AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Contour painting1/15/2024 ![]() Within the early arena of limited variables we can more efficient and effectively build automaticity and cement foundational concepts that can indeed roll forward into more complex versions of the activity we are practicing. As you know, effective learning techniques involve a rational sequence of developing simple concrete concepts/skills and rolling them forward into complex, composite ones. It may not seem obvious when looking at a polished tonal representation that seems bereft of all line-but at the very least, it may serve as an invaluable conceptual scaffolding amid such an effort.Īdditionally, I would address the issue of drawing-as-a-necessary-precursor-to-painting in a similar way (that it may not seem directly applicable in some contexts.) While I wouldn’t call it absolutely necessary- learning most representational concepts with limited dry media prior to painting allows one to focus on fewer variables at the onset. Waichulis_Symbiosis_Bill Detail.jpg 864×559 308 KB ![]() Painting up lines over this region (which are then blended) but which curve around the shape of this part of the face in the way I know they would. Instinctively I have gone back to using the ‘contour method’. I think I’ve largely answered my own question here, but wanted to post this anyway for later reference.įinally, in two portraits I’ve recently been doing, the following problem has arisen: for that part of the face between eye and eyebrow, I have been unable to comprehend a shift in tone, nor either to analyse the shape of this part of the face and how it should be behaving under chiaroscuro. Whereas with drawing, because everything is reduced to black and white, you can stick to the method of ‘draw the tone you see’. I realised this when trying to paint an apple. Because painting naturally employs colour, it immediately forces you to try and comprehend chiaroscuro, without which you can find yourself all at sea trying to create dimensionfull objects. One corollary of all of this, is that I think it’s silly to believe that drawing is a necessary precursor to painting, since I think in some ways it might retard development. But probably the author as well was suffering from some form of cognitive dissonance on this issue, in suggesting chiaroscuro be used for the sphere and the ‘contour method’ for cylinders. I think it’s testament to my poor understanding (and indeed the poor exchange of knowledge in art in general) that I didn’t in any way grasp the significance of the ball drawing – not understanding that chiaroscuro applies to all objects not just perfect spheres. A book in which he also showed us chiaroscuro for the sphere. I should explain that I believe this principle was taught in the excellent book of J.D. So in some sense part of what conveys that these objects are 3 dimensional is how surface features curve around the body of the object.īut for a smooth billiard ball I don’t think the contour method would be of any use whatsoever. ![]() ![]() In fact even apples sometimes possess these lines. The same is true with blemishes on the face that will change in shape, size and distribution according to the curvature of the face. It seems to me that actually it’s not without merit in the sense that if we took a human finger for example, there are actually natural lines on it, which fold around the cylindrical surface of the finger. So here’s the thing: it seems obvious to me that the illusion created by chiaroscuro is vastly superior to that created by this ‘contour method’.īut what I’d like to know is, is the ‘contour’ method totally without merit? And if so, why did I ever start using it?
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |