figure drawing, male study

Here’s a 12-day study of a male figure completed during our morning class at the studio. I’m experimenting with toned paper and the use of white chalk. For now, I’ve decided to stay with graphite rather than switch to charcoal and white chalk. I like (or am used to) graphite and enjoy the subtlety you can achieve in the values with this medium. In the end, however, I’d eventually like to incorporate both charcoal and graphite in the drawing so that I can reach the rich dark that you can get with charcoal in a much more efficient way. At the same time, I can still take advantage of the subtlety and control that I am used to with graphite. I’ve tried this before with a cast drawing of an arm and the charcoal helped me progress the drawing much further without any loss of subtlety in the refining stages of modeling. I find it much more difficult trying to do this with the figure in the interior.

3hr portrait sketch, oil on paper

3-hr portrait sketch, oil on paper

3-hour quick portrait sketch, Whittnie

Andrew Loomis and Matthew Innis’ latest blog post on his blog, Underpaintings, offers great reading material for these quick portraits.

"Helicopter" Sketches/Drawings, Leonardo da Vinci

The lecture and discussion at Janus Collaborative this past Friday was not only intellectually stimulating, but fun. It was great to spend an evening meeting new realist painters and reconnecting with old friends from other schools and ateliers. Spending a majority of my time at the studio and working reduces my social time and “catching up” to checking status updates on Facebook — and even this time is limited. But I think that discussing our process and thoughts every now and then is just as important to art training and to the picture making process.

We were lucky enough to have Tony Mastromatteo give two lectures last Friday. During the regular day program, we focused on the painting life as a creative, professional life. He answered many questions, pulling mainly from his own experience, about how to survive as a painter and be satisfied with what we are painting once we are out of school. We discussed the transition, and both the short-term and long-term fulfillment of an artist’s career. He talked about how to make a living as a painter instead of one who paints/waits tables/takes odd jobs/freelances/ tutors/babysits/dog walks…you get my drift.

Tony also mentioned how he now understands the important distinction between emerging, mid-level and established artists. If I had more time, I would write more about the specifics of the lecture but one of the main things I walked away with that afternoon is that it confirmed how this type of training is crucial. Painstaking studies 7-8 hours a day, 5 days a week is what it takes, and if we want to make a living as a painter we have to do the work and we have to be good at what we do whether or not we continue to paint the figure or paint apples. Otherwise we end up painting houses.

No doubt there is a lot of thinking and self-exploration that faces everyone once we are finished with art school and if you ask 10 different working artists, you’ll get at least 10 different answers of what has worked for them. Art school doesn’t train us for everything. We are here (in the atelier system) mainly to learn and perfect technique. From this starting point, in our own studios, we have a life’s work and much exploration ahead of us. Perhaps it sounds a bit daunting, but quiet exciting as well.

For the evening, Tony discussed what the atelier system is lacking: the development of ideas. Technical know-how is a given in realist paintings. Subject matter on the other hand is the next hurdle. In fact it is the hurdle (and will continue to be the following hurdles down the track on our run as realist painters). Ateliers, unlike the university system, is mainly (if not only) concerned with technical development and perfection. And for good reason, it takes years to perfect and execute “the how” so we have to turn down the volume on “the what”.

Whether we came into this type of training already knowing “the what” or not, “the how” is absolutely essential. It is our language and we have to be proficient in it in order to communicate and express what we want in any picture. So contrary to some discussions involving the topic of creativity and expression, we move forward on the premise that it is absolutely essential to learn and master technique. However, as Tony says, we can’t move forward very well with a bum leg.

I look forward to more discussions and lectures such as this one during the rest of my studies at Janus. It’s nice to have instructors who are supportive of developing a curriculum that sets a very high and challenging bar for us to meet, yet who also realize the importance of developing the “muscle” of creativity in conjunction with technical know-how. On a side note, it may be a good thing that painting is a “lonely profession” since there’s a study out there saying how we are far more creative in individual settings, than in groups. I agree that groupthink is often not the best way to solve a problem:

As far as more details of the specifics of Tony’s lecture, I will hand the baton to a blog post from one of the attendees from that evening. (Check out the rest of Hyeseung’s blog and website while you’re there. Awesome work!)

Reverse Engineering Painting
Lecture and Discussion with Anthony Mastromatteo
Practitioners of contemporary realism have limited the possibilities of their language by placing their greatest emphasis on technical issues. We will explore further possibilities of visual language as utilized in the past through the breakdown and examination of various successful paintings and plot a path beyond pure technical execution. Along this path, each individual artist may thrive in his or her specific manner of expression.

Time: 6:30-9pm
Where: Janus Collaborative studio, 3rd Floor
Please join us for the evening.
RSVP info@januscollaborative.org

It should be an interesting lecture, followed by a great discussion among attendees. I’m looking forward to breaking up my academic study with such a topic. If you’re in the area or know someone in the area who might be interested, please spread the word.

Under certain lighting conditions, for example with front light or under a strong spotlight, with the subject against a dark background, the dark tones at the edge of an object may be absorbed into the background and what we really see in this instance is an area just inside the edge of the form instead of the dark light. The outermost edge of this zone blends into the background. This creates the illusion of softer edges instead of a crisp separation between the object and background. The basic lesson is what we’ve heard over and over again, we must pay attention to the edges and work very carefully at the meeting of forms. A great example is an image I’ve posted here before.

Notice how the edge of the shoulder as it turns into the form of the back is very soft, while the edge of the upper forearm of the left arm against a light drapery is much more crisp. We can also contrast the field effects happening in the skull and the right arm. The skull has a softer edge as the top of the head as it turns away from us toward the background and enters the dark light, while the right arm (also turning away from us into the background) is more lit and its dark light zone is not near the edge of the arm placed against the background. Thus the difference in their edge treatment. (At least this is how I rationalize my reading of how Caravaggio treated the two edges differently.) He may have just been copying what he saw, which proves that how he painted what he saw is accurate with visual phenomena. Yet, I suspect that he was aware of these patterns in nature and didn’t just copy nature by rote in his practice. (There are also other reasons why the skull has a softer edge than the right arm.)

For the painting I worked on in Sarah Lamb’s workshop, she had me pay attention to the edge of the gourd which was in the dark light region, against the darker background of the wooden box. This edge was much softer than the opposing edge more directly facing the light source against a cast shadow on the same dark wooden box.

With a backlit subject, the same field effects would occur with the opposite observation. Edges would be softer on the light edge against a light background as some of this lighter zone would be absorbed into the background and harder on the darker side of the form against the lighter background. This is also consistent with the rule that high contrast areas are often the sharpest areas in a painting/nature.

There are many different field effects in nature which I have yet to learn and fully understand. In essence, everything in our visual experience is a field effect since we never see objects in nature in isolation, especially color. The cognitive experience of visual phenomena is a product of many different optical illusions and our eyes are lying to our brains (or is it our brains lying to our eyes, therefore lying to itself? …If anyone knows of any books on this topic, please let me know and shoot me an email! I love this stuff!!).

We discussed another field effect at the edges of a form, in relation to color, which I’ll write as a separate post later this week. I’ve indulged in my musings enough for the evening (making good use of that extra hour we gained from Daylight Savings this weekend). It’s time to finish preparing my panels for this week’s intensive workshop-style class with Michael at the studio.

—-
Though I haven’t had any issues, I thought it wise to add the statement below:

Art Student’s/Blogger’s Caveat:
Everyone should always take this in consideration when reading any blog, but I’ll state it here just to be clear. Everything written on my personal blog is my interpretation of my studies and in no way should be taken as the exact teaching itself. Though I strive to understand and represent all the concepts fully and back up my writing/notes with examples, other more established posts/articles/books, science, visual phenomena, etc. there is always room for error and misunderstanding so it is the reader’s responsibility to cross-reference anything they read here. In case of any error brought to my attention, I will always point them out ASAP. (And of course, if you’ve heard otherwise or spot any incongruities, please shoot me an email since I created this blog to develop a greater, ongoing conversation amongst like-minded people and artists.)

Bargue Plate, Bent Arm of a Man, Graphite

A recent Bargue plate drawing I did over the summer is on the cover of the latest special supplement issue of Drawing Magazine. I completed this Bargue copy via the sister school of Janus Collaborative, NYK Academy on the 2nd Fl of the Harlem Studios (JCSA is on the 3rd Fl). Both programs, in my opinion, serve to complement each other by training your eye in completely two different ways. AT JCSA we focus on the figure and direct observation where measuring is used as a check. It is based on a more structural analysis of drawing where ideas of perspective and constructive anatomy lie strong in the pedagogy.

NYK Academy’s curriculum is based on the sight-size drawing technique of the Florence Academy. This program originated with Andrea Smith who attended and taught at the Florence Academy. She now advises Judy Kudlow, who is the current instructor of the program. The course consists of a rational progression from graphite to charcoal to paint; the subject matter increases in difficulty with every drawing from 2D or “flats”, which are copies of the Bargues on to casts, then still life. There is also a figure drawing class in the evenings which you can take once you learn to measure (sight-size) in space.

With the sight-size method, measuring is a way to train your eye and you learn many things in a logical and simplified way so that you can achieve control of the materials and sharpen your analytical skills in a different way than the structural/constructive curriculum does. It is based on a more perceptual approach. One of the greatest things I’ve learned from the program so far is how to really analyze a curve. In the morning program at JCSA, we discuss the inflection point(s) of a curve and learn to really spot the change of direction through very close observational skills. However, by doing the Bargues I have noticed that it has only enhanced my analytical skills so that I can draw “by eye” much better.

One misunderstanding may be that everything is measured in the sight-size approach. Soon after my first Bargue plate copy, I quickly learned that this wasn’t true. From how I see it, the measurements serve as a foundation from which to build your drawing upon. Later measurements serve as a check and you have to rely on your eye much more along with a perceptual analysis/observation (AND since I can’t unlearn this…a structural, anatomical and constructive analysis). In short, all my teachers are really saying the same thing anyway. The approaches and techniques only seem different on the surface but the concepts are all the same; it’s just another tool.

This special issue of Drawing Magazine discusses the importance of copying master drawings and the lessons behind them, amongst many, many other interesting articles concerning drawing and draftsmanship.

Below are images of my Bargue copy of the male arm in various steps:

"Block-In" or Contours

Shadows

Intermediary Tones

Final Drawing (Stop Modeled in Graphite)

Today one of the doctors, in answering our questions as he covered the muscle groups and functions of the lower limb, mentioned that it was very interesting for him to look at things from a different perspective/perspective of an artist interested in realistic rendering of the human figure. Many of our questions were ones that have never come up before in his many years of teaching medical students, nor were they thoughts that crossed his mind in his practice. Yet he found them to be quite relevant, interesting and practical. We don’t do any actual dissection, but we work “alongside” the medical students on a weekly basis as they cut through various parts of the cadaver and reveal the muscle groups for us to study and understand. I like to think that the entire partnership is a collaboration in itself where both the artists and the med school students/faculty learn from each other’s point of views and experience.

Our drawings are also up in the dissection lab and though I’m not sure if they are at all useful as a diagram or illustration to the med students during the week, I’d like to imagine that they are. In return, their work in the dissection lab help reveal to us a better understanding of the amazing construction of the human figure.

Anatomical Study of the Upper Leg

I find that there are many ways to approach a drawing in the lab. I found the lower limb a bit complex, so I decided to draw the upper leg as I saw it (dissected/cut, somewhat incomplete as the skin was completely peeled away and the subcutaneous fat and fascia have been cleaned off in some parts while remnants could be seen in other sections), with a slant toward something more diagrammatic in order to better familiarize myself with the muscles and their function in different states of rest and contraction. This will help me better understand any pose the model takes whether it’s from direct observation or something I create from imagination. I didn’t have much time, and I didn’t get a chance to completely draw the muscles that were already cut so I’m sure I could improve the accuracy of some details in my quick study. Nonetheless, the experience of observing and translating the dissected upper leg of the cadaver into a drawing really helped me gain a great understanding of the surface anatomy in this part of the body. I can’t wait until next week and only wish I could stay longer to draw from the cadavers a little more.

Copy of Menzel drawing, Head of Bearded Man, graphite

Here’s a new copy I’m working on from another visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It is a copy of a beautiful drawing by Adolf Menzel, in graphite. I’m going back for a second session since I didn’t have time to finish. I spent a lot of time just admiring Menzel’s handwork. Here’s a shot of what I have so far after the first session.

But first, I want to discuss a few points on what to focus on and what not to focus on when copying master drawings. The points are a mix from notes I’ve compiled through my studies to date and from my own experience in copying old master drawings.

What NOT to do:

• copy every single line or hatch mark (at least for educational purposes. If your goal is to make an exact copy of a work then this point would, of course, be moot.)

Some things to focus on:

• tilts and distances
• value relationships
• long lines and relationships
• proportion
• areas of overlap
• perspective

These may seem a bit too general, and I guess my main point in this post is that when trying to learn from an old master drawing we miss the lesson if we simply copy every single line without filtering the reasons behind those lines. Missing one hatch mark is a small “mistake” compared to missing the mark when it comes to understanding relationships of long lines, rhythm, proportion and value.

In my analysis above, I focus on two main mistakes I make in my study of Bloemaert’s drawing. They are both rooted in the common error of exaggeration. The black circle addresses an obvious area where I inadvertently created a bump at the point where the radius attaches to the bones of the wrist and hand, by overestimating the curve. The green lines in my drawing (leading to the black circle, you may need to click the image for a closer view to see the lines), when placed next to Bloemaert’s drawing shows how the lower tilt is slightly off. This seemingly small error is great when combined with the long line and curve leading to the bump of the wrist. I end up pinching the lower section of the arm too much and causing that non-existent swelling of the wrist.

In the second analysis, I take a closer look at long lines/relationships and the difficulty of curves. There is a subtle and beautiful curve relating the upper arm to the lower arm. If you take away the “bump of the elbow” and take a closer look at Bloemaert’s drawing, you’ll see how he clearly saw and understood this relationship as he exhibits the beauty of this woman’s arm in the subtlety of his drawn curve. In my study of the drawing I have exaggerated the inflection of the curve toward the end of my line. This tendency to under or overexagerrate the line towards the end of your stroke is common and can be improved with much practice. It is difficult to control the line the longer it is — especially for me and it is something I continue to practice.

Overall it was a great learning experience and I copied other drawings that day, but I have to say Abraham Bloemaert is a master is the subtlety of those curves – as well as overlap. I didn’t cover issue of overlap in this post but if you’re interested in learning more about it, Bloemart drawings are a great source. I will cover overlap and how to evaluate a curve’s point of inflection in future posts.

Happy copying!

PS – Copying master drawings also reveals your weaknesses while it highlights your strengths and/or improvements throughout classical art training. For example, it helps me know how to redirect my training and what I should continue to focus on during my training. How to pick an old master drawing to copy? More on my next post…

Figure Block-In

The side drawing was a critique from Michael Grimaldi where he analyzed the rhythm and movement of the structural forms making an excellent parallel to a previous drapery workshop which the full-time/core program students took part in last month at JCSA, aka Janus.  More on the block-in in a future post.

No matter how many times you have drawn the figure from life, drawing the figure from memory remains a challenge.  The only way to reach the goal with greater ease is to continually practice drawing the figure from memory.  In Sir Joshua Reynolds’ Discourses on Art he tells (I believe in Discourse IX) his students to redraw from memory figures that they had previously drawn in the life class. Continual practice in this exercise, he said, would soon enable the student to draw “tolerably correct” human figures “with as little effort of the mind as is required to trace with a pen the letters of the alphabet.” Leonardo da Vinci recommended artists should go over the forms and outlines they had studied that day before going to sleep at night.

In our portrait sketch class with Kate Lehman at JCSA, we were asked to paint the same portrait from memory and it was amazing how much the brain simplified things down to the most essential elements — at least this was my strategy that day.  I was more amazed at what I was able to remember, than what I didn’t remember.  Simplification and a broad approach proved to be a great strategy in recreating the portrait.  Now I am lucky enough to get my hands on an out-of-print book, The Training of the Memory in Art written by Horace Lecoq de Boisbaudran in 1847.  I am looking to improve my skills in memory drawing not only to aid drawing from the imagination, but to be able to develop compositions in the process of picture making.

—

Links:
Jon deMartin
Kate Lehman

Books: 
Discourses on Art, Sir Joshua Reynolds (online version of 7 discourses, here)

Check out:
Another post on memory drawing via one of my favorite blogs, Gurney Journey.