Portrait problems
Sigvardsen
I'm having problems drawing people and their faces; I get the
perspective wrong. I was wondering where can I find the geometerics and
perspectives involved in drawing portraits?
--
mailto:bra...@axionet.com
Larry Seiler
Sigvardsen <bra...@axionet.com> wrote in article
<34D4BB...@axionet.com>...
I'd love to help you....but I'm working on a book for market right now..it
involves a process beginning with the eyes and working out. It has never
failed my art students in the past.....there is a definite "this is equal
to this is equal to this" type of generalized standard, and it originates
in Da Vinci's cadaver studies. Tuck my email address away somewhere and
contact me down the road...or visit my online artist's gallery. You can
see portraits I've done there.
I will give you one option here other than the traditional...and that
is...try drawing what the eye is not naturally drawn or attracted to. What
I mean is, squint your eyes ever so slightly and focus on the shadows, the
negative spaces....and look at their positionings. Try some drawings just
shading in the shadows and dark values of lines....allowing the features to
emerge by not focusing on them directly but the parts we ordinarily do not
look at....shade. These negative spaces define the positive.
Some comic book artists have done some impressive realistic caracature
drawings and built an entire style upon it. The process...will teach your
eyes to see.
later.....
Larry Seiler
http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
Leigh Kimmel
In article <6c4bgt$7...@newsops.execpc.com>
"Larry Seiler" <lse...@execpc.com> writes:
> Sigvardsen <bra...@axionet.com> wrote in article
> <34D4BB...@axionet.com>...
> > I'm having problems drawing people and their faces; I get the
> > perspective wrong. I was wondering where can I find the geometerics and
> > perspectives involved in drawing portraits?
> > --
> >
> > mailto:bra...@axionet.com
> >
Another helpful source can be found in Betty Edwards' book _Drawing on
the Right Side of the Brain_. There are some excellent exercises in
getting the proportions and relationships of the face right, even when
drawing a head that is tilted instead of straight up. She has some
excellent comments on how to avoid the "chopped off skull syndrome"
that so many beginners struggle with (her theory is that the forehead
and skull are "boring" and that the left brain pushes past the right
brain and moves the person to rush past those parts).
"I have a right to be blind sometimes... I really don't see the
signal!"
-- Admiral Lord Nelson
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@siu.edu http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Listowner of Virtual Selyn, the Sime~Gen mailing list,
sime...@siu.edu
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel
Le Saint
Larry Seiler wrote:
> Sigvardsen <bra...@axionet.com> wrote in article
> <34D4BB...@axionet.com>...
> > I'm having problems drawing people and their faces; I get the
> > perspective wrong. I was wondering where can I find the geometerics
> and
> > perspectives involved in drawing portraits?
> > --
> >
> > mailto:bra...@axionet.com
> >
Would it be possible to see your portraits? It is difficult to be
objective as to one's own work; it is very well that you say that you
"get the perspective wrong", but (I) would like to see it for myself...
Anyway, why do you want to rely on perspective rather than on your own
eyes? it is very well if what you want it to draw "out of your own
imagination", but if you draw a (real) person, looking is the only skill
you need. to me there is no learning to draw as such. For instance, I
think that it does not matter how clumsy you are, you can still draw as
long as you don't forget to LOOK at whatever you are drawing, instead of
glancing at it, and drawing what you want to see instead of what you
actually see.
the idea of drawing only the shadows is really excellent. because what
you see is not the actual features of people, but the light reflected
from them. your job is to darken (provided your paper is of a light
tint) areas so as to reproduce a pattern of shadows and light.
(I hope this does not result in the flaming that seems to be the custom
in this newsgroup)
Brother Alphabet
Sigvardsen <bra...@axionet.com> wrote in article
> I'm having problems drawing people and their faces; I get the
> perspective wrong. I was wondering where can I find the geometerics
> and perspectives involved in drawing portraits?
Forget all that stuff about perspective and geometry and everything
related to objects or the human form.
Pretend you have no idea what it is you are looking at. The human face is
a foreign object. Let your eyes drift out of focus and see the composition
before you. See the values and curves as nothing but shapes. Then, using a
media that prevents you from making scribbly little lines, like charcoal
or pastel or a big fat brush...put the shapes down as mass areas.
It is not a shadow, it is a shape. It is not a nose, it is a collection of
shapes.
If this seems too strange or too difficult, stop working with faces for a
bit and substitute a simple object like an egg or a ball...something light
in color that picks up shadows well...Work with that a while, practicing
putting the shapes down in bold, massive strokes.
Try closing or covering one of your eyes to see your composition flatten
out...identifying the shapes comes easier this way.
Train your eye to find all the shapes it can see. Do the excersizes over
and over until it is a habit for you to see this way. You will know when
you are 'getting it' when you start doing this in McDonalds while ordering
fries.
Another good excersize is to go and get some modelling clay (Light colored
like white, tan or pale grey)...Form the clay into random shapes, point a
light at it, and practice drawing the clay with the same mass strokes.
Also, using photographs or photocopies is good for this, but you don't get
the familiarity with form from 2d references. Try using the 'grid' method
to flatten out and de-objectify your composition.
Soon, you will be able to break objects down into blocks of light and dark
shapes...You will find that perspective and likeness all come together in
the mix...
The problem with representing things, especially the human figure or face,
is that we look at the object and its many details and become obsessed
with putting the details down first. It's the whole 'forest for the trees'
obstacle. You want to find the forest first, then count up all the trees.
Another side point: All the trees aren't needed in your survey. An
estimate of how many trees there are is all you need to make a likeness.
Work from the outside in, the great to the small...Get the
masses down first, then come back with the finishes.
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Le Saint wrote:
By the way, Le Saint, in regard to your ending comments...:) This is not a
flame.
> Would it be possible to see your portraits? It is difficult to be
> objective as to one's own work; it is very well that you say that you
> "get the perspective wrong", but (I) would like to see it for myself...
Seeing work isn't all that important in relating technique...You seem to
want to give the person a critique...
> Anyway, why do you want to rely on perspective rather than on your own
> eyes?
Our eyes do tend to see in perspective...:)
> it is very well if what you want is to draw "out of your own
> imagination", but if you draw a (real) person, looking is the only skill
> you need.
A couple of other skills would probably come in handy.
Drawing skills being the main one. :)
> to me there is no learning to draw as such.
What you say is perfectly right.
One can not 'learn to draw' per se...
One learns to use drawing tools, one learns compositional theory, one
learns color theory, but these are also often innate in artists. The
'learned' aspects, or at least the formally taught aspects, usually deal
with how the greats used their tools and how the teacher likes to use the
tools, and if the student is lucky, the teacher will demonstrate even the
uses he or she does not particularly prefer as well.
The next thing one must learn, or rather, the thing one must be encouraged
to develop, is the ability to see.
> For instance, I think that it does not matter how clumsy you are, you
> can still draw as long as you don't forget to LOOK at whatever you are
> drawing, instead of glancing at it, and drawing what you want to see
> instead of what you actually see.
That's where the problem comes from, though.
When we look and look and look at something, we begin to see only detail
and we begin to put down not what is before us but what it is we want to
see in our drawing.
GLANCING, as you mention, is another important key to seeing properly. The
process should be a build from glancing, transferring, glancing,
transferring to examining the foundation and adding in detail.
If you watch any good artist draw from life you will see their eyes moving
rapidly all the time, from object to surface, back and forth.
> the idea of drawing only the shadows is really excellent. because what
> you see is not the actual features of people, but the light reflected
> from them. your job is to darken (provided your paper is of a light
> tint) areas so as to reproduce a pattern of shadows and light.
What if the surface is not light? What if it is dark or medium? Only the
shadows is only a fraction of the composition. It is better to discover
the interplay of positive and negative space, and the relationship of the
shadow near the nose to the highlight on the nose.
Representing VALUE only, not just 'shadow' only would be a better way to
go about the task.
Again, this is not a flame :)
I agree with what you said on the whole,
but there are a few more ingredients to the recipe.
zi...@interport.net
Dear Hutto,
When someone comes to you with specific relistic information that is
no time to lay a line of your own specific slant on him. I don't d
that intentionally. It is not reasonable and will get the student no
where. The way to do it so that the student is not hurt and rejects
your advice, is to put as much as possible of whart you believe in,
into the good advice yougive, which otherwise is given totally in
terms of the student's bias.
One of the things a lot of art schools do which I have always opposed
is that take people in [on the undergraduate level this is not a
crime] because they like the owrk buyt thing that they will turn the
person upside doqn. When thisis doen at the graduart e school level,
irt is inherently evil.
Gabriel
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>Sigvardsen <bra...@axionet.com> wrote in article
>> I'm having problems drawing people and their faces; I get the
>> perspective wrong. I was wondering where can I find the geometerics
>> and perspectives involved in drawing portraits?
>Forget all that stuff about perspective and geometry and everything
>related to objects or the human form.
>Pretend you have no idea what it is you are looking at. The human face is
>a foreign object. Let your eyes drift out of focus and see the omposition
mdeli
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 13:57:16 -0600, Brother Alphabet
<ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
>Sigvardsen <bra...@axionet.com> wrote in article
>
>> I'm having problems drawing people and their faces; I get the
>> perspective wrong. I was wondering where can I find the geometerics
>> and perspectives involved in drawing portraits?
Try the library. Look thru all the books you can find and study the
one which has drawings and sound explanations. The most instructive
books I found are written be comic book artists and illustrators.
>Forget all that stuff about perspective and geometry and everything
>related to objects or the human form.
>
You can't forget what you don't know.
>Pretend you have no idea what it is you are looking at.
He doesn't have to pretend.
>The human face is
>a foreign object. Let your eyes drift out of focus and see the composition
>before you. See the values and curves as nothing but shapes. Then, using a
>media that prevents you from making scribbly little lines, like charcoal
Yes, use the big schmier approach. That's modern art teaching. Did the
profs you praise suggest this.
>or pastel or a big fat brush...put the shapes down as mass areas.
>It is not a shadow, it is a shape. It is not a nose, it is a collection of
>shapes.
>If this seems too strange or too difficult, stop working with faces for a
>bit and substitute a simple object like an egg or a ball...something light
>in color that picks up shadows well...Work with that a while, practicing
>putting the shapes down in bold, massive strokes.
This is the crap I heard in art school. In music it would be like
saying play Jingle Bells on the piano. Forget the scales. Its all hand
eye coordination, Just do it, forget about knowledge.
>Try closing or covering one of your eyes to see your composition flatten
>out...identifying the shapes comes easier this way.
Will this help recognize a nose as a nose better than if both eyes
were open?
>
>Train your eye to find all the shapes it can see. Do the excersizes over
>and over until it is a habit for you to see this way. You will know when
>you are 'getting it' when you start doing this in McDonalds while ordering
>fries.
Which is why Hutto's drawings of distorted bagels and jelly donuts
look flat. This, because he doesn't know really know perspective,
shadow projection or the geometry necessary for drawing. He has a
trained eye and an experienced hand but not much of a brain telling
them what to do. I believe that any art really requires good
brain-knowledge coordination.
>Another good excersize is to go and get some modelling clay (Light colored
>like white, tan or pale grey)...Form the clay into random shapes, point a
>light at it, and practice drawing the clay with the same mass strokes.
Hutto's got it down to fine strokes. Perhaps that is why he can't get
it right.
These are instructions for just coping what you see without an iota of
knowledge along with a message to forget about knowledge. Sounds just
like modern art school doesn't it.
>Soon, you will be able to break objects down into blocks of light and dark
>shapes...You will find that perspective and likeness all come together in
>the mix...
>
Sure. You hope. Before you can break a complex object down to blocks,
it might just be helpful to learn some rules for drawing a block.
>The problem with representing things, especially the human figure or face,
>is that we look at the object and its many details and become obsessed
>with putting the details down first. It's the whole 'forest for the trees'
>obstacle. You want to find the forest first, then count up all the trees.
Its a case of not knowing anything about the forest or the trees.
>Another side point: All the trees aren't needed in your survey. An
>estimate of how many trees there are is all you need to make a likeness.
In other words make sure that there are two eyes and only one nose
etc. This statment should be of great help. Do you always mention this
important fact when you teach?
>Work from the outside in, the great to the small...Get the
>masses down first, then come back with the finishes.
I like the, "work from the outside in," stuff. That's like saying
forget chords just concentrate on the notes to someone who doesn't
know what the scales are. Its a formula for guaranteed failure. Its
the Modern Academic Art approach to no-skill-realism
Perhaps after he learns the rote you suggest he should go on and study
Picasso and Mondrian.
Mani DeLi
...no knowledge, no skill, no art
>Hutto
>"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
Perhaps he kept both eyes closed? Have you tried that method ?
Le Saint
Brother Alphabet wrote:
thank you for replying to my note without being aggressive. I think that
what I said did need the comments. but then you need to give more
arguments if you will convince me.
Please believe me that there is no aggressivity in the following lines,
merely conviction.
>
>
> > Anyway, why do you want to rely on perspective rather than on your
> own
> > eyes?
>
> Our eyes do tend to see in perspective...:)
But isn't perspective the "art of drawing solid objects on plane surface
so as to give right impression of relative positions, size, etc; (...)"
(Oxford dictionary of current English)?
Or in other terms "depiction of depth"?
How could our eyes tend to see in a way that is a product of the
intellect? Are we speaking of the same thing, or do you mean to speak of
the feeling of Depth itself?
I say perspective is all very well, but that you don't need it unless
you are an architect, or if you want to achieve a certain sense of
"accuracy" in your drawing, or if you think that you have to abide by
strict rules as a personal achievement, (or for your own pleasure or
whatever...) or if you want to draw imaginary scenes.
Else, if you draw something that is either before your eyes, or a
photograph which is already down to two dimensions, or... if you prefer
using other methods to "flatten" an image, and you simply don't care to
show depth, what is the use of perspective?
you might still want to use basic forms of foreshortening but that is
about it.
To me perspective has its own limits...
I suggest a little experiment: sit with a sketchpad on your lap, and try
drawing what to see to your left or right side.
If you decide not to move your head to the side, vertical lines will be
almost horizontal on your paper. If you do turn your head, you will need
to rotate everything in your mind so as to make vertical lines vertical,
and so on...
in the first case I don't see how you can make me believe that you are
using the rules of perspective, yet you can achieve a sense of depth; in
the second case you are bound to use rules of perspective because you
have to reconstruct everything you see in your head. but then the result
may prove less accurate, and in any case stiff...
>
>
> > it is very well if what you want is to draw "out of your own
> > imagination", but if you draw a (real) person, looking is the only
> skill
> > you need.
>
> A couple of other skills would probably come in handy.
> Drawing skills being the main one. :)
I suggest another experiment:Use a ball-point pen or a "high-tech" point
of some sort (which will prevent you from giving your line any variation
in shade or width, as opposed to a pencil, for example)
Instead of using your "drawing skills", scribble, scribble on your
sketchblock so as to represent the shapes you see in front of you.
scribble more or less the different areas so as to represent the various
values of shade and light...
Provided you know how to LOOK (rather than think) what you see, the
result will be an accurate though blurry sketch.
where are the drawing skills involved in this little exercise?
>
>
> > to me there is no learning to draw as such.
>
> What you say is perfectly right.
>
> One can not 'learn to draw' per se...
>
> One learns to use drawing tools, one learns compositional theory, one
> learns color theory, but these are also often innate in artists. The
> 'learned' aspects, or at least the formally taught aspects, usually
> deal
> with how the greats used their tools and how the teacher likes to use
> the
> tools, and if the student is lucky, the teacher will demonstrate even
> the
> uses he or she does not particularly prefer as well.
>
once you have been initiated to the method mdeli despises so much, the
one you seem to advocate yourself of drawing shapes and blocks so as to
forget that an eye is an eye, thus bypassing the prejudices of the
brain, the only things one needs is a basic idea of perspective, a basic
idea of compositional theory, of colour theory, just so as to know that
they exist, and that the student can go and study them later if they
feel the need for it; in the same way, the student needs to try
different mediums, so as to have an idea of what they feel like, so as
to come back to them when they feel the need to.I am glad that is what
happened to me, (whether it was the intention of my teachers or not, I
can not be certain of, however).
Teaching all these things thoroughly would mean teaching a certain
approach to them, TAHT OF THE TEACHER. which would mean that the
student, in order to develop their own approach, would have either to
derive it from what they have previously learned from one or different
sources, or, provided it is possible, forget everything and start
anew...
> The next thing one must learn, or rather, the thing one must be
> encouraged
> to develop, is the ability to see.
>
why does it come next and not first in your view?
> > For instance, I think that it does not matter how clumsy you are,
> you
> > can still draw as long as you don't forget to LOOK at whatever you
> are
> > drawing, instead of glancing at it, and drawing what you want to see
>
> > instead of what you actually see.
>
> That's where the problem comes from, though.
>
of course I meant to say "and drawing what you actually see instead of
what you want to see"
> When we look and look and look at something, we begin to see only
> detail
> and we begin to put down not what is before us but what it is we want
> to
> see in our drawing.
>
granted, and that is why I have never managed to draw the portraits of
members of my family satisfactorily.maybe I should try to draw them
upside down :-)
> GLANCING, as you mention, is another important key to seeing properly.
> The
> process should be a build from glancing, transferring, glancing,
> transferring to examining the foundation and adding in detail.
>
> If you watch any good artist draw from life you will see their eyes
> moving
> rapidly all the time, from object to surface, back and forth.
>
granted.when you say "...transfering to examining the foundation and
adding in detail.", I think that is what you could emphasize to mdeli so
as to maybe reach understanding. because it means that the whole method
is meant to get things in more or less the 'right' place from the start,
and that you eventually work on the detail, and then you can see an eye
as an eye, a nose as a nose, and so on...
> > the idea of drawing only the shadows is really excellent. because
> what
> > you see is not the actual features of people, but the light
> reflected
> > from them. your job is to darken (provided your paper is of a light
> > tint) areas so as to reproduce a pattern of shadows and light.
>
> What if the surface is not light? What if it is dark or medium? Only
> the
> shadows is only a fraction of the composition. It is better to
> discover
> the interplay of positive and negative space, and the relationship of
> the
> shadow near the nose to the highlight on the nose.
>
> Representing VALUE only, not just 'shadow' only would be a better way
> to
> go about the task.
granted again. value is the word. :-)
>
>
> Again, this is not a flame :)
> I agree with what you said on the whole,
> but there are a few more ingredients to the recipe.
>
> Hutto
>
> -=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
> "I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
> "You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
> http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
Maybe I tend to oversimplify things, but it is not because some try to
make things esoteric that you have to imitate them.
Brother Alphabet
On Sun, 22 Feb 1998, mdeli wrote:
> Try the library. Look thru all the books you can find and study the
> one which has drawings and sound explanations. The most instructive
> books I found are written be comic book artists and illustrators.
There's an idea...There is a good book that is actually sold through comic
book distributors called 'Mastering the Human Figure' that is actually
good...for drawing comic books anyway.
You won't learn anything about observation. You'll learn how to draw
formula people.
> >The human face is
> >a foreign object. Let your eyes drift out of focus and see the composition
> >before you. See the values and curves as nothing but shapes. Then, using a
> >media that prevents you from making scribbly little lines, like charcoal
>
> Yes, use the big schmier approach. That's modern art teaching. Did the
> profs you praise suggest this.
Well of course it's modern. I went to school in this century after all.
This is ONE of the ways to train the eye that I was shown in school, as a
matter of fact. It wasn't the ONLY way. If you check your history books
you will see that MASS DRAWING is not a technique foreign to your 'great
masters'.
> This is the crap I heard in art school...
Then it is obvious you learned nothing in school.
Maybe if you had paid attention in class you wouldn't have turned out to
be such a phony poseur.
> >Try closing or covering one of your eyes to see your composition flatten
> >out...identifying the shapes comes easier this way.
>
> Will this help recognize a nose as a nose better than if both eyes
> were open?
The problem is that the nose is recognized in the first place. Seeing
objects instead of seeing relative spaces is what prevents people from
drawing realistic interpretations of what they are seeing. The eye too
easily obsesses on the smallest details.
> >Train your eye to find all the shapes it can see. Do the excersizes over
> >and over until it is a habit for you to see this way. You will know when
> >you are 'getting it' when you start doing this in McDonalds while ordering
> >fries.
>
> Which is why Hutto's drawings of distorted bagels and jelly donuts
> look flat. This, because he doesn't know really know perspective,
> shadow projection or the geometry necessary for drawing. He has a
> trained eye and an experienced hand but not much of a brain telling
> them what to do. I believe that any art really requires good
> brain-knowledge coordination.
You idiot!
I drew the shapes to look flat intentionally.
The shadow projections, when they appear, are also placed where they
are for a reason. It would logically follow that 'real' shadows only
concretely apply to 'real' objects and the rest can be applied
arbitrarily, or at will.
Man, I'm going to have to start painting realistically just to shut you
up. Don't make me have to do that. Plus, they aren't jelly doughnuts! They
are bavarian cream-filled!
> >Another good excersize is to go and get some modelling clay (Light colored
> >like white, tan or pale grey)...Form the clay into random shapes, point a
> >light at it, and practice drawing the clay with the same mass strokes.
>
> Hutto's got it down to fine strokes. Perhaps that is why he can't get
> it right.
>
> These are instructions for just coping what you see without an iota of
> knowledge along with a message to forget about knowledge. Sounds just
> like modern art school doesn't it.
Well, the result is a realistic likeness. Go figure.
This must mean that there's more than one way to skin a cliche.
What sort of 'knowledge' is there in this process? Drawing has to do with
the ability to see and the ability to use one's tools to represent what
one sees on a surface. If one is skilled at using the tools and is also
skilled as an observer, one will have no trouble drawing, regardless of
what is or is not being said in some frilly theory class. Realistic
representation is, in a large part, COPYING what you see. Interpretation
is not the domain of the realist. When one interprets, one changes things
into one's own version, thereby altering 'real' and creating
'abstraction'.
> Sure. You hope. Before you can break a complex object down to blocks,
> it might just be helpful to learn some rules for drawing a block.
The guy in the original post said he was having problems with portraits,
not that he didn't know how to draw, you moron.
> Its a case of not knowing anything about the forest or the trees.
Since when?
> In other words make sure that there are two eyes and only one nose
> etc. This statment should be of great help. Do you always mention this
> important fact when you teach?
Yeah. Every time I teach. Which is precisely never.
The point is not as simple as just 2 eyes and one nose...it's more like
'the freckle is not quite as important as the shape of the cheek...every
SINGLE eyelash is not as important as the shape of the lashes
together...' and so on and so forth. Really, Mani de Li, if you can't see
how the comments I made are useful in achieving likeness of form you
really are pitiful.
How would you suugest someone work to get past the surface to the form?
A comic book artist's guide? Really? Is it really better to memorize the
structure of an idealized comic book human body, or is it better to learn
how to see?
The thing you miss is that the lesson I described allows the artist to
represent anything at all...Once you learn to see you can draw
anything...on the other hand, according to your method, we would have to
go and get the comic book guide to drawing everything, and that's a lot of
books to waste time memorizing.
The more you see, the more you draw; the more you draw, the more you see.
> I like the, "work from the outside in," stuff. That's like saying
> forget chords just concentrate on the notes to someone who doesn't
> know what the scales are. Its a formula for guaranteed failure. Its
> the Modern Academic Art approach to no-skill-realism
Whatever. You have applied your catch phrase to so many things that it's
absolutely meaningless now.
You are currently applying your handly label to a drawing concept that is
about as old as drawing itself.
You are a beacon of insight, as much as a 2-watt bulb can be a beacon.
> Perhaps after he learns the rote you suggest he should go on and study
> Picasso and Mondrian.
If 'knowledge' is valuable, why should an artist not learn about all art?
> >Hutto
> >"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
>
> Perhaps he kept both eyes closed? Have you tried that method ?
Yes, and remarkably, I still painted better than you.
Brother Alphabet
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998, Le Saint wrote:
> But isn't perspective the "art of drawing solid objects on plane surface
> so as to give right impression of relative positions, size, etc; (...)"
> (Oxford dictionary of current English)?
'To give right impression of relative positions, size, etc...'
means, in sum, 'to make stuff look like we see it'. An impression is only
the way in which something or some event is perceived at a given instance.
> Or in other terms "depiction of depth"?
> How could our eyes tend to see in a way that is a product of the
> intellect?
I think it's the other way around. Our intellect is a product of the way
we perceive reality.
> Are we speaking of the same thing, or do you mean to speak of
> the feeling of Depth itself?
Actual depth and the painted illusion of depth are the same things.
When we look down a straight road, does the road *really* narrow to a
point in space? When we drive down that road will it suddenly taper off?
> I say perspective is all very well, but that you don't need it unless
> you are an architect, or if you want to achieve a certain sense of
> "accuracy" in your drawing...
Which was the point of what I wrote...
I personally don't feel particularly inclined to represent 'reality' in my
work so I don't utilize the rules of perspective for anything beyond
effect...But to be able to compose or draw in general one must at least be
familiar with the rules...
> or if you think that you have to abide by
> strict rules as a personal achievement, (or for your own pleasure or
> whatever...) or if you want to draw imaginary scenes.
> Else, if you draw something that is either before your eyes, or a
> photograph which is already down to two dimensions, or... if you prefer
> using other methods to "flatten" an image, and you simply don't care to
> show depth, what is the use of perspective?
Knowledge of principles such as the behavior of light or perspective or
color help you understand the relationships between objects, how space
relates to space even in non-objective composition.
> you might still want to use basic forms of foreshortening but that is
> about it.
Foreshortening is only one visual use for perpective, and only an example
of one type of perspective. Even without being aware of it, we use
perspective laws in our work. Either by conforming to them or by violating
them. Points of view, linear vs aerial, whatever sets of rules you want to
look at...You can't avoid dealing with objects on a plane no matter what
you're doing, even if it's splattering paint onto a canvas.
> To me perspective has its own limits...
Then, break them.
Just because something has limits doesn't mean the thing is useless.
Just look at Mani de Li for example. He's good for at least a laugh.
> I suggest a little experiment: sit with a sketchpad on your lap, and try
> drawing what to see to your left or right side.....
>
> in the first case I don't see how you can make me believe that you are
> using the rules of perspective, yet you can achieve a sense of depth; in
> the second case you are bound to use rules of perspective because you
> have to reconstruct everything you see in your head. but then the result
> may prove less accurate, and in any case stiff...
One of the most important skills an artist should have is the ability to
formulate good compositions...That one wouldn't be one I'd use to
illustrate a point...If I felt the need to represent what was on my left
or right side, why would I not turn to my left or right and find a good
composition?
> I suggest another experiment:Use a ball-point pen or a "high-tech" point
> of some sort (which will prevent you from giving your line any variation
> in shade or width, as opposed to a pencil, for example)
> Instead of using your "drawing skills", scribble, scribble on your
> sketchblock so as to represent the shapes you see in front of you.
> scribble more or less the different areas so as to represent the various
> values of shade and light...
> Provided you know how to LOOK (rather than think) what you see, the
> result will be an accurate though blurry sketch.
> where are the drawing skills involved in this little exercise?
Someone with no drawing skills would make a crappy drawing with a pen or
with a pencil...
I always draw in pen. Pilot V-Ball or Precise pens.
You CAN vary your line widths with pens. A whole new set of techniques
come into play with a pen. The scribbling or scuttling you suggest is one
way to draw with a pen. Hatching, stippling, etc...You can still imply
value and mass with a fine, unvaried point.
> once you have been initiated to the method mdeli despises so much, the
> one you seem to advocate yourself of drawing shapes and blocks so as to
> forget that an eye is an eye, thus bypassing the prejudices of the
> brain, the only things one needs is a basic idea of perspective, a basic
> idea of compositional theory, of colour theory, just so as to know that
> they exist...
Stick to basic understandings and make bad art forever.
The excersize I mentioned was ONLY an excersize, not a path to a finished
product. It is also one of MANY MANY OTHER such excersizes which focus on
other things...Good painting requires good drawing skills, good drawing
skills require so much practive your fingers bleed, pages and pages and
pages of paper, drawing which never ceases, even when you have no ideas
and no motivation you must draw just to draw...a sock on the floor, a can
of peas, whatever.
I have not provided some sort of 'glimpse into my method' or other
nonsense...I have related one useful way in which to come upon an
understanding of form.
Not also that I mentioned mass first, DETAILS second...Start with the
form, work down to the details, the fine tuning...Mani de Li seems to have
stopped halfway just to have an excuse to spew more hoopla.
> why does it come next and not first in your view?
It could come simultaneously if it makes you feel better.
I mentioned the tools first because it is more logical to me to center a
low-level class around using tools and drawing techniques. I think the
emphasis of foundation classes should be exposure to media first (In
conjunction with applied drawing) and the development of the eye should be
more emphasized at higher levels of instruction...People are not making
masterpieces in introductory drawing classes, they are learning the
basics.
> granted, and that is why I have never managed to draw the portraits of
> members of my family satisfactorily.maybe I should try to draw them
> upside down :-)
I hate making portraits. Plain and simple.
People get on my nerves, so the last thing I want to paint is people.
A dim view? (I didn't say that I COULDN'T paint them, I just don't want
to.)
> granted.when you say "...transfering to examining the foundation and
> adding in detail.", I think that is what you could emphasize to mdeli so
> as to maybe reach understanding.
Keep on keepin on dreamin.
> because it means that the whole method
> is meant to get things in more or less the 'right' place from the start,
> and that you eventually work on the detail, and then you can see an eye
> as an eye, a nose as a nose, and so on...
Mani de Li apparently can't understand what I'm talking about.
Le Saint
(...)
One of the most important skills an artist should have is the ability to
formulate good compositions...That one wouldn't be one I'd use to
illustrate a point...If I felt the need to represent what was on my left
or right side, why would I not turn to my left or right and find a good
composition?
I only meant that I thought you would have to face what you want to draw as far as perspective is concerned...
what if you wanted to represent not what you actually see, but the
way you perceive it...?
and the fact is that you see more or less at 180° which you generally
don't on a painting (I know it exists though I can't name anyone) and that
you don't see everything with the same degree of detail as you do on a
painting, generally (but of course there are examples like Ivan Kramskoy's
an unknown woman, 1883 - or Valentin Serov's - a girl with peaches,
1887 or portrait of the artist konstantin korovin, 1891 to name
only these)
maybe you will tell me to go ahead and experiment myself...
but nevermind.
(...)
> once you have been initiated to the method mdeli despises so much, the
> one you seem to advocate yourself of drawing shapes and blocks so as to
> forget that an eye is an eye, thus bypassing the prejudices of the
> brain, the only things one needs is a basic idea of perspective, a basic
> idea of compositional theory, of colour theory, just so as to know that
> they exist...Stick to basic understandings and make bad art forever.
but why study things if you have no use for them. I meant to suggest to wait till you actually feel the need for it to study any particular thing. of course others will advocate studying everything for future reference; but I say how can you make the best of your studies if you are not fully involved in them.
(...)
> why does it come next and not first in your view?
It could come simultaneously if it makes you feel better.
I mentioned the tools first because it is more logical to me to center a
low-level class around using tools and drawing techniques. I think the
emphasis of foundation classes should be exposure to media first (In
conjunction with applied drawing) and the development of the eye should be
more emphasized at higher levels of instruction...People are not making
masterpieces in introductory drawing classes, they are learning the
basics.
I say the basics are precisely the 'development of the eye'.what is the
use of mastering a technique if you don't see what's 'wrong' with your
drawing or painting.
> granted, and that is why I have never managed to draw the portraits of
> members of my family satisfactorily.maybe I should try to draw them
> upside down :-)I hate making portraits. Plain and simple.
People get on my nerves, so the last thing I want to paint is people.
A dim view? (I didn't say that I COULDN'T paint them, I just don't want
to.)
just a metalinguistic question (I am not a native english speaker):do you mean you hate making portraits because they are plain & simple, or that it is plain and simple that you hate making portraits?
I personally love drawing portraits. I can't get away from realistic
depiction probably because I like things and people the way they are, and
I can't really see them as much as I would care to, because I am near-sighted...
.
I need time to look, which real life doesn't allow me, so I have grab
images and turn them
into a picture I can enjoy, for as long as I care to. the changes I
make are only means to achieve this aim.
(...)
Hutto-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
mdeli
On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 14:00:36 -0600, Brother Alphabet
>> >out...identifying the shapes comes easier this way.
>>
>> Will this help recognize a nose as a nose better than if both eyes
>> were open?
>
>The problem is that the nose is recognized in the first place.
Now there's a problem!
> Seeing
>objects instead of seeing relative spaces is what prevents people from
>drawing realistic interpretations of what they are seeing. The eye too
>easily obsesses on the smallest details.
>
"relative spaces, etc."
>> >Train your eye to find all the shapes it can see. Do the excersizes over
>> >and over until it is a habit for you to see this way. You will know when
>> >you are 'getting it' when you start doing this in McDonalds while ordering
>> >fries.
>>
>> Which is why Hutto's drawings of distorted bagels and jelly donuts
>> look flat. This, because he doesn't know really know perspective,
>> shadow projection or the geometry necessary for drawing. He has a
>> trained eye and an experienced hand but not much of a brain telling
>> them what to do. I believe that any art really requires good
>> brain-knowledge coordination.
>
>You idiot!
>I drew the shapes to look flat intentionally.
The final excuse of those who can't render three dimensions. "I wanted
it that way."
>The shadow projections, when they appear, are also placed where they
>are for a reason. It would logically follow that 'real' shadows only
>concretely apply to 'real' objects and the rest can be applied
>arbitrarily, or at will.
Sure.
>
>Man, I'm going to have to start painting realistically just to shut you
>up.
Starting when?
> Don't make me have to do that. Plus, they aren't jelly doughnuts! They
>are bavarian cream-filled!
...after you sat on them
>>
>> These are instructions for just coping what you see without an iota of
>> knowledge along with a message to forget about knowledge. Sounds just
>> like modern art school doesn't it.
>
>Well, the result is a realistic likeness.
Easier said than done.
>
>What sort of 'knowledge' is there in this process? Drawing has to do with
>the ability to see and the ability to use one's tools to represent what
>one sees on a surface. If one is skilled at using the tools and is also
>skilled as an observer, one will have no trouble drawing,
If you can't see you have an eye problem. Most everyone can see.
Most doctors are skilled observers and even know anatomy. Very few can
draw.
> regardless of
>what is or is not being said in some frilly theory class. Realistic
>representation is, in a large part, COPYING what you see.
Indeed and that requires technical knowledge.
>
>Interpretation
>is not the domain of the realist. When one interprets, one changes things
>into one's own version, thereby altering 'real' and creating
>'abstraction'.
You can't alter the real if you don't know how to represent it.
>> Sure. You hope. Before you can break a complex object down to blocks,
>> it might just be helpful to learn some rules for drawing a block.
>
>The guy in the original post said he was having problems with portraits,
>not that he didn't know how to draw, you moron.
So why are you mentioning Blocks?
>
>> Its a case of not knowing anything about the forest or the trees.
>
>Since when?
>
>> In other words make sure that there are two eyes and only one nose
>> etc. This statement should be of great help. Do you always mention this
>> important fact when you teach?
>
>Yeah. Every time I teach. Which is precisely never.
Some students are lucky.
>The point is not as simple as just 2 eyes and one nose...it's more like
>'the freckle is not quite as important as the shape of the cheek...every
>SINGLE eyelash is not as important as the shape of the lashes
>together...' and so on and so forth. Really, Mani de Li, if you can't see
>how the comments I made are useful in achieving likeness of form you
>really are pitiful.
I heard this sort of stuff in art school and watched the students
nowhere. They were just as bad after patzing around for six months on
their dirty newsprint pads as they were in drawing one.
I recall an art teacher who criticized drawings of the model. He used
to repeat stuff like the above. Draw the big forms first. Break it
down into blocks etc. He never told anyone how to do this.
He spent most of the time going around saying stuff like, "the nose is
off." "The eyes are off." "The model isn't sitting on the chair."
Of course the janitor of the building could have told you that. No one
needed this idiot to point that out.
>
>How would you suugest someone work to get past the surface to the form?
>A comic book artist's guide? Really?]
Any good comic book artist has to know how to draw well. He also knows
how to compose a page and color it within the limits of his medium.
He can draw form better than most Artists. You will also notice that
books that convey information don't need to resort to artspeak babble
or your sort of stale vestigial aphorisms.
> Is it really better to memorize the
>structure of an idealized comic book human body, or is it better to learn
>how to see?
>
Start an eye institute.
>The thing you miss is that the lesson I described allows the artist to
>represent anything at all..
Glad to have your assurance that everyone who reads your message will
be able to draw "anything at all." The question remains, how badly?
>.Once you learn to see you can draw
>anything...
Perhaps anyone who can't draw should get a seeing eye dog.
The problem of drawing has to do with what one should look for.
Perspective is the key to this if you learn how to apply it. Telling
people about seeing is like saying playing the piano requires manual
dexterity. Its true but of no help whatever.
>on the other hand, according to your method, we would have to
>go and get the comic book guide to drawing everything, and that's a lot of
>books to waste time memorizing.
In other words you are suggesting that all I recommend is comic book
guides to learn drawing. Perhaps you gleaned this opinion because you
can't draw a solid looking bagel. Or was it because you didn't pay
attention during your "eye training" course?
>
>The more you see, the more you draw; the more you draw, the more you see.
>
This statement should be a great help to all. I hope you have a large
printout of this on your wall. Do you use an eye cup regularly?
>> >Hutto
>> >"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
>>
>> Perhaps he kept both eyes closed? Have you tried that method ?
>
>Yes, and remarkably, I still painted better than you.
Absolutely.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art