It's totally different than the hair I usually draw. It took me forever just to notice that the hairs never cross. Sometimes they intersect, but then one of them just disappears. Also, the waves on the hair have much greater length than I naturally draw on wavy hair. It's not right, and it's certainly not all there, but it still took me forever. It was fun.
I copied the reproduction on page 41 of Hale's Drawing Lessons from the Great Masters. One of the things Hale doesn't tell you is that almost all the shading is done with straight lines, virtually all in the same direction throughout the drawing. That was really hard/fun too.
I was too tired to put in everything, but this is the most fun I've ever had copying.
Is there a reason my copies are so much better, on average, than my noncopies?
"Is there a reason my copies are so much better, on average, than my noncopies?"
1. Because you're borrowing the thinking of a genius, instead of doing the thinking yourself. You're not doing the essential morph from 3D to 2D, or any of the interpretation. You're learning how somebody else did it, and training your hand at being precise. It's an exercise. "Why is it so much better when I recite the Elizabeth Bishop poems from memory than when I recite my own?" Because it's Elizabeth Bishop, dickhead.
2. The above reminds me of a bit of philosophy that I've been working on - William James' comment that there are two distinct goals in truth - seeking truth and avoiding error, and that the two are frequently at cross-purposes. (c.f. certain obvious examples of certain people.)
3. And also, you're wrong, because I actually prefer some of your imperfect, loser, but deeply alive sketches of people below, to your copies. A lot. (see our conversation about how our taste agrees in all things except your drawings, and 2., above).
4 comments:
I like the hair.
It's totally different than the hair I usually draw. It took me forever just to notice that the hairs never cross. Sometimes they intersect, but then one of them just disappears. Also, the waves on the hair have much greater length than I naturally draw on wavy hair. It's not right, and it's certainly not all there, but it still took me forever. It was fun.
I copied the reproduction on page 41 of Hale's Drawing Lessons from the Great Masters. One of the things Hale doesn't tell you is that almost all the shading is done with straight lines, virtually all in the same direction throughout the drawing. That was really hard/fun too.
I was too tired to put in everything, but this is the most fun I've ever had copying.
Is there a reason my copies are so much better, on average, than my noncopies?
"Is there a reason my copies are so much better, on average, than my noncopies?"
1. Because you're borrowing the thinking of a genius, instead of doing the thinking yourself. You're not doing the essential morph from 3D to 2D, or any of the interpretation. You're learning how somebody else did it, and training your hand at being precise. It's an exercise. "Why is it so much better when I recite the Elizabeth Bishop poems from memory than when I recite my own?" Because it's Elizabeth Bishop, dickhead.
2. The above reminds me of a bit of philosophy that I've been working on - William James' comment that there are two distinct goals in truth - seeking truth and avoiding error, and that the two are frequently at cross-purposes. (c.f. certain obvious examples of certain people.)
3. And also, you're wrong, because I actually prefer some of your imperfect, loser, but deeply alive sketches of people below, to your copies. A lot. (see our conversation about how our taste agrees in all things except your drawings, and 2., above).
That's meant to say "imperfect, looser", above.
Post a Comment