I used to enjoy doing portraits and still lifes in charcoals and pencils. People often told me that my drawings were quite good and realistic, however the art teachers kept trying to make me change my method.
I always started with some detail, like the tip of a collar, then drew the wrinkle next to it, then the strand of hair next to that, and so forth, until the picture was complete. The next detail drawn in relation to the last detail. Teachers were always telling me to start by scribbling circles to represent heads, limbs, eyes, etc. I tried but that was too hard. It seemed silly to draw scribbles that you had to go back over later and leave lines you didn't want in the end.
I've recently realized that this is what I need to do in order to really "see", like when touring a large building which has lots of ornate detail. I need to absorb each detail before I can put it all together to see the whole room.
Anyone else like that?
Since I studied at an actual art school... I'm all about the whole of an object... but I do often find myself stuck in one spot that really intrigues me. I remember one teacher telling me, "I think it really interesting how you pick out different pieces of the composition to detail, while others are not so important." still not really sure if that's a compliment or not.
I think its easier to get into all the details than to see the all encompassing whole of a room/building. I usually look at the leaves of a tree rather than the whole tree... if that's kinda the same thing.
I've just realized that good way to make things look glowing is to let it be lighter than the things around (ofcourse) and then have it a bit darker around the glowing parts og the object.
This might illustrate:
If it is a really dark object in light environments it is opposite, light around the object.
If you look at your thumb with a white paper behind it you will actually see that it looks a bit lighter around the thumb, at least that is what I've experienced.
very nice
I notice with some of my pictures that the "magic" I feel when watching it just disappears when I flip it on my computer, it also look more abstract. Maybe I see it as others see it then, that's why I think it is important to have a quickly made rough sketch which I base my drawing on.
My sketches are usually quite realistic. I have a tendency to start with a single detail and work outward. This works well for portraits and still life (the close up stuff). But for landscape I find it useful to measure and mark a few points of relative distance to ensure my drawing has the correct scale and perspective.
I find abstract art fun as I can act more freely and not worry about perspective or realism.
I put a few of my more realistic sketches of AFF if anyone wants to take a look.
(Thread title:-'Some pictures I pulled out of my sketchbook')
I put a few of my more realistic sketches of AFF if anyone wants to take a look.
(Thread title:-'Some pictures I pulled out of my sketchbook')
Thank you, I enjoyed your pictures.
I focus on details a lot, too. But find (possibly because I'm not as skilled as I like to be) that if I don't get some shape down on paper first, much of what I do ends up seeming flat or deformed.
I recently started doing some "skeleton outward" drawings of made up animals -- which I may post if I even find the means. Literally, they start with a lightly drawn skeleton, then a muscle structure, then by the time they're finished and shaded and everything they actually turn out rather well.
Wouldn't it be great if everyone could draw all the stuff that they imagine in their heads? Then we could see it all!!!
I used to enjoy doing portraits and still lifes in charcoals and pencils. People often told me that my drawings were quite good and realistic, however the art teachers kept trying to make me change my method.
I always started with some detail, like the tip of a collar, then drew the wrinkle next to it, then the strand of hair next to that, and so forth, until the picture was complete. The next detail drawn in relation to the last detail. Teachers were always telling me to start by scribbling circles to represent heads, limbs, eyes, etc. I tried but that was too hard. It seemed silly to draw scribbles that you had to go back over later and leave lines you didn't want in the end.
I've recently realized that this is what I need to do in order to really "see", like when touring a large building which has lots of ornate detail. I need to absorb each detail before I can put it all together to see the whole room.
Anyone else like that?
Are you kidding me? I am so detail oriented in drawing/art, etc., I can barely ever get anything done. It takes me a while because I just have to get the details right. I am detail-to-global 100%, in fact I usually don't even know what the "global" is... I just put things together detail by detail, without having a "well-thought-out plan".. I don't do many rough sketches..
I am very spontaneous, for the most part. What I do usually have is a great visualization of what I want in my head... I draw from that. I have excellent 2-dimensional visualizing ability, but I have a lot of trouble with 3-dimensional visualizing. My 2-d mental ability is like being able to see a flat photograph in my head, with a lot of detail. But spatially, I'm not even 1/10th as good.
I'm not visuo-spatial... I am only visual, it seems.
I focus on details a lot, too. But find (possibly because I'm not as skilled as I like to be) that if I don't get some shape down on paper first, much of what I do ends up seeming flat or deformed.
I recently started doing some "skeleton outward" drawings of made up animals -- which I may post if I even find the means. Literally, they start with a lightly drawn skeleton, then a muscle structure, then by the time they're finished and shaded and everything they actually turn out rather well.
Wouldn't it be great if everyone could draw all the stuff that they imagine in their heads? Then we could see it all!!!
I'm completely unorthodox. Nothing wrong with that though.. right?
I think I've found a video of someone who draws sort of like I do. I'm certainly not a "human camera" like Stephen Wiltshire, which is his savant skill, but they said he draws details instead of general sketches. I did notice he had some light box outlines for a few buildings he had not filled in yet. Fun to watch him in any case. It is amusing how they praise the same style that my art teachers insisted was the "wrong" way to do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckqDX2XpdyY&NR=1
I always draw from the smallest detail outwards.