Changing my approach to art

[FlameDragon]

My art has languished for quite a while, and I need a total overhaul of my approach to drawing. Do you think I should go and relearn the art concepts like perspective, anatomy, color theory, value, lighting, composition, etc from the very start? One thing in particular I've been seeking to improve is getting things to look 3-dimensional. I notice that when I do figure drawings and I do the shading that should add depth to that part of the figure, it ends up just looking like dark spot that doesnt contribute to conveying the 3-dimensionality of the form. Folds in clothing trip me up as well, I cant get it to look realistic. There has to be something I've been doing wrong if after all these years I'm still struggling. Many artists here and more famous ones have such a breathtaking style, I'm in awe at how realistic and/or evocative their works come out. I'm not aiming to emulate a style, but I want my drawings to exude some emotion as well and not feel so flat.

[Jushra]

Focus on what you are weak at. Quit drawing the familiar.

[armando]

There is no point in "starting over at the beginning", from what I can tell there is no beginning, an artist can start at or continue working on any one of the elements of picture making.
I gave a quick look through your sketchbook. Mostly what I saw was that you're doing contour drawings, which basically is the drawing of the surfaces of things as we sense them in space. I think the difficulty of drawing lies in figuring out how to draw what we see(how light appears to our eyes), what we sense(the objects, people, and things, that we interpret from the light we see), and what we feel(the emotions evoked from the visual elements we see, derived from our sense of balance, movement, and whatever else).

The trick to drawing realistically lies in organizing light and dark shapes, and then more or less blending those shapes into each other.

Here's a crop of a picture I tool from characterdesigns.com. Notice that the image is composed of surface areas of different value. Look at the image as a flat surface. The image consists of indeterminate fluctuations in value(lightness or darkness), however some fluctuations are close enough together that they can be considered the same value. It would be possible to do this image in just black and white, just consider everything from values 5.49999... and lower as white, and values 5.5 and higher as black.
381197

So I traced over the orignal picture, and started grouping value areas into shapes as I saw best. There is no right way to do this, all shape boundaries are indefinite to various degrees, you choose the value shapes based on your preference, what looks right. I was basically thinking "well this area is just mostly light gray, this area is mostly dark gray, this area is mostly darker gray."Also notice that the contours I used are just approximations, I didn't get the contour perfect because I wasn't interested in that, look at how I made the jaw-neck-trap-shouder-forearm basically just a curved line. I ignore the wobbles in the line, like I ignore the wobbles/fluctuations in the values. Value is line seen foreshortened.
381199

Then I filled in the shapes with an approximate flat value. The shapes have definite boundaries all around, like pieces of a puzzle. Put less clearly: all the "edges" are "hard".
381200

Then I look at picture and find the places where the boundaries of shapes are less definite, I look for "soft" "edges". The way the various shapes blend into one another is what gives the visual effect of form, little fluctuations of value is what gives the effect of real complex form. The more minute you make the fluctuations in value, the more you lose your shapes, you give up the design element of shape and so you give up that element's expressiveness.
381198

The main reason to turn "areas of value fluctuation" into shape is in order to be able to use them as pictorial elements, we can adjust those shapes into ones that give more of the impression of what we feel. We can make a shape more angular, more curved, we can make them droop, we can move them around, and it's the relationship of these various shapes that strike the viewer subconsciously. This is just one style of drawing.
A lot of beginner's think that if you can draw/render realistically then you can do anything else, but that's false because rendering only looks at minute fluctuations in value which is only one aspect of visual phenomena, in order to draw in any style you have to be aware of the visual cues that style uses, whether it strikes the sense of space, sense of shape, sense of movement, sense of balance, sense of pattern and rhythm, and the subtle impressions those things evoke in the mind.

[GNL]

My art has languished for quite a while, and I need a total overhaul of my approach to drawing. Do you think I should go and relearn the art concepts like perspective, anatomy, color theory, value, lighting, composition, etc from the very start? One thing in particular I've been seeking to improve is getting things to look 3-dimensional. I notice that when I do figure drawings and I do the shading that should add depth to that part of the figure, it ends up just looking like dark spot that doesnt contribute to conveying the 3-dimensionality of the form. Folds in clothing trip me up as well, I cant get it to look realistic. There has to be something I've been doing wrong if after all these years I'm still struggling. Many artists here and more famous ones have such a breathtaking style, I'm in awe at how realistic and/or evocative their works come out. I'm not aiming to emulate a style, but I want my drawings to exude some emotion as well and not feel so flat.

Perhaps you could take some classes at the GCA?

Start with a cast drawing class or something?

[FlameDragon]

There is no point in "starting over at the beginning", from what I can tell there is no beginning, an artist can start at or continue working on any one of the elements of picture making.
I gave a quick look through your sketchbook. Mostly what I saw was that you're doing contour drawings, which basically is the drawing of the surfaces of things as we sense them in space. I think the difficulty of drawing lies in figuring out how to draw what we see(how light appears to our eyes), what we sense(the objects, people, and things, that we interpret from the light we see), and what we feel(the emotions evoked from the visual elements we see, derived from our sense of balance, movement, and whatever else).

The trick to drawing realistically lies in organizing light and dark shapes, and then more or less blending those shapes into each other.

Here's a crop of a picture I tool from characterdesigns.com. Notice that the image is composed of surface areas of different value. Look at the image as a flat surface. The image consists of indeterminate fluctuations in value(lightness or darkness), however some fluctuations are close enough together that they can be considered the same value. It would be possible to do this image in just black and white, just consider everything from values 5.49999... and lower as white, and values 5.5 and higher as black.
381197

So I traced over the orignal picture, and started grouping value areas into shapes as I saw best. There is no right way to do this, all shape boundaries are indefinite to various degrees, you choose the value shapes based on your preference, what looks right. I was basically thinking "well this area is just mostly light gray, this area is mostly dark gray, this area is mostly darker gray."Also notice that the contours I used are just approximations, I didn't get the contour perfect because I wasn't interested in that, look at how I made the jaw-neck-trap-shouder-forearm basically just a curved line. I ignore the wobbles in the line, like I ignore the wobbles/fluctuations in the values. Value is line seen foreshortened.
381199

Then I filled in the shapes with an approximate flat value. The shapes have definite boundaries all around, like pieces of a puzzle. Put less clearly: all the "edges" are "hard".
381200

Then I look at picture and find the places where the boundaries of shapes are less definite, I look for "soft" "edges". The way the various shapes blend into one another is what gives the visual effect of form, little fluctuations of value is what gives the effect of real complex form. The more minute you make the fluctuations in value, the more you lose your shapes, you give up the design element of shape and so you give up that element's expressiveness.
381198

The main reason to turn "areas of value fluctuation" into shape is in order to be able to use them as pictorial elements, we can adjust those shapes into ones that give more of the impression of what we feel. We can make a shape more angular, more curved, we can make them droop, we can move them around, and it's the relationship of these various shapes that strike the viewer subconsciously. This is just one style of drawing.
A lot of beginner's think that if you can draw/render realistically then you can do anything else, but that's false because rendering only looks at minute fluctuations in value which is only one aspect of visual phenomena, in order to draw in any style you have to be aware of the visual cues that style uses, whether it strikes the sense of space, sense of shape, sense of movement, sense of balance, sense of pattern and rhythm, and the subtle impressions those things evoke in the mind.

Wow! Thanks very much, that way makes alot of sense. So do you think I should practice this with photographs or cast-drawings with clear-cut values like that? Also, what about when the value fluctuations are very minute?

[armando]

It's fastest to learn it by tracing over a photo like I did, that way you don't have to worry about drawing, only dividing up spaces. The idea is that you get the obvious stuff first, then take care of the subtle stuff later. If the value fluctuations are very minute then you just ignore them in the beginning, or put in an approximate gradation, then correct it later. It's possible for edges to be so subtle that there is no perceptible shape, but just a vague general area of similar value.
You can try it on this picture. Don't look at it as legs, but instead as a flat surface composed of shapes of different values. Post your steps, then I'll know if you get the idea.

[Brendan Draney]

Hey Flamedragon -


With regard do going back to the beginning - Armando is right. There is no beginning and no end for that matter. If by the brginning you mean basic fundamentals, then yes. I study in LA with Glenn Vilppu at the animation guild. Glenn is a master draughtsman and he goes deep into the fundamentals every time he draws. I looked at some of your stuff and the problem you are having is that you are copying. To model the form you have to undertand the form. Is it a sphere more or less or a box or a cylinder ? These are the questions you need to ask. What direction is that arm going in? etc. Tone and shading can give the illusion of form but only if the form is understood.

If I were you, I'd pick up a copy of Glenn's drawing manual. Check out his website. I think it's Vilppustudio.com. Read it. Practice the exercies. It seems so simple and most people bypass it all thinking they know the simple stuff already. The secret you are looking for lies in the basic fundamentals you see in lots of how to draw books. So in the end, YES ! Go back to the beginning. I do everyday.

[Chris Bennett]

Armando: That is a wonderful, wonderful post! Not only because you state the things you do so accurately and have taken the time to give well thought out and lucid examples but because you also point out what is said in the following paragraph:

A lot of beginner's think that if you can draw/render realistically then you can do anything else, but that's false because rendering only looks at minute fluctuations in value which is only one aspect of visual phenomena, in order to draw in any style you have to be aware of the visual cues that style uses, whether it strikes the sense of space, sense of shape, sense of movement, sense of balance, sense of pattern and rhythm, and the subtle impressions those things evoke in the mind.

The beautiful thing about all this is that you do not 'mystify' things but you do not make out that things are cut and dried either. You have been simple and straightforward without being simplistic.
Thank you once again for a marvelous post!

[Jasonwclark]

Ditch the H pencils (or if you do use them, make sure you use them last.) I think that's probably the best advice I could give based on my own experience.

Somebody once told me to start out light and then slowly build up the values, changing out pencils if need be to create a full range. I used to sketch everything with a 2H, H, or HB pencil at first, cautiously moving from hard to soft and light to dark. Big mistake there, that I'm still having trouble correcting. The harder H pencils are totally unforgiving with the eraser and don't play very well with pencils in the B range. Its easy to go from soft to hard (dark to light) but not so much the other way round.

I've heard others suggest, 'the softer better', but I'm not so sure about that either, since it depends a lot on how large you're drawing. If its a big picture you'll probably be fine, but for the smaller drawings anything softer than 2B starts to get really messy. After a lot of experimenting and messing around I now like to begin the sketching with a B pencil, then move into the 2B-4B range for rendering the darker parts, and save the harder H or 2H pencils for last.

[FlameDragon]

Hey Flamedragon -


With regard do going back to the beginning - Armando is right. There is no beginning and no end for that matter. If by the brginning you mean basic fundamentals, then yes. I study in LA with Glenn Vilppu at the animation guild. Glenn is a master draughtsman and he goes deep into the fundamentals every time he draws. I looked at some of your stuff and the problem you are having is that you are copying. To model the form you have to undertand the form. Is it a sphere more or less or a box or a cylinder ? These are the questions you need to ask. What direction is that arm going in? etc. Tone and shading can give the illusion of form but only if the form is understood.

If I were you, I'd pick up a copy of Glenn's drawing manual. Check out his website. I think it's Vilppustudio.com. Read it. Practice the exercies. It seems so simple and most people bypass it all thinking they know the simple stuff already. The secret you are looking for lies in the basic fundamentals you see in lots of how to draw books. So in the end, YES ! Go back to the beginning. I do everyday.

You get to study with him?? Wow you're lucky! One of the problems I have is with gestures, what has he said about it? I do have his figure drawing manual and I love it, havent used it like page by page though. I agree that with my drawings I merely seem to be copying the form rather than interpreting it. I've never been a creative guy, all my life I've needed examples before I could attempt something. I borrowed a few books from the library so I'm going to go through perspective with the basic shapes, then/concurrently employing Vilpuu's manual, and then I'll try studying the actual anatomy like the bones and muscles.

[FlameDragon]

Here's my attempt. The last step came out pretty ugly compared to your last step.

389053

389058

389059

[Blackhawk]

Flamedragon, simplify it more.

Right now your lights and your darks are a mess of shapes, especially the darks on the back leg. If you were to squint down, you'd see it's one major shape, and doesn't have the individual pieces in the shadow like you are trying to represent. Especially for the little bit of bounce light on the back of the leg, it's never as bright as it looks, it's always pretty much the same value as the shadow itself.

Also, simplify your values and keep a range of values in mind. Right now the lights for you front leg are too similar to the values on the shadow on the back leg. You need to establish where your darkest dark and lightest light are going to be and everything needs to relatively work within that range of values for the drawing to work. Pay attention to these things as you're doing studies and it'll begin to click. Keep squinting to check the value relationships, make sure everything is as dark and as light as it's supposed to be compared to your established darks and lights and simplify those shapes.

Good start, now just bring it under control.

[NoSeRider]

http://www.dhfa.net/Artiststatement2.html

I think art is a procedure, and many art instructors don't teach procedure. Usually they just show you something that you're in awe of, but don't show you how to demystify the construction.

[panchosimpson]

Flamedragon, Armando suggests a very sensible method of drawing, which is seeing in terms of shape. The problem is that with this approach you're copying flat patterns and basically thinking two dimensionally. If you do this too much, you run the risk of not thinking about the form itself, and just copying what you see. Then, you're model-bound. "Shading" isn't some kind of magic formula to get volume and solidity into your figures, you need to learn to create volume through line alone, through careful study of overlaps and simple forms, then when you add value it will strengthen an already solid impression of form.

I studied alongside Brendan and fully agree with his advice, get the Vilppu book and get to work. His method is admirably suited to the study of movement, form and anatomy, and eventually drawing from the imagination. Yes, learn perspective as you mentioned before and learn anatomy, these two are the pillars that representational art rests on. Also, walk before you run, before you master the aforementioned principles, don't concern yourself with color or drapery or even emotion (it will take most of us decades to obtain the spiritual in art), pick your battles first, and the more advanced things will become easier for you over time.

-Ramon

[Brendan Draney]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you about your question concerning gestures. What Glenn says about gesture is that it is the single most important element in drawing. There are so many elements that make up a good drawing but if the initial gesture is missed all the rendering in the world won't save it. Those overly simplistic blocked in tonal things are just shapes and lines on a page. If you do a quick gesture of the model or a person or animal from life, or even from a photo for that matter, the viewer should be able to look at it and tell what's going on. "oh that dude's walking or running, that dog is sniffing the tree" etc. What's the story? I think that's it in a nutshell. Let me know if you have any more questions.

[FlameDragon]

Thanks, I'm just having trouble doing the gestures for some reason. Whether at life drawing or sketching people outside, I immediately start off with the contour even though I'm trying not to. A person I talk to on gamefaqs had tried to help me too, to think of the body in terms of shapes, his gestures seem to come out so good:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_O5O63wyw46c/R9dFhLXAxZI/AAAAAAAAAJI/ISpCnHodddI/s1600-h/fIG_0104.jpg
http://bp0.blogger.com/_O5O63wyw46c/R9dFh7XAxbI/AAAAAAAAAJY/wVRSJ9Jj-uY/s1600-h/fIG_0106.jpg
http://bp1.blogger.com/_O5O63wyw46c/Rrw-Kw-cP5I/AAAAAAAAADk/d6gm2oDDb-8/s1600-h/fig124.jpg

I still havent been able to execute my figure drawings/gestures in that sense though. So I'll have to try drawing the basic shapes alot and get a good grip on it before I return to gestures.

[panchosimpson]

do gesture first, you won't get better at it unless you do it, and why not start now? If you catch yourself starting with the contour, then stop, and consider the long axis of the form you're drawing....for an arm going up, just draw a line going up, no need to indicate the triceps, biceps and deltoid just yet. Once you get past gesture think of form, not shape. Shape is 2d, like a square, form is 3d like a cube. That guy on gamefaqs is ok, but his figures read flat because he's not considering the form as much as he could be. Remember, form not shape (for now, you'll need to study shape too for placement later on). Also, don't stress if your gestures aren't perfect, it's actually one of the hardest parts of drawing and takes a lifetime to master, it's generally harder than rendering the hell out of something.

With this approach you arrive at the final contour by building from the inside, it's a byproduct of construction.

[FlameDragon]

Thank you very much! I have alot of work to do on this then. I can't believe I didnt really think about these things in much of the previous years I was drawing. When I was younger, I used to buy tons of "How to Draw" books, and even though they didnt use the word "gesture", they tried to convey that as the method for building the figure. I couldn't get it and just tried to outright draw the finished products. I didnt really study perspective or lighting or any of those things either. Well now's the time.

[armando]

Line and shape are types of form. A line is a form with one dominant dimension and two negligible dimensions, a shape is a form with two appreciable dimensions and one neglibile one, a form has all three dimensions to an appreciable degree. A line is like a pathway that moves in it's dominant dimension, a shape expands across it's surface pushing out along it's convex contours, the acute angles have the most stress they point like arrows, a form expands through space.
Drawing is the exploitation of the way the brain interprets visual informantion. In the method I'm showing the focus is on three visual elements: visual field, shape, and the sense of dark and light.

Visual field: Is the indeterminate area that we see with our eyes, the entire image that covers what our two eyes can see. The picture plane represents the visual field, it's flat, just like the image that each of our eyes recieve.

Light and dark: areas of a certain value that fill up the visual field.

Shape: The sense of areas being occupied within the visual field.

Try this exercise to get this concept: Print out the picture, and cut out the light and dark shapes.
389418
389419
389420

An important thing to mention here is that the technical method of drawing isn't as important as knowing what elements you're working with. I did a drawing where I divided space with line, I did a drawing where I filled space with value, either way what I was doing was calling attention to surface area, exploiting our sense of shape: either surface area contained within line, or surface area filled with value. Cutting the shapes out with scissors is the same thing as dividing them with line. I can also exploit those 3 elements with other techniques, I could fill space with random objects:
389424

Once you know what you're elements are you can present them any way you want.
389421
389422
389423
Everything has gesture. Even a square, it's gesture is that it's austere, it resists the pull of gravity it doesn't slouch, it has discipline. A gesture drawing is not the first step in a drawing, everything you draw has gesture, everything you see has gesture, everything you do has gesture. What's important is that you use the appropriate gesture, don't send mixed signals. Gesture is just a generic term to describe the character of something, dictionary definitionof "character": "the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing". What people usually call gesture drawing is the use of two types of linear organization: branching and spiraling.

Branching: is epitomized by plants, but you also see it in veins, and most importantly our limbs. Plants reach towards the sun, veins carry blood, the gesture is an expression of life.

Spiraling: Can be seen or experienced in several places: galaxies, mating animals, tornadoes, gears, spin around and you'll get dizzy, swing your arms with force and the blood rushes into your finger tips. The gesture is creation, action, force, vertigo. Which of those feelings dominates depends on how you use it.
389425
If you organize your lines that way, your drawing will have those characteristics. If you organize your drawing with squares, you're drawing will have it's character. If you make art with rubber bands, they're character will come into play.

These books have useful info:
http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Intelligence-How-Create-What/dp/0393319679/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213240378&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Abstraction-Nature-Nathan-Cabot-Hale/dp/0486274829/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213240348&sr=1-4

[rjoannah]

You made Great!!!

"An artist needs to take many tiny baby steps to achieve and maintain quality and continuity."

_________________________________
...............i like to travel...................

[panchosimpson]

gesture is the character of things and the most important element in drawing, it's also the first step (yes it is the first step)...however, everything you add in your drawing should strengthen the gesture, even light and shadow....drawing is communication and to that end, gesture tells the bulk of the story....if your drawing were a sentence, then gesture is the verb, form, anatomy, rendering are nouns and adjectives....they describe to the viewer the who and the how of the story (gesture takes care of the what).

So approximate the gesture in the beginning, and continually refine it as you work on other things. Above all, don't get discouraged Flamedragon, this is all VERY learn-able and you obviously have the desire :) I thought you might find this useful.....look at how simply he starts his drawing and how he works all over. At every stage there is a finished statement, it's procedural, he does one pass, the another on top gradually adjusting and refining.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/panchosimpson/no8902c_207.jpg
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/panchosimpson/no8903c_186.jpg
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/panchosimpson/no8904c_622.jpg

[armando]

gesture is the character of things and the most important element in drawing, it's also the first step (yes it is the first step)

I don't think it's possible to seperate form and function, for that reason I believe that gesture drawing isn't just something that's done at the beginning of a drawing, but that it's done for the entire drawing. Line doesn't have a monopoly on gesture.

I agree that drawing is communication. The question is,"How does it communicate?". The answer I have is: through the exploitation of visual perception.
Starting at illustration 2, I can see that he's using spiral forms, branching forms, cross contours to manipulate our sense of spatial orientation, unified curved lines (( to enclose volume, using linear direction to get movement, in the legs: the left leg bends to the right, the right leg seems to move upward because the straight line of the lower leg seems to carry it's momentum up into the curved line of the thigh, tipping body parts with implied diagonal lines to manipulate our sense of gravity.
As the drawing progresses planes are used to manipulate our sense of spatial orientation. I don't agree with the concept of the "box form" as elementary. It can be explained by the sense of spatial orientation, which can be sensed even with the eyes closed. Planes are a way to indicate the orientation of an object, they are a generalization of the overall direction of a bumpy surface, the face being a good example, the object is not composed of planes. We sense the direction of a surface first, and then we have the choice of representing it with a plane, we could also use an arrow, or a finger.
As the drawing progresses further he makes the gestures of shapes match the gesture of the initial lines: in the initial sketch the line of the thorax or back is bending to the right ) because of the pull of gravity, this is emphasized in the shape by flattening the seat, and adding a dark line to emphasize weight. Gravity is further emphasized by various 'U' lines throughout the picture, yeilding to it's pull, they can be found in the breasts, face, neck, and stomach.

[Art_Addict]

Armando : Great post.

I believe that gesture drawing isn't just something that's done at the beginning of a drawing, but that it's done for the entire drawing.

Ramon, that's the pathway idea right there :) Although I do agree with you that it's the first thing to do in figure drawing at least. ( let's be careful with that btw, when drawing inorganic objects, like architecture for example, blocking-in, relating tilts, angles, measuring distances are the prime factor, a way of composing your page where the gesture of the object itself, imo isn't there ). Could you elaborate on that a bit more armando? What exactly do you mean with the gesture of a cube?

But yes, gesture is the primary goal. Your starting point, if you will. Through gesture, the model is represented as a flowing movement through space, alive and full of energy. It captures nature and therefore is the most important step. It should be fluid and weaving through the body. Other steps like block-inn are not exactly inferior as a drawing stage or in terms of time spent on it, but they relate more to the page, whereas the gesture relates more to the model. Think of it like a river inside the body, flamedragon.
The body is very organized , nothing is random. And the gesture acts as it's emotional source. The expression of intention!
It's important to realize that the body moves as 1 whole! Very fluid and very quickly. So one should be careful with obstructions in your drawing. Geometric forms imho ( sorry Ramon :) ) are very tricky because of their nature, their inorganic shape can block the continuity of the body.
The gesture is something you should always come back to because it directs the physical arrangement of form.

[panchosimpson]

Armando: I agree with you that gesture has to be worked on continually in the drawing, however it IS possible to lay it in first, or at least an approximation of it. I think you're intellectualizing the process a bit much, what you say works in theory, but you have to start the gesture at some point. The aim of this thread is to help Flamedragon in drawing, and offer practical suggestions to that end.

Tom: you know what? I think we've found common ground, I'll elaborate more personally, but Glenn pushes the idea of the river all the time. The way one of Glenn's students explained it in a demo is that you do the gesture and your figure has life at that point, then you add the geometric forms/structure and you lose some life because your figure becomes more rigid. However, as you make the forms conform more and more to the actual anatomy (as Glenn does here), you think of the river for the contours, etc, and revitalizing the drawing, like you and Armando said. I fully agree with the idea of the gesture going through the body like a river, hell I heard Vilppu say that in class till he was blue in the face :) Also like you said about the inorganic nature of simple forms (particularly boxes I assume)....Glenn and my other teacher Will continually say that the forms aren't rigid, they're to be conceived as "ovoid" versions of themselves, i.e. instead of a "box" per se, think of a soap bar, which is slightly rounded.

So, Flamedragon, it's the river! :)

[dose]

Start with the shape and arrive at the form, or start with the form and arrive at the shape?

[armando]

"flowing movement through space, alive and full of energy... like a river inside the body"

That is a type of gesture, a specific type of linear movement and organization, branching line. But don't sick things have gesture too, dying things, and also non-organic things? Linear movement can also look sick, dying, or precise and austere, mechanical.Gesture/character isn't limited to linear movement, but applies to other visual elements and their relatioships as well.

In that style the drawing is started with certain linear arrangements, then angular shapes are added which have a different character than those curving lines. Adding the shapes doesn't diminish gesture, but changes the quality. Reese's peanut butter cups mix chocolate and peanut butter, neither diminish the other's flavor but combine into a new one.
A vertical line has the character of rigidity and strength, it isn't bowed by the force of gravity, it has a definite upward movement. The sensation of vertical is derived from our sense of gravity and balance, the line derives it's character by being related to these internal feelings.

A line seems to move along it's length.
390203
Clarifying the upward movement, by starting and ending with a dot.
390204

390205

The line also derives movement from it's placement in the picture plane. This seems to move down.
390206

If I add two other lines to the vertical line, a different sensation results. I'm no longer interested in that linear form itself, but now the space enclosed by the three lines, which now points in a new direction, and seems to be off balance, unlike the vertical line which had perfect balance.
390207

1. We see a flat visual space, a surface area filled with visual elements.
2. We sense space, and things, by interpretation of that flat data.
3. We feel in response to the character of the flat visual data, and the things it represents.


"the forms aren't rigid, they're to be conceived as "ovoid" versions of themselves, i.e. instead of a "box" per se, think of a soap bar, which is slightly rounded."

That's where I disagree. The actual forms should be taken for what they are, the use of planes, and simplified rounded surfaces, are to be used only to quickly indicate the orientation of the actual form, it's front, sides, back, top, and bottom. Complex forms aren't made out of simple forms, simple forms are derived from our sense of spatial orientation, they function only to point in the general direction of the actual surface.
Surface orientation also communicates gesture/character/feeling/vibe. If someone faces away when you're talking to them, they don't feel like talking to you, they're aloof, shy, or jerks or something else, if someone is facing you square and looking you in the eyes, then you've got their interest, they're open, friendly, or they want you money or whatever else.

These books have more info on linear movement, and the dynamics of the picture plane:
http://www.amazon.com/design-Expression-Visual-Arts-Taylor/dp/B0000CMGPE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213317678&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Visual-Perception-Psychology-Creative/dp/0520243838/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1213317536&sr=1-1

[panchosimpson]

Start with the shape and arrive at the form, or start with the form and arrive at the shape?

Hey Tim, nice to see you in here. It's the 2nd one, start with the form and arrive at the shape (although the shape should be loosely considered while drawing the form)

Complex forms aren't made out of simple forms, simple forms are derived from our sense of spatial orientation, they function only to point in the general direction of the actual surface.


You ever play with Legos as a kid?

I don't mean to sound rude, but I don't think this pseudo-philosophical talk relates to the actual practice of drawing, which is the point of this thread....i.e. helping Flamedragon draw better.

[armando]

In addition to legos, I also played with play dough, silly puddy, erector sets, and Lincoln Logs. Those are all types of material used to build a representation of a real object, matching it's form and proportion, while ignoring things like color, texture, and all the other qualities of the real thing. When we draw(traditional), we apply some medium to a flat surface, matching the visual qualities of the thing we see. We ignore the stuff that the medium can't represent.

What I want to know is how we interpret what we see, so that I can manipulate those variables in a drawing, I can choose to use some and ignore others. The way visual elements are placed together effects how we interpret them. That's what I was tryin to show with the vertical line, and then the two lines placed next to it, I was likening that to "The way one of Glenn's students explained it in a demo is that you do the gesture and your figure has life at that point, then you add the geometric forms/structure and you lose some life because your figure becomes more rigid." Both the lines, and the shapes have gesture/character, just a different quality. The demonstration also showed how shapes can have an implied linear direction.

This, I think, is a good example: Two figures built with the same shapes, but the orientation of the shapes changes the gender. Again it's the same concept.
390415

Everything I've said so far has practical application. For example the thing about "the location of an element in the picture plane changes the character", that also applies to smaller shapes. A face is a shape, and the location of the features within it changes the character, with predictable results: if the mouth is placed far beneath the nose, the face takes on a stupid look, like a monkey.

These are usually called optical illusions, but what they really are are demonstrations of isolated rules of visual perception. The way elements are organized, changes the way they are percieved. A cube is the arrangement of three distorted rectangles.
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/2996/advancesnakestrongru5.gif

Stare at the center, move your head forward and back, and the circles seem to spin.
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/6731/bluerotationaldw3.gif

[Jasonwclark]

*edited for a ridiculous profusion of spelling and grammatical errors. Hopefully I sound less like a driveling idiot now.*



I'm sure other's here could lend more insight, but I was bored last night and had an hour to kill, so I thought I’d give Armando’s image a try. My girlfriend was asleep on the couch next to me, so the lighting is a little shitty on some of these early ones, but I think I got enough to cover the general idea. I had to keep reminding myself to pause and take a picture. :) I work a lot with photographs, and master studies and the like, in my own drawings, so this is something I'm used to doing.

If I was going to work with an image like this (one that I didn't photograph myself I mean) I’d try to keep a couple things in mind at the outset. First I’d try to learn something about the person who originally created it, and see if I could pick up any interesting background information. If the piece has a title, or associated idea, maybe it picks up additional significance which could be valuable later on. Basically the more you put into the research at the beginning, the more you get out of the drawing process in the end. I have this little ritual where I like to say the names and titles aloud (if I can pronounce them) and then pretend that I’m somehow absorbing their power Highlander-style. But everyone has a different approach to starting a new drawing, so whatever works for you to get it up, just go with that. The second thing to keep in mind is that this is just a study. Nobody’s going to pay you a million dollars for it, or point at you and laugh if you fuck up, so try not to put too much pressure on yourself. Also, good music helps (no radio or TV), so put on the headphones if you have them.

My suggestion would be not to trace at this point. You’ll learn more from drawing, and it’s not as hard as it seems to transfer the image using the old school techniques. Later you can toy around with transfer paper or projection methods, but first try it this way.

Start with 2 boundary lines in an L shape: one horizontal, one vertical. These are your starting guidelines and will help you to make your basic measurements (you can use more if you want, but you'll want at least two lines.) I usually use a B or 2B pencil at this point and try to make these marks as light as possible, but I made them a little darker here so they'd show up. I prefer B to H, because it doesn’t dent the paper as much, and lifts up easier with the eraser. You can try to copy the dimensions of your reference exactly, but it’s easier for rescaling later if you make the guidelines using a simple ratio (3x4, 4x6, round up to the half inch, or do whatever you need too so its not too tricky to work with.) First I’ll draw the roughly 1:1 version, then a larger one and a smaller one based on that.

390942

To do a reasonably accurate transfer you need at least three reference points. Depending on how detailed your image is and how dramatic the rescaling, you might end up using as many as 20 or more. Basically the more time you spend measuring at the outset, the less time you’ll have to spend correcting things later on, and the more accurate your reproduction will be. Eventually, the idea is to get good enough that you can just see these reference points in your head, and eyeball everything, but that takes a lot of practice. Even the best artists sometimes fire off a dud, so don’t feel bad if you can’t go from sketchy to masterwork overnight. Everyone has to start somewhere right?

There are couple different ways to take your initial measurements. You can use a piece of string, or fold the reference image in half/quarters for example. You can also use a ruler, a compass, or the length of your pencil to quickly grab the measurements. I usually prefer a triangle and compass, but all you really need is a straight edge and your thumb.

390943

Basically, the idea is to pick three points on the source image (Alpha, Beta and Gamma) to use like anchors, and then build up the other reference points relative to those three. Since I’m not all that invested in the image, and its relatively simple, I just used 10 here, but a more complex image can require several more points.

390944

First I used the compass to transfer the image at the original scale, and then drew the basic cartoon with a B pencil.

390945

Then based on that copy, I used the pencil and thumb technique to enlarge it, and the ruler to reduce it (reduction is a little less forgiving so I always like to use the ruler for that.)

390946

390947

Once you have the basic image in place, you’ll want to remove your guidelines and reference points with a clean eraser. It’s better to do this sooner rather than later, before you start lying down a bunch of graphite.

390948

Now that the guide marks are removed, you can start to up build the values. There a lot of different ways to do this, with squigglies, or hatching, or by varying the pressure of the marks, but basically you want to create a scale somewhere between 5 and 10 of different values. I try to start with the darks first and use a b pencil initially, I don’t know if that’s traditional or not, but I find that it helps to get a sense of what I’m working with.

390949

I go for the darkest areas first and push them to maybe 80% (you want to save that little bit in case you need to make adjustments), then try to find the midrange and give a suggestion of what that might look like. I use the white of the page for the highlight, so I try to preserve the lighter areas, until I can finish the off the darks.

I try to resist the urge to go too dark too quickly (because its difficult to go back once you go black). At the same time though, you also have to remember that the darker you go at the outset the less work you have to do ‘darkening things’ later.

Here I started to render the larger scale imaging using the B pencil

More rendering, and a little more, and then at this point I have to pause and think about it. Is this going to be dark enough? Do I want my drawing to be more stylized, or like the photo looking, or somewhere in between maybe like a Loomis drawing? Are there any elements that could be exaggerated for effect, or toned down for something more subtle? What might Archimbaldus do with it, or Picasso? Does it look weird? Not weird enough?
Then I remember what I’m doing, and try to start drawing again instead of just thinking about it.

390951

Just to show the difference, I started to render the original-scale image with a softer pencil (2b). You can see it goes pretty dark, pretty quickly, without much effort on my part and makes all that work I did with the B pencil on the right seems a bit rough by comparison. So I’m thinking maybe I need to go back and use the 2b, maybe even 3b, on the enlarged version (I can already feel myself sweating.)

390952

Much like yourself, I used to like the H pencil best of all. It reminded me the most of the trusty number 2 from my elementary school days. Hard, easy to keep sharp, dependable, good old H right? Well, the problem with starting with an H pencil is that you can’t get your darkest darks where they need to be. Even with a lot of pressure or really close hatching, you’re going to be hard pressed to produce a convincing black. And if you try to get it there with H first, and then try to go back over it with something softer (B or B2) you going to start to see a lot of ‘spotting’ and rough transition areas. You can do the opposite though, if you have your darks already done in B, and then do your lights or detailing in H things look a little cleaner.

390953

From here on out, it’s just a matter of how much time you want to dedicate. I could keep working on this for a few more hours or a few more days. It just depends on what you want to do with it. I have to drive to Sacramento tonight, so I can only give it the once over, but you could conceivably go through this process two or three times until you’re happy with the result. Looking back at it now, I can see that her toe is way too long, and some of my measurements were a little off, but that shouldn't be too difficult to correct. In my view, once you've gone through the trouble of taking it this far, you can then transfer the image again however you want. Presumably, having gone through the excercise, you should be able to draw something similar from memory now. I'll try that when I get back on monday.

[FlameDragon]

I'm sure other's here could lend more insight, but I was bored last night and had an hour to kill, so I thought I’d give Armando’s image a try. My girlfriend was asleep on the couch next to me, so the lighting is a little shitty on some of these early ones, but I think I got enough to cover the general the idea. I had to keep reminding myself to pause and take a picture. :) I work a lot with photographs, and master studies and the like, in my own drawings, so this is something used to doing.

If I was going to work with an image like this (one that I didn't photograph myself I mean) I’d try to keep a couple things in mind at the outset. First I’d try to learn something about the person who originally created it, and see if I could pick up any interesting background information. If the piece has a title, or associated idea, maybe it picks up additional significance which could be valuable later on. Basically the more you put into the research at the beginning, the more you get out of the drawing process in the end. I have this little ritual where I like to say the names and titles aloud (if I can pronounce them) and then pretend that I’m somehow absorbing their power Highlander style. But everyone has a different approach to starting a new drawing, so whatever works for you to get it up, just go with that. The second thing to keep in mind is that this is just a study. Nobody’s going to pay you a million dollars for it, or point and you and laugh if you fuck up, so try not to put too much pressure on yourself. Also, good music helps (no radio or TV), so put on the headphones if you have them.

My suggestion would be not to trace at this point. You’ll learn more from drawing the image, and it’s not as hard as it seems to transferring the image using the old school techniques. Later you can toy around transfer paper or projection methods, but first try it this way.

Start with 2 boundary lines in an L shape: one horizontal, one vertical. These are your starting guidelines and will help you to make your basic measurements. I usually use a B or 2B pencil at this point and try to make these marks as light as possible (I prefer B to H, because it doesn’t dent the paper as much, and lifts up easier with the eraser.)
You can try to copy the dimensions of your reference exactly, but it’s easier for rescaling if you make the guidelines using a simple ratio (3x4, 4x6, round up to the half inch, or do whatever you need too so its not too tricky to work. First I’ll draw the roughly 1:1 version, then a larger one and a smaller one based on that.

390942

To do a reasonably accurate transfer you need at least three reference points. Depending on how detailed your image is and how dramatic the rescaling, you might end up using as many as 20 or more. Basically the more time you spend measuring at the outset, the less time you’ll have to spend correcting things later on, and the more accurate your reproduction will be. Eventually, the idea is to get good enough that you can just see these reference points in your head, and eyeball everything, but that takes a lot of practice. Even the best artists sometimes fire off a dud, so don’t feel bad if you can’t go from sketchy to masterwork overnight. Everyone has to start somewhere right?

There are couple different ways to take your initial measurements. You can use a piece of string, or fold the reference image in half/quarters for example. You can also use a ruler, a compass, or the length of your pencil to quickly grab the measurements. I usually prefer a triangle and compass, but all you really need is a straight edge and your thumb.

390943

Basically, the idea is to pick three points on the source image (Alpha, Beta and Gamma) to use like anchors, and then build up the other reference points relative to those three. Since I’m not all that invested in the image, and its relatively simple, I just used 10 here but a more complex image can require several more.

390944

First I used the compass to transfer the image at the original scale, and then drew the basic cartoon with a B pencil.

390945

Then based on that copy, I used the pencil and thumb technique to enlarge it, and the ruler to reduce it (reduction is a little less forgiving so I always like to use the ruler for that.)

390946

390947

Once you have the basic image in place, you’ll want to remove your guidelines and reference points with a clean eraser. It’s better to do this sooner rather than later, before you start lying down and bunch of graphite.

390948

Now that the guide marks are removed, you can start to up build the values. There a lot of different ways to do this, with squigglies, or hatching, or by varying the pressure of the marks, but basically you want to create a scale somewhere between 5 and 10 of different values. I try to start with the darks first and use a b pencil initially, I don’t know if that’s traditional or not, but I find that it helps to get a sense of what I’m working with.

390949

I go for the darkest areas first and push them to maybe 80% (you want to save that little bit in case you need to make adjustments), then try to find the midrange and give a suggestion of what that might look like. I use the white of the page for the highlight, so I try to preserve the lighter areas, until I can finish the off the darks.

I try to resist the urge to go too dark too quickly though (because its difficult to go back once you black). At the same time though, you also have to remember that the darker you go at the outset the less work you have to do ‘darkening things’ later.

Here I started to render the larger scale imaging using the B pencil

More rendering, and a little more, and then at this point I have to pause and think about it. Is this going to be dark enough? Do I want my drawing to be more stylized, or like the photo looking, or somewhere in between maybe like a Loomis drawing? Are there any elements that could be exaggerated for effect, or toned down for more subtle? What might Archimbaldus do with it, or Picasso? Does it look weird? Not weird enough?
Then I remember what I’m doing, and try to start drawing again instead of just thinking about it.

390951

Just to show the difference, I started to render the original scale image starting with a softer pencil (2b). You can see it goes pretty dark, pretty quickly, without much effort on my part and makes all that work I did with the B pencil on the right seem rough be comparison. So I’m thinking maybe I need to go back and use the 2b maybe even 3b on the enlarged version (I can already feel myself sweating.)

390952

Much like yourself, I used to like the H pencil best of all. It reminded me the most, of the trusty number 2 from my elementary school. Hard, easy to keep sharp, dependable, good old H right? Well, the problem with starting with an H pencil is that you can’t get to your darkest darks where they need to be. Even with a lot of pressure or really close hashing, you’re going to be hard pressed to produce a convincing black. And if you try to get it there with H first, and then try to go back over it with something softer (B or B2) you going to start to see a lot of ‘spotting’ and rough transition areas. You can do the opposite though, if you have your darks already done in B, and then do your lights or detailing in H things look a little cleaner.

390953

From here on out, it’s just a matter of how much time you want to dedicate. I could keep working on this for a few more hours or a few more days depending on what you want to do with it. I have to drive to Sacramento tonight, so I can only give it the once over, but you conceivably go through this process two or three times until you’re happy with the result. Looking back at it now, I can see that her toe is way too long, but that shouldn't be too difficult to correct. In my view, once you've gone through the trouble of taking it this far, you can then transfer the image again however you want. Presumably having go through the excercise you should be able to draw something similar from memory now. I'll try that when I get back on monday.

Your rendition of it came out so well! Yeah I realized the pitfalls of the H lead and so I mainly sketch in HB now. I'm even flirting with 2B but that breaks apart too quickly for my tastes.

[stephen]

armandos methods are also excellent examples of graphic design, it helps in not only drawing great solid figures, but also in the long run when you start composing and design, his examples all come into play.

[armando]

Stephen: I don't think it's possible to seperate them. I don't understand why design and composition aren't taught simultaneously with drawing, it doesn't make sense to me since they're the same thing from what I can tell. I only recently started learning about this stuff, but it would have been great help when I first started to actually know the reason behind the marks, would have learned way faster.


I was thinking about this today, figured I might as well post it in here. Just some thoughts, I tried to be as clear as possible, wondering what other folks might have to say about it. Disagreeing with Loomis's functions of line.

I started a discussion about this here: http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1805522#post1805522

Line is usually taught as a visual element, but it is a property derived from our sense of arrangement, grouping, movement, and surface area. Line is the movement of our eyes along a path. It is that movement which is line, not the particular stimulus that causes it. We sense line by grouping similar elements, and then following that group along it's linear arrangement. Line is grouped by similar value, shape, or implied by eyes or other pointing devices, or movement along the meeting of two values(edge). Emotion is experienced through eye movement: when we are relaxed our gaze follows an easy path, when scared our eyes dart back and forth, when angry or determined they're straight ahead they follow a straight path, and other variations and qualities. The same effects happen to our bodies, eyes are body parts too.

When a certain amount of visual space is occupied, the eye has appreciable movement in two dimensions, the movement is no longer in one direction but several(there are some rules that govern the directions, but the eyes still can move any which way). This is shape, the sense of space occupied in two dimensions.
Line cannot and does not have the property of shape, line is eye movement, shape is the area sensed through that eye movement.
Line doesn't create a tone(Line is only movement. It has no value, or color), but values grouped into shapes that have dominant linear paths can occupy space, unidirectional value shapes. What are usually called lines are unidirectional value shapes, their second dimension is so small that it's ignored, all Loomis's examples can be classified as that.

A shape has perimeter, a boundary that encloses and defines it, a shape expands across it's dimensions. Shape can be defined by value, but a shape is not the value, shape is only the area sensed. If an area is occupied by one value it groups strongly into a definite shape with a definite boundary(hard edge), if an area is occupied by several values they group weakly (because they're different) into an indefinite shape with an indefinite boundary(soft edge).

All seven are wrong because line is eye movement and so has no value or color.
This list of from Loomis's Creative Illustration, called the seven functions of line.
1. This is incomplete. A line isn't only beautiful, but can have other qualities, all derived from eye movement.
2. In this example shape is visible by value contrast. White is enclosed by value shapes with linear properties.
3. Value shape with linear properties/dominant path/unidirectional value shape.
4. Edge is the meeting of two different values, the eye can move along the edge but the movement has no color.
5. The arrangement of visual elements stimulates eye movement, not the other way around.
6. Line is movement not value/light. Those are values grouped into shapes with a dominant path, and then grouped together into a larger shape because of their similarity.
7. The design and arrangment cause eye movement, not the other way around.