Paying attention to the mass of an object

[scottmcd]

Hi all,

I received the following comments about a drawing I did recently, and I'm wondering if anyone can help me better understand what he's saying.

My friend's comments:
"This piece would have been 4 times easier and more effective (and less painful) had you worked on a midtone paper, using lighter and darker Prismacolor pencils.

...

"You're so busy trying to tone the ghastly white paper (note that pure white areas are approximately 2% of this final piece) that you can't pay sufficient attention to the mass of the object."

My reply:
"...toning the paper took what, 5 minutes? Maybe I'll have a different view after I try out the toned paper, but I didn't find this particularly painful.

"Maybe it's a case of needing to experience it to get it. Like with the volumetric drawing discussion we had in PA, "paying sufficient attention to the mass of the object" are words that don't have a particular meaning for me.

"How would you describe the difference in a drawing where you pay attention to an object's mass vs. one where you don't? More realism? Depth? Also, how do you draw differently when you're paying attention to mass vs. not? Obviously, I'm not getting the point."

---

I've heard people refer to drawings as "sculptural" and also refer to volumetric drawing, paying attention to mass, etc. I hear that they're good things, but I'm trying to understand what to do differently to do all that. Any thoughts?

[fantasyartist]

As far as I understand, paying attention to the mass means being aware of the volume, the bulkiness of the object that you're drawing/painting. You look for the major plane changes of the forms just like a sculptor would first block in the planes of his subject and them smooth them out. The term 'blocking in' gives you a hint that we're talking about block forms, which involves planes. Here are some pages from Figure drawing and Eye of the painter from loomis where he talks about mass. I recommend you to read to whole chapters yourself. Hope this helps.

[dbclemons]

Blocking in might not be as helpful on the petals of a flower as on the forms of a figure. Another way to consider mass is to focus on the contour of the forms themselves. If you look at the Loomis illustrations above, the direction of the shading lines follow an abstraction of the forms to represent them as 3D objects. In your drawing of the flower, it's hard to read the forms as petals. The shading and overall midtone values your using make them look rather flat. More extreme darks and/or brights would help define it better. The outlines are also uniform in thickness and just add to the feel of flatness.

As far as the use of a toned surface, although you were able to eliminate the white of the paper by hand, if that's the value you plan to start from, you might as well begin with toned paper in the first place. A toned surface, whether in the paper or handmade, will not give you "mass." That's something that will depend on your drawing and how you handle values.

[fantasyartist]

dbclemons
With blocking in I also meant drawing the contours of the form using straight lines. Ultimately when you're going to shade the flower you'll have to look for the planes of light,halftone and shadow just like you would with a figure right?

[dbclemons]

The flower petals are more related to something like folds of cloth than a solid shape like a figure or even the tree above. You certainly could begin by simplifying the edges with short straight lines. That could also be applied to internal shapes within the flower following the planes of shadow and light. It's the same sort of principle as blocking. The idea I was presenting was to think of a projected pattern like what might appear on the weave of folds of cloth as you're shading.

[jhgoforth]

@dbclemons: eh, even flower petals can be simplified down into basic blocks, just much thinner blocks. Even the relatively 'flat' petals still have volume in the sense of the space they take up. The problem I saw with his drawing up there was in fact, that it was way too flat as an image. There was no understanding of the petals and how they connected to the inner part of the flower (which depending on flower type, is going to be a somewhat funnel shape basis). "block" shapes can be a bit misleading sometimes, Spheres and cones also can be incorporated into building for volume. Once you understand that those petals aren't 'flat' and have some simple shape you can relate them to in your mind, it expediates your ability to add proper lighting and 'mass' to the object. The example of folds of a cloth is still able to be reduced down into volumetric shapes of tubes and variations. (believe me, I got that slammed into me in art school repeatedly ....man do I hate drawing cloth now....). ;P