Looking at Botticelli again. ( As based on a book ref, the online versions I've found are a little more contrastey.) Hour and a bit spent on it, did a little pre-sketch breaking down the composition and focused the digital version on getting the colours and a little bit of the flow in even if I'm not exact with my layout. I could have used a grid to help me get this more accurate, but TBH I feel like I'm past that, trying to do a smart study not an exact copy kinda thing, I guess. Trying to understand the flow of the image rather than the detached mathematics?
I don't know if I'll add more detail, I guess I probably SHOULD, at least keep pushing a graphic version, but I do have other things I need to get on with atm.
It's crazy, since I started to do the pixar-ified gesture stuff more often my eye for shapes in figures has really beefed up a notch, I usually crumble and worry when I have to do a scene like this, especially digitally, end up kinda awkwardly drawing a mannequin then getting all worried about the pose before I've even really thought about anything else - but blocking it out with the most basic possible shapes, bearing in mind the expressive gesture as I do so? Whoa! It's weird how I could never really simplify the human body that much and still feel confident about it in the past.
'Simplify the shapes to boxes and spheres and stuff' is something we're all told on day one, but even that can be a bit of a headscratcher, can lead to stiff figures and scenes. Using expressive shapes? I dont understand how I've not thought of it like that before in a study when I think about expressive shapes *all the damn time* elsewhere.
Anyways, rambling, here's where I got so far-