Projector art
Sandy
paintings, and how many of you free hand?
I recently visited an area where there was a whole block of artists
studios and every single one of them were using the projectors. I'm
just wondering if free hand is no longer used?
I personally prefer to sketch my own things out, when I try to use a
projected image it feels too confining. Although, there are some
applications when it is needed such as on a very specifically prepared
background that cannot take the free hand "working out" marks. When I
fee hand sketch I really mark up the surface getting it right. Thanks
Chris
"Sandy" <bluesa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5678d904.03061...@posting.google.com...
> I'm curious... how many of you use projected images to do your
> paintings, and how many of you free hand?
>
I for one use free hand drawings.
> I recently visited an area where there was a whole block of artists
> studios and every single one of them were using the projectors. I'm
> just wondering if free hand is no longer used?
>
No, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it making a comeback. Projected work
tends to be pretty boring.
> I personally prefer to sketch my own things out, when I try to use a
> projected image it feels too confining. Although, there are some
> applications when it is needed such as on a very specifically prepared
> background that cannot take the free hand "working out" marks. When I
> fee hand sketch I really mark up the surface getting it right. Thanks
I'd like to see your drawings, as I have a similar approach - lots of trial
and error in the drawing I find drawing a very iterative process, and I
guess it shows..
Using projectors is fine if you just want something pretty and relatively
innocuous. But Leonardo's dictum that drawing is the foundation of all
knowledge still seems true today; it forces you to confront yourself, your
preconceptions, and the world outside.Ideally that process is carried into
the artwork itself, which makes it much more dynamic and visually
challenging.
Cheers;
Chris
Flying_Naked_People
bluesa...@yahoo.com says...
> I'm curious... how many of you use projected images to do your
> paintings, and how many of you free hand?
>
> studios and every single one of them were using the projectors. I'm
> just wondering if free hand is no longer used?
>
> projected image it feels too confining. Although, there are some
> applications when it is needed such as on a very specifically prepared
> background that cannot take the free hand "working out" marks. When I
> fee hand sketch I really mark up the surface getting it right. Thanks
>
I have a projector. I've owned it for 13 years... and used it twice. Now it
serves as decoration.
I've discovered that it's pretty restrictive - dictating the *time* I can draw
(when it's dark outside), and *how* I can draw (vertically as opposed to
horizontally on my lap). I didn't appreciate the games it played with my sight
either (blinding light vs the darkness of the room everywhere).
Sandy
gave me into your studio and work. I forgot to mention that sometimes
if I have something that is going to take some "working out" and I
can't afford to screw up the specially prepared surface, instead of
using a projector which, as you say, is so confining, I'll sketch it
out on a large piece of butcher paper.
I'll then hold it up to a window and trace the back of the image with
an easily transferrable chalk/charcoal and then apply it to the
background I want to do the painting on and rub on the image outline.
I once did a ceiling mural this way because as I was on the ladder and
I couldn't seem to sketch as well holding my hand up with the blood
rushing out, it was this awful sense of fatigue.
I have always studied DaVinci and I go over his stuff again and again
and my most recent refresher has been about his "window" and his
linear grid, the vanishing point to be exact. He is so complex and
probably the best tutor I've ever had. He basically constructed a
window frame on a fixed tripod and would sketch what he saw through
the window, like an 8 x 10 view camera of sorts (this helped to erase
any lense distortions we are used to nowadays).
Also, the camera obscura he used was wonderful.
Does anyone know the name of the book that recently came out that was
debunking the Renaissance artists as all being camera obscura
copyists? The guy who wrote it was on 60 mns a while back but I didn't
catch the info.
Nikolaus Maack
> I'm curious... how many of you use projected images to do your
> paintings, and how many of you free hand?
I tried it a couple of times. Didn't work for me. It's ironic that the
errors I make when working free hand look better to me than the correct
proportions I achieve while tracing.
A friend of mine, who does computer art, finds himself in the same boat.
He uses Poser a lot, to manipulate human shapes. What mathematically
makes sense often looks very strange. Even if the neck is as long as it
"should be", it can look wrong to the eye.
> I personally prefer to sketch my own things out, when I try to use a
> projected image it feels too confining. Although, there are some
> applications when it is needed such as on a very specifically prepared
> background that cannot take the free hand "working out" marks. When I
> fee hand sketch I really mark up the surface getting it right. Thanks
I find that marking up the surface to get to the right shape looks
better and more interesting than if I "get it right" the first time.
Seagull Manager
I was wrong. Anyway, the book is
a.. "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old
Masters" , by David Hockney (Thames and Hudson, 2001)
I'm sure it's more than 50% bollocks.
I think it would be intriguing to experiment with that Da Vinci rig.
Taschen have done a XXL-sized volume on Da Vinci, including big detailed
pictures. Not cheap, though, of course.
I don't like projectors myself, and I tend not to like paintings that look
too much as if they are based on photographs.
"Sandy" <bluesa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5678d904.03061...@posting.google.com...
NightMist
I have a cheapo projector.
I use it mostly for enlarging sewing patterns out of books.
That is one form of drafting that I just don't want to spend a lot of
time on.
Other than that I've used it to blow up some of my own sketches when I
was feeling lazy, and to engage in copyright violations when I was
painting the nursery.
I haven't found it useful enough to think about buying one for
dedicated fine art purposes. But I am thinking about getting a better
one for sewing.
Barbara
--
I'm a little teapot, short and stout
here is my handle, here is my...other...handle?
Bloody Hell!!
I'm a sugar bowl!
Hola Vecinos
>paintings, and how many of you free hand?
I have 'occasionally' used a projector when the
press of time made it useful. It's especially
helpful in those instances where one is commissioned
to do a portrait. Getting the facial features
precisely proportional is the greatest challenge
to painting a likeness, and using a projector
allows one to get the relationships between
eyes, tip of nose, lips etc accurate from the
get-go.
Andrew D
bluesa...@yahoo.com (Sandy) wrote:
It's a matter of personal tasete. Some people argue that if you use tools
like projectors, you're "cheating" because that's not how it was done in
the old days. Yet these artists don't mix all their own paints from ochres
which they went and found out in the desert and they don't blow those
ochers onto a rock wall in order to make an image. Like the rest of us,
most artists use manufactured bristle, sable or (God Forbid!) synthetic
brushes. They use pre-primed canvas, prepared paper, drawing tables,
easels, tubes, jars or tins of paint and so on. They even use motorised
vehicles to travel to inspiring locations - and many use a camera in order
to record what they find there. Others use nicely bound cartridge drawing
pads and commercially produced pencils. Then they return to their
centrally-heated, electrically-lit studios in order to make their art.
If a projector gives you what you want in your work, use a projector. If
it doesn't, then don't.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Sandy
> I thought everyone who knew art recognized the face of David Hockney. Guess
> I was wrong.
Thank you for this info. I've really wanted to read this book. Check
out the Amazon reviews, the topic really hits a lot of nerves in the
art community. So many "experts" are just simply up in arms over his
ideas about the Camera Obscura!
And I am embarassed to admit but David was not an artist I really
cared much for, his style is whimsical and amusing but I'm not a fan,
his art is the type that is flooding the market right now with local
artists, it's the "projector" type art I was referring to. (His
critics really use that against him too) And no, I did not recognize
his face, I have never seen his face before. I still have lots to
learn about art even though I majored in it. Seems like he took Hopper
and kept going. Just my opinion.
Chris
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bco2tk$l1m$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Guess
> I was wrong. Anyway, the book is
> a.. "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old
> Masters" , by David Hockney (Thames and Hudson, 2001)
> I'm sure it's more than 50% bollocks.
>
You give him too much credit :) The science in it is quite deliberately
fudged (to be polite) in order to support his arguments. The shame is that
it may put off other researchers who are honestly interested in the
interplay between science and art., rather than in the writing of books
trying to prove that it's ok not to be able to draw.
> I think it would be intriguing to experiment with that Da Vinci rig.
>
van Gogh also made one that was portable; if I remember correctly it was
just a small frame on a single post, with wires crossing in the center of
the frame. Rather biased some of his work to a one point perspective.
Speaking of van Gogh, he did do (at least) one painting form a photograph -
the portrait of his mother.
Chris
Seagull Manager
in message news:<bco2tk$l1m$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>...
> > I thought everyone who knew art recognized the face of David Hockney.
Guess
> > I was wrong.
>
> ideas about the Camera Obscura!
Partly because he's exaggerating to a ridiculous degree the extent to which
the old masters used optical instruments. Maybe he just finds it difficult
to believe that some people can draw better than himself.
> And I am embarassed to admit but David was not an artist I really
> cared much for, his style is whimsical and amusing but I'm not a fan,
> his art is the type that is flooding the market right now with local
> artists, it's the "projector" type art I was referring to.
I'm no big fan myself, but I'd say his phiz used to be seen in print a lot.
Not so much these days, but a few years ago, I'd have ranked him close to
Picasso, Dali and Warhol in the recognizability stakes.
I saw an exhibition of portraits he did using a camera lucida. They weren't
all that great as pictures, nor conspicuously more accurate than what a
skilled portraitist can do without mechanical assistance.
> Seems like he took Hopper and kept going. Just my opinion.
He does experiment quite a bit. He's covered quite a few styles and subjects
over the years.
Paul Mesken
>I'm curious... how many of you use projected images to do your
>paintings, and how many of you free hand?
I use a projector (Artograph Super Prism) but it typically projects my
own sketches (which were done free hand ofcourse).
There's a big size difference between my paintings (up to 5 feet) and
my sketches (up to A3). I draw small, I paint big :-)
Before I got my projector I had to enlarge my sketches by hand (using
the grid method for instance) before I could transfer them to the
painting. I can't draw big, I always get proportions and angles off
when I can't see all of the composition at once (some painters use a
mirror placed a good deal away from the painting for this reason, if
they look in the mirror they see the whole painting).
The projector is very convenient, not only enables it me to transfer
far faster, it also enables me to make tracings of projections of
different sizes (some smaller ones for some color studies for
example). Furthermore, I can see (by projecting to the wall for
example) what is a good size for the painting.
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Sandy wrote:
>> I'm curious... how many of you use projected images to do your
>> paintings, and how many of you free hand?
>
>I tried it a couple of times. Didn't work for me. It's ironic that the
>errors I make when working free hand look better to me than the correct
>proportions I achieve while tracing.
It's a real strange phenomenon and the reason why I use a small mirror
to check my drawings (ofcourse the picture can also be scanned in and
flipped, rotated and mirrored in any possible way on the computer but
a mirror works faster).
I don't know about others but I have a tendency to get some
proportions and angles structurally wrong in one direction. I don't
note them at all until I look at the mirror image (it even goes as far
that the normal view has depth and the mirrored view is flat).
Nevertheless, the normal view looks alright to me, even when I know
which parts are off in the mirror image.
Ofcourse I correct such errors even though it sometimes weakens the
drawing but I assume that other people will note such errors (even
though I seem to be unable to spot the errors without a mirror).
Mani Deli
>
>"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>> a.. "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old
>> Masters" , by David Hockney (Thames and Hudson, 2001)
>> I'm sure it's more than 50% bollocks.
The reason Hockney made such a big splash is because most modern
artists, students and public are stupendously ill informed. Anybody
who studied art with someone who really teaches is fully aware of all
the aids available. Most are available in any large art store and all
have been amply described in all sorts of old books.
Hockney's non-revelation leads many students who are exposed to
nothing but ignorant teachers to falsely conclude that the reason
great artists could draw so well was because they used optical aids.
This further leads to the destructive idea that they needn't learn to
draw and that if they really wanted to, they need only get the proper
aids. Believe me its BS. I strongly advise students to try these aids
for themselves.
ABOUT ALL ANY OF THESE AIDS CAN DO IS LITTLE MORE THAN ALLOW YOU TO
TRACE LINES.This is a great time saver for getting placement and
proportion. Nothing wrong with that, but It won't help with the
rather important task of filling in the rest of the picture. It is
almost useless to someone who can't draw.
BTW Hockney is totally dependent on photos and projection. One need
only note his miserable output to see where he's coming from. Aspiring
to his lack of skill will spell the usual disaster for most art
students.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Chris
There's (at least) two important questions you have to look at when dealing
with the influence of optical science on drawing:
1) How it affected art in general
2)Whether significant artists made use of it.
Hockney, in his osterizer type of approach - particularly in that he
falsifies some of his analysis - doesn't add any anything significant to
the above; his book is just another part of his marketing.
The effect of optical science on art is quite fascinating. The Renaissance
saw the birth of western science, one of whose tenets is that any truth has
to be repeatable without reference to the nature of the observer. Different
artists drawing the same object using similar projectors would come up with
images that were far more similar to each others work than if they were
drawing freehand - in that sense the drawing is closer to the 'truth' of the
object than otherwise. Artists using differing projection methods would
arrive at results, that though dissimilar, differed in a much more
predictable manner than artists drawing freehand.
It provided that essential aspect of a reasoned approach - a standard, -
against which work could be measured at a basic level. I don't think that at
that level anyone disputes it's importance; certainly most major artists
from the Renaissance on were familiar with it to some extent; some (like
Leonardo) were clearly fascinated by it, while others (like Vermeer)
probably made extensive use of it. (With respect to the 16th and 17th
Century Dutch artists in particular, one has to keep in mind that Holland at
the time was a hotbed of science, art, and free thinking, and there was a
very close relationship between all of them. Vermeer for example, had quite
easy access to lenses - he was a close friend of the draper and microscopist
Leeuwenhoek; consider Spinoza - lens grinder and philosopher - or all the
various artists and scientists that hung around the Huygens household, from
Rubens to Descartes.......)
The second issue though is whether they actually used optical projection,
and here Hockney falls on his face. Maybe, blinded by the fact that he
really can't draw worth beans and these guys could, he couldn't see where he
was going. I don't know how many artists used it extensively - maybe someday
someone will honestly sit down and figure out a way to measure this
(according to Erik, some can now discern when a drawing is done with or
without a model, so there's hope). But Hockney deliberately errs in his
analysis in order to support his "theories" about the widespread use of the
optical methods - that's been written about extensively, so there's no need
to make this post any longer. But in short, though the book is a fun read,
along the lines of (say) Velikovsky, don't take it too seriously.
Cheers;
Chris
.
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
news:2f0Ia.1029$g22....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
> Hockneys' claims are wide ranging.
> Many well known artists he claims to have used
> 'visual aids'.
> Some of the examples he includes are interesting in their
> detail. Blow-ups of oil paintings and talk of perspective and
> lenses make it a good read.
> I know of Reynolds who carried a portable visual aid, and it is
> now in the British Museum.
> Also Canalletto used one, and somewhere I saw a diagram of
> a building that he used which seemed to have been build for
> that purpose.
> A drawing by Albrecht Durer showing a lute being copied
> onto paper using strings is used to further Hockney's claims.
> The otherwise difficult foreshortening is shown to be accomplished
> effectively.
> The touchiest claim seems to be the beloved Ingres used one.
> Such a master of technique using artificial aids?
> The chapter devoted to this is very interesting, using one of his
> drawings.
> The Hans Holbein "Ambassadors" is shown
> http://www.abcgallery.com/H/holbein/holbein16.html
> with the metallic looking ellipse which when reprojected in another
> plane, becomes a correct painting of a skull.
> Wonderful book.
> Thur
>
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote
in
> message news:bco2tk$l1m$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> > I thought everyone who knew art recognised the face of David Hockney.
> Guess
> > I was wrong. Anyway, the book is
> > a.. "Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old
> > Masters" , by David Hockney (Thames and Hudson, 2001)
> > I'm sure it's more than 50% bollocks.
> >
> > I think it would be intriguing to experiment with that Da Vinci rig.
> >
> > Taschen have done a XXL-sized volume on Da Vinci, including big detailed
> > pictures. Not cheap, though, of course.
> >
> > I don't like projectors myself, and I tend not to like paintings that
look
> > too much as if they are based on photographs.
> >
> >
> > "Sandy" <bluesa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5678d904.03061...@posting.google.com...
> > > Thanks for your replies, I really enjoyed the momentary peeks they
> > > gave me into your studio and work. I forgot to mention that sometimes
> > > if I have something that is going to take some "working out" and I
> > > can't afford to screw up the specially prepared surface, instead of
> > > using a projector which, as you say, is so confining, I'll sketch it
> > > out on a large piece of butcher paper.
> > >
> > > I'll then hold it up to a window and trace the back of the image with
> > > an easily transferable chalk/charcoal and then apply it to the
Sandy
read Hockney's book yet but what I did see on 60 mns was extremely
interesting. I'll share more once I read it. For now, based on what I
saw I tend to agree with him. It is a known fact that the Renaissance
artists did use optical assistance. I don't mean to totally side with
Hockney however I honestly think that it's more difficult for Museum
personnel to accept the fact that the masters did have a wonderful
tool at their disposal that was kept hush hush, or forgotten about in
the history texts, and this the camera obscura.
Honestly, if you really look at the mona Lisa you can tell that the
background was painted with the "window" method Leonardo described
because of the optics of it and you can tell that the person is
"camera obscura".
Now, this is my own personal opinion but I think the Mona Lisa is such
a wonder because it was the first portrait painted with Leonardo's
wonderful discovery, the camera obscura and that is what helped to
usher in the Renaissance.
I for one feel that the Renaissance art was more about the imitation
of real life than of the skill of drawing, etc. It is a study in the
idea of perfection and the model of perfection that was used to help
other things become perfect. Study some of the thoughts Leonardo
states on this topic and you can see where Hockney gets his ideas.
Now, I also know that Leonardo was a fabulous sketch artist as well,
perhaps he used his "window"? Not sure.
I'm curious, how many on this board consider themselves good sketch
artists, meaning the ability to free hand a sketch? I truly think it's
a different sort of artist who can do this well.
I love to sketch, and I love to use live models, or photographs to
look at. I have to have that freedom to move my pen as I see fit but I
need something to look at. I recently completed a set of sketches
that were basically from my head, although I would look at some
subjects and employ them as elements in the oeverall sketch. It was so
thrilling and I caught myself on a good week. Don't know that I could
do that all the time.
Flobby Bischer
freehand or use a projector?
Flying_Naked_People
bluesa...@yahoo.com says...
> I'm curious, how many on this board consider themselves good sketch
> artists, meaning the ability to free hand a sketch?
???
Is there another way (other than by "free hand") to sketch something?
NightMist
I have to confess to being a bit confused by this question myself....
Define sketch a little further please?
Seagull Manager
> read Hockney's book yet but what I did see on 60 mns was extremely
> interesting. I'll share more once I read it. For now, based on what I
> saw I tend to agree with him. It is a known fact that the Renaissance
> artists did use optical assistance. I don't mean to totally side with
> Hockney however I honestly think that it's more difficult for Museum
> personnel to accept the fact that the masters did have a wonderful
> tool at their disposal that was kept hush hush, or forgotten about in
> the history texts, and this the camera obscura.
>
> Honestly, if you really look at the mona Lisa you can tell that the
> background was painted with the "window" method Leonardo described
> because of the optics of it and you can tell that the person is
> "camera obscura".
>
> Now, this is my own personal opinion but I think the Mona Lisa is such
> a wonder because it was the first portrait painted with Leonardo's
> wonderful discovery, the camera obscura and that is what helped to
> usher in the Renaissance.
Two things in my view make this unlikely: first, the Mona Lisa's left hand
is inaccurately drawn in a way that suggests they was not traced. Second,
the landscape is evidently imaginary: it's never been matched to any real
one, and it is very dramatic: it would be hard for such a dramatic landscape
in such a well-known to have escaped identification, and if you look at it,
it appears to have at least two horizons. The near, forested, background
before the water seems to recede to a lower vanishing point than the far,
mountainous one. This could be attributed to a mirage, but that seems a
little unlikely.
>
> I for one feel that the Renaissance art was more about the imitation
> of real life than of the skill of drawing, etc.
It was various things, of course, but most paintings aimed not to merely
imitate life, but to represent ideas as vividly and convincingly as
possible.
> Now, I also know that Leonardo was a fabulous sketch artist as well,
> perhaps he used his "window"? Not sure.
He couldn't have used it all the time.
> I'm curious, how many on this board consider themselves good sketch
> artists, meaning the ability to free hand a sketch? I truly think it's
> a different sort of artist who can do this well.
Artists who can't draw accurately without aids are generally not much cop.
Even when they use aids, their drawings tend to be poor.
> I recently completed a set of sketches
> that were basically from my head, although I would look at some
> subjects and employ them as elements in the oeverall sketch. It was so
> thrilling and I caught myself on a good week. Don't know that I could
> do that all the time.
If you practised regularly, you'd develop the ability.
Andrew D
bluesa...@yahoo.com (Sandy) wrote:
[snip]
>I'm curious, how many on this board consider themselves good sketch
>artists, meaning the ability to free hand a sketch? I truly think it's
>a different sort of artist who can do this well.
I once completed an on-site painting of some coastal cliffs and beach. I
took a slide photo of the scene while I was there. Later, I projected the
slide onto my 10" x 14" painting and the difference was minimal with some
parts fitting far more exactly than I would have expected.
I don't use projectors when doing fine art - I've only used a grid once.
(Though I used anything I could lay my hands on, including photocopiers,
tracing tables, overhead projectors, computer manipulation and
epidioscopes when I was illustrating commercially). If I was doing
something for which I felt an aid would be useful, I wouldn't hesitate to
use it. But that doesn't mean I can't draw at all or that everything I've
ever done was therefore aided by technology - and the same must surely be
said of the masters.
Alison A Raimes
Alison A Raimes
http://raimes.com
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:9611fvo6d2iis2209...@4ax.com...
Andrew D
<artl...@ontel.co.NOSPAMuk> wrote:
>Guess what? Mani is absolutely right in this post. Scary!
Who are you and what have you done with Alison?
Dr. Slick
>
> > Now, I also know that Leonardo was a fabulous sketch artist as well,
> > perhaps he used his "window"? Not sure.
>
> He couldn't have used it all the time.
>
Even if he used a camera obscura, how did he get those fabulous
rearing horses to freeze right in the middle of standing on two hind
feet? I think Leonardo was a supreme genius artist who could look at
the world, certainly using models, and sketch partially from his
memory of the subject.
> > I'm curious, how many on this board consider themselves good sketch
> > artists, meaning the ability to free hand a sketch? I truly think it's
> > a different sort of artist who can do this well.
>
> Artists who can't draw accurately without aids are generally not much cop.
> Even when they use aids, their drawings tend to be poor.
>
Agreed.
Slick
Dr. Slick
I have used a projector a few times, mainly for portraits, for
exactly the
reasons you have described. Mind you, these are the "realistic"
portraits, and not the "artist-interpretation"
(caricature-like)portraits that i have done as well, which are better
off free-hand of course.
I high school, we did a self portrait that was done with
negatives projected on the poster paper. You could still easily tell
who was the more "skillful" artists.
I draw well enough to make a very good likeness of someone, but
i does take a long time to get the proportions right. "Cheating" or
not, The projector definitely speeds up this process.
Dr. Slick
My high-school self-portait is here:
Erik A. Mattila
> I have used a projector a few times, mainly for portraits, for
> exactly the
> reasons you have described. Mind you, these are the "realistic"
> portraits, and not the "artist-interpretation"
> (caricature-like)portraits that i have done as well, which are better
> off free-hand of course.
>
> I high school, we did a self portrait that was done with
> negatives projected on the poster paper. You could still easily tell
> who was the more "skillful" artists.
>
> I draw well enough to make a very good likeness of someone, but
> i does take a long time to get the proportions right. "Cheating" or
> not, The projector definitely speeds up this process.
Not to worry, Slick. Maxfield Parish used a projector frequently. But
you can "tell" most of the time - I mean the projector leaves its
traces. I think since you are projecting usually photographic art, the
camera lens distortion comes through. Paul's use of projecting his
drawings is interesting, but then, one draws quite differently on a
large format than a small format. So it makes me wonder - do we see
origninal drawing in Paul's work, or "blown-up" original drawing?
All the rules are there to break, of course. The projected image gets a
bad rap...because people are all hung-up on the mythos of authenticity.
If you view everything as fake, you're immune.
Erik
Sandy
intelligent responses, thank you so much for that. I love reading new
ideas and angles on things, and will certainly look into more research
on the many fine points brought up.
About the hand on the Mona Lisa, if I'm not mistaken I believe that is
the way you can identify camera obscura assisted portraits... it
reverses the image and the hands were reverse so the artist would
usually free hand them in, it is speculated that this is what happened
with the Mona Lisa. Any thoughts?
About "free hand artists" what I meant by that was this... there are
artists that only sketch over a lightbox with guidelines underneath,
or they only sketch with a projector aiming at their pad. I do not
consider those "free hand" artists. Now, this is just my opinion. What
I consider a free hand artist is someone who can eye the model or
photograph or scene, whatever, then sketch it freely on their pad.
And then there's the ultimate free hand artist... the person who can
sit and draw out of their head, without seeing the model at all, just
from their brain, and freely sketch a scene or portrait. Any thoughts?
Thanks so much for all the great peeks into your studios and ways you
do things. This topic really makes for a stimulating discussion.
NightMist
>About "free hand artists" what I meant by that was this... there are
>artists that only sketch over a lightbox with guidelines underneath,
>or they only sketch with a projector aiming at their pad. I do not
>consider those "free hand" artists. Now, this is just my opinion. What
>I consider a free hand artist is someone who can eye the model or
>photograph or scene, whatever, then sketch it freely on their pad.
>
>And then there's the ultimate free hand artist... the person who can
>sit and draw out of their head, without seeing the model at all, just
>from their brain, and freely sketch a scene or portrait. Any thoughts?
>
Well heck I imagine most people here can do this.
I usually run through several loose sketches of this type before I get
down to makeing a couple of tighter drawings and possibly a rendering
before I even get out my panel for painting.
I will use an improvised light table for combining elements of
sketches, but that is mostly for composition, easier to mix and match
with no commitment. You still have to go over it after and resolve
the perspective and all.
Paul Mesken
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>Dr. Slick wrote:
>
>> I have used a projector a few times, mainly for portraits, for
>> exactly the
>> reasons you have described. Mind you, these are the "realistic"
>> portraits, and not the "artist-interpretation"
>> (caricature-like)portraits that i have done as well, which are better
>> off free-hand of course.
>>
>> I high school, we did a self portrait that was done with
>> negatives projected on the poster paper. You could still easily tell
>> who was the more "skillful" artists.
>>
>> I draw well enough to make a very good likeness of someone, but
>> i does take a long time to get the proportions right. "Cheating" or
>> not, The projector definitely speeds up this process.
>
>Not to worry, Slick. Maxfield Parish used a projector frequently. But
>you can "tell" most of the time - I mean the projector leaves its
>traces. I think since you are projecting usually photographic art, the
>camera lens distortion comes through. Paul's use of projecting his
>drawings is interesting, but then, one draws quite differently on a
>large format than a small format. So it makes me wonder - do we see
>origninal drawing in Paul's work, or "blown-up" original drawing?
You do have a point Erik. Projectors do distort and at the outer
extremities things get somewhat stretched out. This can be easy shown
by projecting a grid. The cells will have larger dimensions towards
the extremities. Furthermore : it is of the utmost importance to have
the canvas of panel exactly perpendicular to the projector else you're
guaranteed to get major distortions.
Andrew D
bluesa...@yahoo.com (Sandy) wrote:
[snip]
>About "free hand artists" what I meant by that was this... there are
>artists that only sketch over a lightbox with guidelines underneath,
>or they only sketch with a projector aiming at their pad. I do not
>consider those "free hand" artists. Now, this is just my opinion. What
>I consider a free hand artist is someone who can eye the model or
>photograph or scene, whatever, then sketch it freely on their pad.
And this is where all the hysteria about the masters using aids falls
flat. Go to almost any city centre anywhere in the world and you'll likely
find someone sitting doing portraits of perfect strangers. In general,
they do a pretty damned good job and I've yet to see any evidence that
they are using any optical aid (except, perhaps, a pair of spectacles).
If people can sit and accurately draw from life today, why would anyone
doubt that the same was possible of past masters - even if they did use
aids sometimes?
As for drawing from memory, there are some autistic people around who
prove what the possibilities are.
Seagull Manager
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-18060...@i165-156.nv.iinet.net.au...
>
> It's a matter of personal tasete. Some people argue that if you use tools
> like projectors, you're "cheating" because that's not how it was done in
> the old days. Yet these artists don't mix all their own paints from ochres
But the "designo" (design and drawing) are traditionally considered to be
the "inspired" part of the artist's craft, while the other things you
mention are not. I think this traditional view is right. There's no
significant inspiration in making paint or paper, or framing or stretching
canvas. Such things are not what separate great artists from mediocre ones.
What does is designo. If you abdicate your personal control of that part of
the process, you discard your claim to be an artist. Audiences would be
right to regard your work as suspect - and perhaps to discount it as art -
if you rely on drawing aids all or most of the time in your work.
Seagull Manager
>
> About the hand on the Mona Lisa, if I'm not mistaken I believe that is
> the way you can identify camera obscura assisted portraits... it
> reverses the image and the hands were reverse so the artist would
> usually free hand them in, it is speculated that this is what happened
> with the Mona Lisa. Any thoughts?
Why would that make any difference?
Why would you assume without evidence that Da Vinci used an optical aid in a
particular painting when it is quite clear (from his drawings of imaginary
subjects, for instance) that he could draw perfectly well without any aids?
Have you seen any of Da Vinci's cartoons, sketches or notebooks? To suggest
that Da Vinci needed to use optical aids to achieve accuracy, or even that
he did use them in most of his work is ridiculous.
Have you never met someone who can draw? Some people can draw with
near-photgraphic accuracy without any aids. Some others use aids and STILL
get the drawing wrong!
Seagull Manager
"Thur" <a@spamless.z> wrote in message
> x-no-archive: yes
> > Why would that make any difference?
> Is a defensive support for Leonardo should he have used
> optical aids.
No, I'm saying why should the the right-left reversal of the image be a
reason why he would or would not use an optical aid? If he needed an optical
aid, would it have been beyond his ingenuity go get around any such
reversal? I think not. There's no way that Sandy has presented an
explanation why the hands in particular are not done with an optical aid,
given that she seems to think the rest of the picture (or at least the
background) was done with such an aid.
> Then you follow by arguing that he did not.
He probably didn't, though it's not really a big deal if he used such aids
somewhere in the process of making the picture. It is a big deal that people
should insist that he must have done so, even when they have no evidence to
support such a claim. It is clear that Da Vinci was not *dependent* on such
instruments for making accurate drawings. In any case, what marked Da Vinci
out as an innovator and a genius in painting was in his use of sfumato,
which has nothing to do with the use of such aids.
Selling the myth that the Old Masters were dependent on the use of optical
aids to achieve what they achieved is just another way to pretend that skill
is not involved in creating great art.
> I am still intrigued by the allegation that Ingres, that well
> known master of technique used some optical aid to
> make at least one of his drawings.
> If true, it will not make one iota of difference to the respect
> for his works and his techniques.
> The explanation given is that he may have found it a big time
> saver. Painting all those rich ladies must have been very time
> consuming.
I'm sure I'd read Ingres made use of a camera lucida in making portrait
drawings long before Hockney came along making a fuss about it. But so what?
Ingres was perfectly capable of drawing accurately without such an
instrument, and with or without it, his drawings (and especially paintings)
are vastly better than anything Hockney ever produced.
Mani Deli
<seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Have you seen any of Da Vinci's cartoons, sketches or notebooks? To suggest
>that Da Vinci needed to use optical aids to achieve accuracy, or even that
>he did use them in most of his work is ridiculous.
There were no optical aids at the time.
>Have you never met someone who can draw? Some people can draw with
>near-photgraphic accuracy without any aids. Some others use aids and STILL
>get the drawing wrong!
Don't depress art students by puncturing their beliefs. Spread arty
fartzy mythology. The more artists who don't know their craft, the
more work for those who do.
Mani Deli
>I am still intrigued by the allegation that Ingres, that well
>known master of technique used some optical aid to
>make at least one of his drawings.
I advise everone to use any optical aid they can get a hold of. When
they think they can get a drawing as good as Ingres show it to me. I
suspect most will be worse than Cezanne.
Sandy
freehand enviably!
About the autistic artists who can freehand from memory, do you know
of any who's work I can see? I met an artist a few years ago who could
do that, she had borderline aspgergers syndrome (a type of autism) she
was wonderful. (I probably royally misspelled that too)
I can draw from my head if it's something I've worked on for a while
before and I'm just doing another version of it. It stays in my memory
and it's easy that way.
Seagull Manager
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:34:00 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
> <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >Have you seen any of Da Vinci's cartoons, sketches or notebooks? To
suggest
> >that Da Vinci needed to use optical aids to achieve accuracy, or even
that
> >he did use them in most of his work is ridiculous.
>
> There were no optical aids at the time.
None using lenses, of course, but he could in theory have used a drawing
frame similar to the examples shown by Durer in a couple of woodcuts:
http://www.princeton.edu/~his291/Durer_Perspective.html
How much difference such a frame would make to someone of Da Vinci's level
of skill is a moot point. I think he would have regarded such a thing as a
curiosity in its own right, but of no great practical use.
Dr. Slick
> >
> > I draw well enough to make a very good likeness of someone, but
> > i does take a long time to get the proportions right. "Cheating" or
> > not, The projector definitely speeds up this process.
>
> Not to worry, Slick.
If i was worried about it, i might not admit it on a newsgroup?
hehe..
Maxfield Parish used a projector frequently. But
> you can "tell" most of the time - I mean the projector leaves its
> traces. I think since you are projecting usually photographic art, the
> camera lens distortion comes through. Paul's use of projecting his
> drawings is interesting, but then, one draws quite differently on a
> large format than a small format. So it makes me wonder - do we see
> origninal drawing in Paul's work, or "blown-up" original drawing?
>
> All the rules are there to break, of course. The projected image gets a
> bad rap...because people are all hung-up on the mythos of authenticity.
> If you view everything as fake, you're immune.
>
> Erik
I agree with Mani, that just because you have a nice proportioned
outline of a photo, doesn't mean you will know how to fill in the
rest...
If a projector made you into a the next Frank Frazetta,
well..then we'd have a lot more incredible artists. It clearly will
not.
Slick
Sandy
> particular painting when it is quite clear (from his drawings of imaginary
> subjects, for instance) that he could draw perfectly well without any aids?
>
used an optical aid on a specific project? Would his supposed use of
an optical aid on any project squeal to the world "I CANT DRAW FREE
HAND?" No. You're making "all or nothing" statements that are highly
confining to the learning process.
> Have you seen any of Da Vinci's cartoons, sketches or notebooks? To suggest
> that Da Vinci needed to use optical aids to achieve accuracy, or even that
> he did use them in most of his work is ridiculous.
Maam, sir, I have never suggested that he used optical aides on all of
his work, and yes, I am quite familiar with just about all of his work
including sketches, inventions, medical knowledge (if you only knew),
and even some recently uncovered work.
>
> Have you never met someone who can draw? Some people can draw with
> near-photgraphic accuracy without any aids. Some others use aids and STILL
> get the drawing wrong!
Maam, sir, I can draw, freehand, and quite well. At least my clients
think so. :-) As well, I know some pretty famous artists who can as
well and I like them bunches.
If you will relax a little and re-read my initial post it said that I
recently visited an area where that seemed to be the norm in the local
galleries and I was wondering what others felt about the topic.
Have some chocolate, paint a painting, just relax. It's okay. Peace.
Paul Mesken
>You're making "all or nothing" statements that are highly
>confining to the learning process.
Some are here to learn, some to teach, some both. Some to find
something, some just to chat and others to complain.
Seagull Manager is here to disagree ;-)
Mani Deli
***
>In 1490 Leonardo Da Vinci gave two clear descriptions of the camera obscura
>in his notebooks.
Very interesting. Are you sure? I have no recolection of seeing this.
Can you mention a book where I might find this?
thanks,
Sandy
I think I'm agreeing with you Paul!
Seagull Manager
> > Seagull Manager is here to disagree ;-)
>
> I think I'm agreeing with you Paul!
I disagree.
Paul Mesken
OH NO! An oxymoron was invoked! Now all language is invalidated and
human civilization will grind to a halt! ;-)
Seagull Manager
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> writes:
>On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 13:34:00 +0100, "Seagull Manager"
><seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Have you seen any of Da Vinci's cartoons, sketches or notebooks? To suggest
>>that Da Vinci needed to use optical aids to achieve accuracy, or even that
>>he did use them in most of his work is ridiculous.
>
>There were no optical aids at the time.
Leonardo's own notebooks say:
"...making glasses to see the Moon enlarged... and
...in order to observe the nature of the planets,
open the roof and bring the image of a single planet
onto the base of a concave mirror.
The image of the planet reflected by the base
will show the surface of the planet much magnified."
(as translated at
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/timeline/people/davinci.html
)
Of course, for the full unadulterated truth,
read "The Giaconda Caper" by Bob Shaw.
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept http://www.ewartshaw.co.uk
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
Seagull Manager
> Would his supposed use of
> an optical aid on any project squeal to the world "I CANT DRAW FREE
> HAND?" No.
No, indeed. And perhaps he did. You may be right about him using such tools
if, as appears, he was familiar with the camera obscura from the 1490s. I
can't imagine him not experimenting with it. If he was using a camera
obscura, or other
aid in a big way, I would expect to see a big, sudden change in the look of
his paintings noticeable from the time he started using it. Perhaps you see
evidence of such a change. I'm not sure. Looks like a gradual evolution to
me.
Regarding the landscape, I would
say that the fact that the perspective in the landscape is broken up could
conceivably be a symptom of stitching together multiple projected images, or
it might not. The hands I don't see as evidence at all; they're just sitting
there, and they'd look pretty much the same whether left-right reversed or
not. Therefore, there'd be no reason to take an inaccuracy in the drawing of
the hands as evidence for the use of an optical aid.
Sandy
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I actually got a grin from this!