shape of the face in order to
decide whether one needs a triangle, rectangle, circle, egg (this is a
certain way to look at the face based on the framework) and then works
in the variations from this basic shape. If one uses the notion that
there are 4 straight lines in the shape of the eye then one will look
where their connecting points are and how they relate to each other.
The nose with its many lines, the 3 shapes of the upper lip, etc. All
kind of notions about how to draw a face determines how we look at it
when drawing one (and this while we need only a split second to
recognize one :-)
So, in this way, observation and the system used to draw are closely
connected. We need to make some statements about what we see before us
and the framework tells use what kind of statements these must be. But
it is still the overall observation (which doesn't give us the proper
information to draw) deciding whether we were successfull or not.
>So Giovanni Morelli, a hobbyist art historian, discoverd that paintings
>could be identified by looking carefully at insignificant details. He was
>able to prove, around the turn of the century, that about 2/3 of the
>paintings in European museums and collections attributed to Rembrandt were
>fakes. In this case it was based on a study of how the artist painted lace
>and eyes. The funny thing about Morelli's career was that he became
>extremely hated, since his method devasted the monetary value of several
>collections. He even published under a pseudonym, but it all came back to
>haunt him. If you can stant to read run-on sentences in boldface, here's an
>interesting page on Morelli on the web:
>
>http://www.lightspeed.bc.ca/ART/gr9.htm
>
Finger prints on the painting? By da Vinci? He should know better than
to put his hands on a wet painting :-)
But indeed it is a good thing to look at the insignificant details for
it is often that certain features are not the result of observation at
all but of a standardized method (drawing ears for example)
Kay
Stephen Morgana wrote in message <7v35ij$6qt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
:Here is a painting I did in painting class:
:"Still life with scull, dead sunflower and shell"
:(maybe better to call it a still death)
:http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000/oil/scull.jpg
:Trick or treat!
:
:--
:Stephen
:http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000
Oops, Steven, got here a little late but want to put my .02 in ;-)
I actually like the composition, colors and the nice shimmery paint surface
of the area (magenta?) that is shaped like a book (?). The only part I don't
like is the skull itself - seems to be detracting from the entire work, not
strong enough as a focal point but the object itself seems to need a context
to put it into some type of narrative/symbolic setting. Take the skeleton
out and IMO a very nice work. Maybe my prejudice towards skeletons? Well,
I did notice that the individual components of the work seem to be
fragmenting and the picture plane is not very 3D which is another strength
of the work. I think this work is wandering, somewhat, into abstraction,
that's what makes it kind of intriguing to me. Is that your intent or my own
subjectivity coming into play?
Kay
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Oops, Steven, got here a little late but want to put my .02 in ;-)
Too late for Halloween, Kay ! its Guy Fawkes night here so I have to go
bomb the Houses of Parliament ... or look at a Turner.
Alison.
Stephen Morgana
About wandering into abstraction. In most cases I dont want to try to
be a realistic camera replacement, so I alter the colors and shapes of
things that I am looking at. For instance, the shell is not a
realistic representation of the shell I was looking at, its idealized.
However, I was trying for a realistic representation of a scull and
insofar as I acheaved that I have succeeded.
As for taking the scull out, I think that would change the whole
meaning of the piece. The piece is about dead things and the scull is
the corner stone. I was hoping that its light color, and the lighting
and shadows in the box would bring attention to the scull.
In article <OjuU3.79340$y45.1...@news4.giganews.com>,
"Kay" <K...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> Stephen Morgana wrote in message <7v35ij$6qt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> :Here is a painting I did in painting class:
> :"Still life with scull, dead sunflower and shell"
> :(maybe better to call it a still death)
> :http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000/oil/scull.jpg
> :
> :Trick or treat!
> :
> :--
> :Stephen
> :http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000
>
> Oops, Steven, got here a little late but want to put my .02 in ;-)
> I actually like the composition, colors and the nice shimmery paint
surface
> of the area (magenta?) that is shaped like a book (?). The only part
I don't
> like is the skull itself - seems to be detracting from the entire
work, not
> strong enough as a focal point but the object itself seems to need a
context
> to put it into some type of narrative/symbolic setting. Take the
skeleton
> out and IMO a very nice work. Maybe my prejudice towards skeletons?
Well,
> I did notice that the individual components of the work seem to be
> fragmenting and the picture plane is not very 3D which is another
strength
> of the work. I think this work is wandering, somewhat, into
abstraction,
> that's what makes it kind of intriguing to me. Is that your intent or
my own
> subjectivity coming into play?
> Kay
>
>
--