Oomph

[Zilant]

Oomph,
For all intents and purposes the word I'm using because I have no idea what it's called. You know, the punch, the last 5% of the piece, the cherry on top.

Those little touches and adjustments that really sell the piece to your audience.

When your staring at the tail end of a piece, and you just want to add that extra little oomph, what do you normally find yourself focusing on?

[DavePalumbo]

see, I always thought the oomph was something that you should be working on at the first 5%

[Brendan N]

agreed with Dave, if your piece doesn't start off with some punch, it sure as shite isn't going to end there. It's not the last hour or so that makes the piece, it's the first.

[Zilant]

Hmm.

Less like, "This pose is unoriginal, what one click filter could be used to distract you from that fact"
More like, "Her skin would be picking up the red of her shirt a little, I should do a quick pass of red on those areas with a low opacity"

The sorts of superfine detail you take more time thinking about than actually executing.
Sorts of things you really couldn't do at the start. Not to imply the above isn't good advice, and that I couldn't stand to learn more about dynamic composition...it's just not what I meant to ask about.

I'm asking because the only thing I routinely do is consider Reflection.
Not just the obvious, water, metal, glass mirroring their surroundings, but light causing objects to pick up the colors of the objects around it. But, I know there's a helluva' lot more to the world of finishing touches than that, and I'm interested in hearing what other people focus on.

[Brendan N]

Well, again I'd say I don't go back to give it oomph. I don't know how much my process differs from others', but I essentially start off almost like a speed-paint. I get everything down as quick and efficiently as possible, and continue with a process of refining the image. I continue with refining until either I am happy or I run out of time. This type of approach helps to ensure that a piece does not come off as blatantly unfinished. Typically I work from dark to light when painting, so the last stuff I handle would be small highlights and light accents, maybe some darker accents here and there (most of the time not though). If I'm working digitally I might explore some colour balance options and cropping so that it reads better.

That's it for me, dunno how everybody else handles this?

[kev ferrara]

Well, not to get technical, but there are several different types of "oomph".

This is aesthetic oomph. There is dramatic oomph. There is action oomph. There is sublime oomph. etc.

The point is, your conception is the root of all oomph. Once you get that conception in your mind, everything you do afterwards is all aimed at achieving your initial vision.

Of course, so much is involved in the process of seeing that vision through, that you often forget what the hell that vision was in the beginning. Your picture begins saying "I am!" and it is difficult to negate that actuality. Harvey Dunn talks about that a lot in his lecture notes... all the different ways the picture slips out from beneath one's fingers... How the vision flitters away.

This is the task. To stop what you are doing and to re-engage with your internal image generator. To see the original image that occurred in your mind's eye afresh, once again. Once that is firmly re-established, then you can return to your work in progress with fresh perspective.

If the image wasn't a strong one to begin with, that is a problem of a different order.

Random bits of advice: Make sure your focal area is the most exciting, dramatic, beautiful, colorful, and high contrast area in the picture. Make sure all your shapes lead through the action. Make sure you have put sufficient detail along the eye paths that take the viewer through the action.

Questions to ask one's self: Is there sufficient mystery? Is it poetic enough? If I snapped my fingers, and the picture suddenly came to life, would the figures fly out of the frame in all directions, or would they just remain standing there? If you stripped away all the incidental detail would the bold graphic design underpinning the work tell the story just as clearly? Is the graphic design a metaphor for a larger truth? Have you put too much detail in, that is distracting from the main dramatic tension? Is there no graphic design at all? Test your graphic design against Franz Kline (yes google Franz Kline)... Does your realistic picture have the same kind of graphic power as Kline's work?

Is something in your picture competing with the main thing? If you back down some areas of your picture will the overall picture be more powerful? Is your picture brutal and barren enough?

Are the poses natural or are they just what you find easiest to draw?

Is there imbalance and dynamism in your work? Does it live?

Is all the information I need to tell the story, in the picture?

What is the core conflict in the picture? How does that conflict manifest as physical tensions?

Do the textures separate from each other?

Anyhow... that was some random thoughts.

Good luck,
kev

[Brendan N]

Zilant, I hope I don't need to tell you exactly how valuable Kev's post here is. There is no 'right' answer in art of course, but using Kev's line of thinking here will allow you to get as close to one as you possibly can.
Ultimately I think that as you go along the changes you make should progressively have less of an impact, on all levels of oomph. Last minute stuff like washes are the only things that should bring big change to your piece.

[Zilant]

Let me see if I have this,

Your telling me not to worry about Oomph in terms of the materials present, so much as Oomph in terms of creating a mood?

Like Action Oomph would be slightly blurring a body part moving quickly, and Dramatic Oomph would be intensifying shadows to create dramatic lighting, and whether or not I've made sure to put reflection in the subject's eyeballs is neither here nor there.

And, If my mind's eye had it's glasses on that day,
and I was able to accurately depict the true core of my concept onto paper, it's basically already oomph'd.
Because a strong concept is, for the most part, it's own Oomph. All the little bits of realistic material-based Oomph one could add thereafter actually has the potential of taking away from Mood-based Oomph (which has less to do with realism and more to do with using our not-entirely-accurate preconceptions to help the establish a feeling)?

[Flake]

Oomph starts in your minds eye.
The beginning is an important time.

At the risk of sounding like an echo of Kev, check out Harvey Dunns class notes, it might help solidify the concept.
http://www.robolus.com/H.Dunn-EveningClassroom.pdf
http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=102219

Give it a read but with a bit of time to digest it, it's worthwhile.

[kev ferrara]

Zilant...

When you imagine an illustration, there is a dramatic core to the work.

That drama can be obvious, like a man fighting a lion. Or somebody hanging for dear life from a ledge by his finger tips.

Or that conflict can be something mysterious (Mystery is wanting to know, but not having all the info to *really* know, but liking what you're seeing anyhow... enjoying the ride). A floating ship. A scary figure with glowing eyes. A girl playing the flute in a meadow as birds seem to dance to her music.

Or mystery can be very subtle, just a figure that only reads in silhouette, where the detail is a bit hard to make out. That's a form of mystery. Tantalizing clues about the nature of what you are looking at.

Or that dramatic conflict can be internal, like sadness, confusion, madness, fear...

Whatever the conflict in your picture... the single conflict... that mood should be in everything and coloring everything in the picture. If the figure is sad, the trees should be sad too, and the rain and the fog. If the figures fight, make the trees fight too. If the girl is delightful, so shall the meadow be and the birds and the clouds and the flowers and the reeds and the butterflies...

Put in just what you need to achieve your mood, and your vision. No less, no more. There is no formula to follow. Nobody but you can see what you have in your imagination. Nobody but you can get it out and on paper.

But don't forget to feed your imagination constantly. Study and draw nature and people and models. Look at the great illustrators and comic book artists and painters. Read books that fire your imagination. Read books on composition and figure drawing and every darn thing you can get your hands on about the craft of art.

If you feel that an artist has some kind of power to his work, sit down with that work for days, and see if you can analyze exactly what that thing is. Draw diagrams of it, dark and light studies, line studies, rhythm studies, look where all the shapes point, think about the drama, trace it. When you become so used to the picture that you can't see it anymore, look at it in a mirror. It will wake up again.

Best,
kev

[Zilant]

I was emphasizing Realism.
You suggest to emphasize Mood.
Realism and Mood are basically mutually exclusive, in focusing on details for detail's sake, I'm screwing up my mood.

Mystery is like,
leaving the monster unseen throughout the entire horror movie, because whatever your mind comes up
with is infinitely scarier than anything technology could ever hope to create. You leave some details out of a picture so people's minds can fill in the blanks. Right?

That's why Mood is attempted to be achieved minimalistically, to keep from screwing it up with details and to heighten the Mystery effect. Yes?

I think I follow with all of that.


One thing I'm fuzzy on,
what separates Conflict from Subject?

[DavePalumbo]

Realism and Mood are basically mutually exclusive

realism is such a huge umbrella term for a statement like this. But I think I know what you mean, though i don't quite agree. Mood can be achieved by keeping your work hazy and atmospheric, but it's far from the only way and often only really delivers a limited range of moods (mostly in the gloomy/spooky neighborhood)

A painting can be very rendered and still give a strong emotional/moody punch. For whatever reason, Michael Whelan pops into my head:

http://www.greenwichfinearts.com/mini06/images/Afternoon-Shadows.jpg

http://rivendell.fortunecity.com/rhydin/959/whelan/44.jpg

oh man, or Waterhouse:

http://www.theartwolf.com/services/wallpapers/waterhouse_1280-800.jpg

http://www.illusionsgallery.com/LaBelleDame-Waterhouse-L.jpg

Or Donato Giancola:

http://www.donatoart.com/gallery/agincourtmiddleb.jpg

http://www.donatoart.com/gallery/serpentb.jpg

Mood can be achieved in many ways, often very subtle. The poses of the figures, the handling of the light, use of negative space in the composition, symbolic imagery, etc. These are much more important in my opinion that the painting style of the artist

[kev ferrara]

Zilant, I think Dave has shown pretty clearly that realism and mood are not mutually exclusive.

The point is, realism is a means to an end. Realism, by itself, is just photography in paint. Art takes "realism" and -- as Frazetta once said - "kicks the hell out of it".

Art is poetry. You have an idea for a picture... You take all this information you have in your head and you gather it together and combine it and exaggerate some and throw away something else, you play with it, simplify here, detail there, you come up with your own way of saying it that evokes some feeling, some emotion, some mood...

Here's a classic Tennyson poem...

Think about this in terms of its Realism. It feels very real. And then think about how poetically and originally expressed it is...


1.

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

2.

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

3.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

4.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel'd from the sabre stroke
Shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

5.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

6.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

from Poems of Alfred Tennyson,
J. E. Tilton and Company, Boston, 1870

-----------

Now what if Tennyson had written his poem in strict "Realism", like a news story...

Six Hundred Light Cavalry Rode into the valley and were fired upon by Cannons. They returned fire. A battle ensued. Sabers as well as guns were used. Eventually, the Light Cavalry retreated and it became apparent that very few of their original numbers were left.

I hope you'll think about the difference between "artistic realism" and journalistic realism.

kev

[Farvus]

There was some good fragment about that in one book about art.

I'll try to explain it but I'm not very good at english so sorry if it's not clear.

When we see quick movement, it's more like impression and summary of the whole gesture rather than sequence of single images. Dynamism is only visible in some specific moments of it.
For example lots of artists falsified the movement of the galloping horses to make it feel more "true". Totality of the gallop was more important. At the end of the 19th century they made sequence of photos of galloping horse and people couldn't believe that the horse moves it's legs in such a weird way. Most of the frames were rather static than dynamic. Still more convincing were horses from paintings where both of their front legs went almost horizontally forward and both rear legs went backward. Then which truth is more closer to reality ? Journalistic realism of photos or artist's fantasy. It seems that in art it's the second one :).

"Four" Józef Chełmoński
http://www.konikowo.horsesport.pl/pliki/D_06.jpg

"The horse in motion" Edward Muybridge
http://faculty.evansville.edu/rl29/art105/img/muybridge_horse.jpg

[kev ferrara]

Just for clarification...
" Action Oomph would be slightly blurring a body part moving quickly"

Definitely not true in all cases. Look at Frazetta. No blurs. There are tons of pieces of information that altogether make work look like an action is happening. A blur is but one of a thousand ways. I don't have time to get into that discussion. It touches on composition, tension, drama, imbalance, torsional twist, "heroic spirals", leading the eyes, rhythms, etc, etc, etc,....

"Dramatic Oomph would be intensifying shadows to create dramatic lighting"

No no no no no... This is a common misconception. When you intensify shadows you are intensifying mystery and the expressionistic aspects of the graphic design underlying figure drawing. Because making a shadow more of a graphic design, causes it to be read as one whole shape. Like a black ghost. This black ghost can express an infinite number of emotions in an abstract way, like a hand can express emotions, or a gesture.

Drama is conflict. Shadow is not conflict. You can get drama in a line drawing without any shadow at all.

Conflict is, somebody wants something and is having trouble getting it. Somebody wants to kill the lion, somebody wants to pull himself up instead of falling, somebody struggling with their emotions, somebody trying to row upstream away from a waterfall.

" whether or not I've made sure to put reflection in the subject's eyeballs is neither here nor there."

Since the eyes are very important to human expression, I would say, it is probably a good thing to be conscientious about them in your work. That doesn't mean every eyeball has a glint in it. Its all a matter of taste.


"Mystery is... You leave some details out of a picture so people's minds can fill in the blanks. Right?"

That's definitely right. But put enough in there so people can get a clue what the mystery might be. That doesn't mean dropping every face into shadow like The Death Dealer. There's more subtle ways an artist can use too... (See attached image from Sydney Long for mystery of silhouette, not shadow)

"That's why Mood is attempted to be achieved minimalistically, to keep from screwing it up with details and to heighten the Mystery effect. Yes?"

Well, not necessarily "minimalistically"... but poetically. With concision. Distilled. Great impressionists can sometimes "draw" whole fields of grain with a few brushstrokes.. How is that possible? Because its a "poeticization"... the essence is conveyed with the least required.

Now, not every artist is an impressionist like Monet is an Impressionist. But *every* artist is an impressionist in his own way. Creating his own visual impressions of what is the essence of what he sees in the world. An artist finds his own level of abstraction/impressionism. For Bougereau, no brushstrokes were visible. That doesn't mean he wasn't being poetic. With art you can't help but be poetic. You simply cannot draw every atom of a tree.

"One thing I'm fuzzy on, what separates Conflict from Subject?"

The subject is in conflict. No separation.

kev

(Here's sydney long...mystery without shadow...)

[Zilant]

Hmm,
You're right, Dave. I guess that is a poor choice of words. "Details" is probably more what I meant. And even with that you make a good case against me. Does saying "Don't use Details for detail's sake" sound better?

I think you explained that perfectly, Farvus.
We actually use that exact same concept in Animation. You don't animate true real-life movement, you animate based on how people expect things to move. Otherwise you run the risk of your animation lacking believability, making people uncomfortable, sometimes even making people nauseous. :dead:


That second post was alot more clear, Kev.
I think I understand Dunn's stance now, and will try to apply some of those philosophies on my next picture and see if I'm not satisfied with the Oomph of it.

/edit: (well, maybe the picture after that. Next one's a modeling sheet. I wonder if this could apply to a modeling sheet?)

[Elwell]

It applies to a modeling sheet in the sense that, for every piece that you do, you should have a clear idea of exactly why you are doing that piece, and every decision you make should go towards communicating that to the viewer.