graphite portrait studies

[andymania]

Some graphite portrait studies. Just seeing how far I can take the pencil..lol:sungod:

[elenaM]

The Indian is my favorite.Congratulations for your achievement. How long does it take to get so good ?

[andymania]

I have been drawing now for around 17 yrs. However if alot of the information that has been presented in this site has been presented to me earlier when I was in art school, i think I would have learned faster.

[armando]

Too small to say much about them technique wise.

[That fat kid]

Technically, they seem superb, albeit a little flat.

But beyond that they're rather uninteresting. The papal ones read as propaganda, probably unintentionally. The indian seems tragically stereotypical. noble savage style. The one of the Boy is the strongest because it asks questions, the image doesn't exist purely as a study as the boy seems to be challenging the viewer.

If you're going to spend 40 plus hours on a drawing, really have some greater idea behind it. You obviously have the ability and patience to create, use those skills to make something you honestly care about. Yea, I get it that the pope represents the christian faith and all that noise, but so what? What's the point of usiing the old conventions to say the same thing over again? If you're going to use the old conventions, realize they're conventions and say something new with them.

Anyhow, probably not the kindest crit, and I don't mean to offend, but I think you need to aim for something beyond simple realism. Anyone can draw well, but using the ability to draw as a device to express ideas instead of just recreating a photo is a skill people will appreciate.

[panchosimpson]

Nice work here Andy, you're obviously a hard worker. I would try drawing from life because your drawings look like they're copied from photographs. The problem is that your drawings read flat like the photographs, you're missing many of the important characteristics that really make drawings three-dimensional, this is largely because you're not giving adequate consideration to the planes and other structural features of these heads. I recommend studying perspective and how it applies to drawing the figure, along with how value works to describe form (from highlight to halftone to core to reflected light to cast shadow).

Hope this helps,

-Ramon

[andymania]

Fat Kid, Just to remind these are just studies. I didnt intend for these to have some concept behind them. The Pope montage was just experimintation.Not too sure how it can be read as propaganda especially the headshot. It's just a portrait nothing more. The same way a sketch book has figure/environment studies which have no real siginificant concept behind them besides only being studies. Yes these were done from photos. Its hard for me to have the Pope pose for me...:)

Pancho, not too sure what you meant by these looking flat (although the lighting is boring because of the photos i used) not 3-dimensional and not understanding planes (which I think I understand pretty well). It wouldn't matter if I drew these from life, imagination or photo since I understand form. I think I nailed the 3-d/forms and values of these heads and they look pretty convincing to me. Yea, I gotta get back to working from life more anyway and light my photos more interstingly.
Yea, I need to work on concepts as well. Lots of work to do.

[Aniboomer]

This is by far one of the best graphite illustrations I've seen. keep up the good work.

[andymania]

Thanks brother!! Still a long road of work lies ahead..

[andymania]

Armando,

Here are enlarged versions:

[soulles]

awsome shading i dont think they look flat at all very nice work

[panchosimpson]

Hi Andy, I think I should explain myself better. It's not that the lighting is uninteresting, what I mean about three dimensionality and planes is most evident in the full figure image of the pope, there's no real sense of his arm under his tunic, the folds do not describe the form underneath. Look at how Michelangelo handled this kind of drawing problem (limbs under clothes, etc).

In the native american portrait, there should be reflected light along his jawline...the side plane of the chin isn't being fully described

Anyway, I'm not writing any of this to be a jerk, this is for your benefit and I'm trying to be helpful. However, if these thoughts aren't helpful then let me know and I'll stop posting.

[CCThrom]

Clearly your rendering ability is tremendous, and considering these are "just" studies they are truly awesome. There are a few spots where (IMO) you've really captured a great feeling of 3D... the hair at the top of the child's head, the nose and eyes of the bearded man, the cheekbones and mouth muscles of the Indian, The eyes of the Indian, the lit-side cheek and jaw of the Pope. Those areas to me are amazing.

I list these areas in particular, because I think panchosimpson is on to something as well... something that goes a bit beyond understanding of local planes and light and shadow. Partly the issue is that I can look at these and just know that they were drawn after photographs. You are so accurate that you have caught the weaknesses of the photographic medium as well as it's strengths.

1) the camera is not intelligent enough to compensate for the subtle distortion that happens in any photograph when 3D reality is flattened. The result is not evident in any particular area, but rather a general feeling that the image is just ever so slightly "off" no matter how accurate it is. The areas that I see this most are the shadowy areas and the edges... the child's closer cheek, the bearded man's forehead, and the shadow side of the Pope particularly around his ear.

2) cameras give you "depth of field" even at short range. Consider the blurryness of the child's ear or the bottom fringe of his hair vs his cheekbone and mouth... binocular human vision does not create a focus distinction on a distance that small. That's a dead giveaway that I'm looking at drawing-of-photo rather than drawing-of-person (not that you can't make a career out of drawing photographs... ie Chuck Close)

Keep in mind I'm not saying this as criticism per se, but rather as an indication of where you can go next if you're so inclined. You've clearly exhibited mastery over this particular area. Perhaps, for your next drawing (even if you still use a photograph to start) you could step away from the reference... rely more on your knowledge than the photo... don't worry if it's exactly the likeness or not... imagine that you are a sculptor, try to actually "feel" the face, the skull, etc as if you were modeling clay with your hands rather than making marks on paper. Remember though, this is just an expanding exercise... it's all up to you and if you don't like what happens, you don't have to do it again.

Best wishes in any event, you've really got some great skill!

[andymania]

Nah Pancho, Thank you so much for elaborating. You're NOT being a jerk. I was just a little confused. I thought after all these years I still cant make things look 3-d lol. I totally get it now.

CCThrom,

Thanks a million as well for the in depth info. I'll stop using the photos so literally. The depth of fell you mentioned never occured to me...lol. It seems like common sense know.

-Andy