Friday, 12 March 2004
Okay, my bad!
A big thanks to Stephen Serpentine who reminded me that I haven't been here to update for a while.
Sorry folks!
Anyway, as a previous post says I've been made redundant and I am looking for alternate employment and I guess I've sorta let myself do other things than come here and update.
So what have I been upto since my last post...
Well I've been approached about doing a book of erotic art. I'm preparing a number of 'sets' of artwork for a erotic art leasing company and I've now got Photoshop!
So I'm practicing away on that!
I've got tons of pencilled pieces lying around in various stages of completion and I have no idea whether I'm returning to half of them or not! No change there anyway;-)
Well anyway, I'll crack on with something else just now.
Darren.
Sunday, 22 February 2004
Happy Birthday!
And so I had a great weekend..well so long as you can get past the fact that I was made redundant at my '9-2-5' job!
But I turned 33 on Saturday there and it was pretty painless;-)
Darren.
Saturday, 21 February 2004
Bad News.
Todays my Birthday!
I'm Thirty-three.
That's not the bad news, however.
No, that's the fact I got notice today that my regular 9-5 job has become redundant:-(
Darren.
Tuesday, 17 February 2004
Pin-Up Heaven.
I belong to a number of great message board filled with fantastic artists. One of these is called "Pin-Up Heaven"
The list owner/moderator is the georgeous Khwan!
There have been a few artists that have done some flabbergastingly good renditions of this beautiful model.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pinup_heaven/
I eventually plucked up the courage to ask her If she wouldn't be overly offended if I had a go!
I was pleased that she said "Yes" and have a piece running through the 'pipeline' as we speak. I thought I'd share a work in progress snip here.
Monday, 16 February 2004
P. H. O. T. O. R. E. F. E. R. E. N. C. I. N. G.
[Stifles Creativity or a tool to assists creativity]
I ‘hear’ an issue arise from time-to-time relating to the ‘pros-and-cons’ of photo-referencing. Why should this cause such furore? Well, I guess it simply boils down to ‘preference’. What you like and what works for you. Sounds easy now, huh?
However, sometimes people see an image that has been photo-referenced and somewhere inside them, their emotions boil up and they find the need to articulate this reaction.
Then in a defensive stance all the artists who do, or have used this technique [myself included] all raise their shields like a row of Spartan soldiers in preparation for the onslaught of arrows across the battlefield.[That was a bit overwrought for an analogy;-]
No-one ever ‘wins’ these tête-à-tête’s. In fact more often than not parties leave with wounds and disgruntled opinions of those that they have argued or debated with.
What strikes me as completely odd about ‘this’ particular debate is that it seems so –obviously- flawed. So why do we get dragged into it?
Eg. "I ink in brush because it adds texture and it’s the only true way to be creative! Inking in photoshop dulls creativity and desensitises you from the artwork."
Are these statements true? Both of them?
Of course not. The statement is –very- obviously ‘missing’ the key bit of information that the ‘author’ assumes everyone will already know and when their ‘lure’ has done it’s job they will recite the missing statement as though it’s the monopoly card that keeps them out of jail: "In My Opinion!"
How do we get to make opinions ‘like’, we don’t use photo-referencing; or ink with a brush; or use crosshatched lines for shading?
Trial and Error clearly. It is why we, as artists try to develop. We take note of what has ‘worked’ in our last piece and what didn’t.
Both equally as important!
That is also why seeing artwork that you don’t like is just as valuable as seeing artwork that you do enjoy. Both are equally filled with informative provisions that your mind can consume and decipher or utilise.
Many times I have drawn an image from out of my head and thought "That arms wrong." And in reworking the arm to be correct, something else appears thrown off. [This is –not- a rule just a happenstance]
In the same way that using a photo-reference that is already in two dimensions has already had ‘depth’ removed from it, there-for foreshortening is already in effect. The camera has a single eye and does not ‘see’ as you and I do in ‘stereo’. As such there are times that proportions can appears askew.
Drawing an image purely out of your head, lends itself to exaggeration. Drawing from an already two-dimensional piece lends itself to ‘looking’ -too- two-dimensional.
Given that artwork is representative of mood, energy, light, emotion et al. Then you have to be prepared with either method to ‘fill-in-the-blanks’. Where an image that an artist has drawn appears that the wrist is broken or the perspective appears overlay exaggerated, it is the artists responsibility to ensure that the ‘wayward’ parts of the image are in keeping with the rest of the image.
The same is true when a photo-referenced piece appears flat, the artist is ‘charged’ to endeavour to ‘re-invigour’ the artwork.
In both these examples, an ‘inexperienced’ artist would learn from the experience -after- determining that something seemed wrong in the first instance. The artist may ‘click’ straight away or more likely after some time they might work through it and determine what works for them and ‘yes’ form opinions of their own ên route.
So the fact that something doesn’t work for the artist or makes them –wince- when they look at it [I’ve drawn more than a few that give me the latter reaction myself;-)] Does perhaps make them wonder why other artists utilise other techniques than there own. Is it a degree of, ‘Have I taken the wrong route?’ or more along the lines of ‘When are they going to learn my ways the right way?’
The only thing an artist can do, is to be true to themselves. If you like it then do it. Like working in a chocolate factory, you’ll spend a few weeks pigging out but you’ll find a happy medium!
There are ways to blend the two methods, clearly a hybrid. That is where you would either have [should you be able to afford such a thing] live models or look for a ‘specific’ photo-reference.
There can be –no- right or wrong in this debate, only moderation. Who is best to decide what is moderate? The individual and probably after they visited both extremes.
Personally, I use photo-referencing for a number of reasons. One of the current ‘driving’ factors for me is that faces and bodies all look –so- different from person to person that you could never draw them all. I love this ‘wealth’ of variables. Too many times, I’ve seen artists [again myself included] lets use comic book artists as an example as their craft lends itself to this particular phenomenon, use ‘stock’ faces in their work or the carry a similar face with them and through them the world they depict ‘appears’ to homogenised and ‘samey’.
Each to there own.
Darren.
Sunday, 15 February 2004
Batman.
This was one of those days where I set out with the very best of intentions.
Must get some commissions done!
Warming up I doodled a little Batman sketch. I took it a little further. Then a little further still.
"Well I've gone this far, it'd be 'rude' to leave the drawing as it is now, unfinished."
Before I knew it, the whole days done.
Secretly I'm pleased as this is probably the -closest- I've got to a 'good' Darren Taylor Batman yet.
Newer | Latest | Older
