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
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |