Some practice on my own

I went outside during lunchtime and visited the UN garden. It’s a nice place midtown New York with a backyard terrace build right above the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive, facing the East River. So it offers a nice view over the river, with Williamsburg Bridge to the right and Ed Koch Bridge to Queens on the left side. The UN Building is being renovated and so seems the garden. There are many statues but they seem to be placed only temporarily.

P1050878I drew a statue which I think represents an arch. Initially I thought Noah’s Arch but there were only people on it. There was no inscription. It was made of very dark material and the midday sun created strong contrast. The drawing is A4 size, rather small. I worked for about 50 minutes on it and felt like making some progress. I still felt something of the spirit from my visit to the Edward Hopper exhibition, and felt more confident to apply pressure and make darker marks. The drawing is a bit more worked out than what I usually do in sketches.

While drawing I noticed that I began to make variations in my line. I made broader strokes when I encountered strong contrasts or very dark areas, for example on the three piles and for the surface structure of the boat. I tried to depict the darker areas with a single black area on the sheet, extending the width of my line. I will need much more practice but I think I made a change towards the right direction. It felt a bit like having overcome an artistic block which stopped me from getting into drawing. I think this can be related to the Hopper exhibition.

P1050908Some days later I went again during lunchtime, taking a sketchpad with me, and made a sketch of the UN building as it could be seen from the place where I sat in the garden.

I’m not overly satisfied with that one. I think it is too light and there are too many “representation errors”, because the placing of objects isn’t accurate compared to reality.

Posted in 3: Drawing outdoors, Miscellaneous, Townscapes | Comments closed

Check and log: Drawing trees

How many different tree types have you drawn?

I drew three different tree types in individual sketches and studies, and around six different trees in the several trees drawings.

What techniques did you use to distinguish each type?

In the two individual tree sketches, I think it was the type of markmaking for the foliage and the different shpae of trunks and foliage which made the two tree types distinguishable. The individual tree sketch was different because I took a vit more time for work on details, and there was no direct comparison with other trees. In the drawings of several trees, I think the different tree types are not distinguishable because there’s not enough detail included. I seem to have used the same type of mark-making for all of them. They were all broad-leafed, no conifers, so looked quite similar to someone not knowledgeable in botanics.

What did you do to convey the mass of foliage?

I mainly used tonal shades or coloured areas. The last drawing which was made after the photograph employs line to sketch broad outlines of foliage masses. Then I used hatching and tried to indicate lighter and darker areas.

How did you handle light on the trees? Was it successful?

My treatment of light on the trees was only rudimentary. I had some light trunks and some dark trunks. I tried to develop lighter masses before a darker background, but wasn’t successful.

Did you manage to select and simplify? Look at your drawings and make notes on how you did this, and what could you do better?

I did select and I did simplify, but the result does not satisfy me. I simplified by not including details of the trees, and selected only very prominent aspects of lighter and darker areas and a trunk here and there. Overall, individual trees are hardly to recognize, or any other details. I’m not sure that the viewer recognizes that it’s trees. Maybe from the green colours and from the visual rhythms and from the pattern of lighter and darker areas, and a few stems.

Some personal reflections

I found this project very difficult and overall, more frustrating than anything else. A little personal gem is the individual tree study, which I like because it’s a bit more worked out. I felt very uncomfortable with task instructions and drawing sketches of individual and several trees was not a pleasant experience. I just didn’t like what I was doing. I’d have preferred to have time to study details, maybe do sectional drawings of just a tiny fraction of the whole. When doing the exercises, I constantly felt that I was trying to do something very complicated before having mastered even the simplest things.

I had planned to do more tree drawings before approaching the final assignment and I would definitely need to do so, but I know that I’m running out of time for this course. I felt so stuck with the group of trees that maybe it’s better to not insist any further at this time but proceed to something different and get back to the topic later on, with a fresher mind.

Posted in 3: Drawing outdoors, Check and log, Drawing trees | Comments closed

Drawing trees

Exercise: Sketching an individual tree

It was difficult to decide on a tree for this task. I saw a lot of trees I liked, but they were mostly standing in a group of trees and I couldn’t place myself in proper drawing distance because I would have to look directly in the sun or they were in a group and undistinguishable as singular trees from further away. After an hours walk through Central Park, I finally decided on a tree to make the four structural sketches

– Simple outline

– Basic shapes in outline or shaded areas to indicate the masses of foliage

– Outlines of the trunk and main branches

– Scribbled outlines or shadings to indicate the texture of the foliage

P1050880Initially I thought these were separate things to do and so the first set of drawings responds to these as isolated tasks. I had chosen a sort of conifer and found it very difficult to indicate “masses of foliage”. I also struggled with uncomfortable seating and having to look towards the sun. I found my sketches not very convincing and decided to draw another set.

Luckily there was another suitable tree close by and I could sit there a bit more comfortable, yet still looking towards the sun. This time it was a broad-leafed tree which lend itself better to drawing “masses of foliage” although these were difficult to capture due to the light situation. I had something in mind of a green mass in different tones, but this tree presented itself with very light foliage through which the sunlight shone into my eyes.

P1050883This time I drew the set and built the sketches up in stages. First square simple outline only, next square simple outline plus some basic shapes, third square outline, masses and trunk, and final square again a repetition plus some scribbling marks to indicate the foliage.

I’m not very convinced by my attempts but at least the two different tree types can be distinguished, so I captured at least a bit of their characteristics.

Exercise: Larger study of an individual tree

P1050885I turned around and shaded my eyes off a bit to draw the third tree. I didn’t feel very comfortable with the earlier exercise because I would have preferred to devote more time to study some details rather than making quick sketches. So I was quite motivated to do this exercise, on the other hand already a bit exhausted from the earlier work.

The third tree was also a broad-leafed tree, I don’t know the botanical name. It was a huge tree and I was a bit too close. I started the tree beginning at the bottom of the trunk and then working my way upwards. This was a different approach to what the sketch instructions had asked me to do.

I like the overall result better than that from the sketches, but the method has the disadvantage that I could not fit the entire tree onto the A3 sized paper. Had I started with an outline sketch and worked through the stages of the previous exercise, the tree would have probably fitted on the paper in its entirety.

I found it difficult to draw the tree in isolation. There were trees behind this one which provided a darker background that looked interesting and gave depth. On the other hand it was easier to leave out context and focus on this particular tree.

For future tree studies I’d rather look elsewhere than Central Park and find a place less crowded, but this involves more planning and organization.

 

Exercise: Study of several trees

That same day after work I decided to tackle the next exercise, a study of several trees. I had hoped to see some appropriate trees during the lunch break in the UN area, but the trees present did not work for me. They were nice and large, but they stood in a row and the view had no perspective or depth to it. So I drew the statue instead, practicing an earlier topic (see: Some practice on my own)

The problem with working full-time is that it becomes difficult to reserve one or two hours for drawing outside. Daytime practice is only possible during week-ends, but if I can only continue coursework on weekends, I won’t be able to finish the course within the time limit set. There’s also the weather risk, I might not even be able to draw outside if it is raining. So I thought to give it a try after work. But autumn is approaching and the days are getting shorter. Currently it is getting dark at around half past seven, which leaves not much time because I work until 5 and have to go home and feed my cats before I can go outside again. Tonight I managed to be on my way at a quarter to 6. If I walk fast it takes me 15 minutes to get to Central Park. I was hurrying up to get there and then quickly find a nice group of trees, before it was too dark.

I did not want to draw a “flat” group of trees which stand next to each other and offer no depth in the composition. I was looking for a group of trees that would be composed of different tree species, different sizes, and with different textures from the combination of light and dark foliage, trunks and grass or bushes as the context. I walked around for another 20 minutes or so until I finally found a group of trees that worked for me.  It was also important that I could place myself in sufficient distance to the trees.

Then I made two drawings. The first was in charcoal. It was a very quick sketch giving only a very rough indication of what I saw. I then made a more worked out pencil study. I’m not satisfied with both drawings, because I feel that I felt back into that scribbly, unsensitive style which seems to be my comfort zone. There’s maybe minimum progress in that I got a little more contrast than usual, and maybe in my perception because I began to see masses of foliage and areas of lighter and darker tones, and lighter shapes before a dark background. But the drawing does not capture much of this.

P1050886 P1050889

I think the main problem was that I felt very hurried by the vanishing daylight. Maybe I should have done only one drawing in pencil right away. I also lost much of the precious drawing time through searching for an appropriate place. So this was not a very pleasant experience, all in all. I did enjoy the late walk through Central Park, though. But I’ll make a new drawing, hopefully that’ll be better. I don’t want to work from photographs because I think I need that practice of drawing the real world. Am frustrated because I have these time restrictions.

 

Second try – drawing several trees

I went out again to the same location on the next evening and had another go. Unfortunately, the drawings were no better than those before. The first one was with Conté crayons, I tried to work with different green tones to include trunks and the different tones of foliage masses. Looks miserable. Second drawing was in 4B pencil. I began by just outlining trunks and foliage shapes which looked not that bad, but then proceeded by making scribbly marks and dark hatching to indicate shades. It did not work at all. In the end I hated the drawings and hated myself for not being able to produce nice-looking drawings. Felt very frustrated. Consoled myself with the thought that phases of deep frustration are typically those where one learns a lot because of the search for better ways of doing things. But I’m suffering and feel very stuck at the moment.

P1050890 P1050893

I took some photographs of the trees I wanted to draw. Maybe I should try drawing from these photograph, at least then I wouldn’t be constraint by the available daylight. I just hate the hurry I’m getting into when I go out to draw in the evenings, after work. Doesn’t seem to work for me.

P1050853 P1050855

Looking at the photographs I do get an idea why I had so many difficulties. The first photos which included more of the sky showed the trees as a dark mass without any noticeable internal structure. Then I made photos which took only minimal amount of sky, which led the camera to depict the trees in lighter colours, but due to the strong contrast the contours of the trees against the sky are feathered out. The scene is lit from behind and this result in difficult light conditions, for drawing as well as for photos. The problem was that I did not have much time and therefore gave this arrangement a try rather than spending the evening with searching a better location.

I’m not sure what to do about it. I was considering to make a tour into the outskirts of New York to see some trees uncrowded. But then again I had hoped to work on the assignment this weekend.

P1050895Later in the evening I made another drawing, this time smaller, an A4 study after one of the photographs. I’m doing the same again and feel that I’m not getting anywhere with my approach. I really don’t know what to do, there seems to be some kind of bad magic going on. I just keep repeating the same technique which produces ugly drawings. I’m in no hurry, still it’s not getting better. What am I doing wrong??

Posted in 3: Drawing outdoors, Drawing trees | Comments closed

Exhibition visit: Hopper drawing

P1050809For several weeks I had seen the announcements for the exhibition of Hopper drawings at the Whitney Museum of American Art in New York. Time was flying and finally I made it there, three weeks before its closing date (October 6).

I had done some preliminary research. The exposition’s website is very informative. The aim of the exposition was to shed light on Edward Hopper’s artistic process – from initial drawings to final painting. The webside shows five or six examples for major works by Hopper, for example Nighthawks (the scene in the night café) which I found very interesting. So I was glad to see those works in real.

The exhibition was crowded, but I nevertheless enormously enjoyed seeing Hopper’s drawings, watercolours and paintings. Nighthawks, painted 1942, is very impressive to see live. It is as if the painting was illuminated from the inside, such a bright shine from the lights of the café in contrast to the dark night scene.

P1050810

 

Hopper’s process: Route 6, Eastham

P1050812I have taken pictures of the studies for and the final painting of a house in Eastham. This is at Cape Cod in Massachusetts, where the Hoppers spent many summers. The exposition series starts with a watercolour which again impressed me by the use of light. I’m not sure whether my photo conveys it, but when standing before the original, I could perceive the glazing sunlight of a hot summer day at the seaside.

The compositional studies are sketches of a house and other details, and they are filled with notes about colours. It reminded me a lot of the instructions for this drawing course! The final painting is different from the watercolour in details and in overall impression. Compared to watercolours from other artists I appreciate, like Emil Nolde, Hopper’s style is very different: Very controlled and orderly. But the strive for perfection bears the risk of killing the paintings.

P1050813P1050814

P1050815P1050816

P1050819

 

 

The stairs

The look downstairs through an open door into the garden is another example for what I see in Hopper’s works: The drawings are very forceful and alive, while the final paintings appear “perfect” and extremely quiet, at the edge of feeling dead. I am full of admiration for Hopper’s drawings, and I find his paintings beautiful, yet a bit scary.

P1050821P1050822

 

Self portrait

P1050820The self portrait as a young man in charcoal on paper is more of a painting than a drawing. The later style is very apparent: A simplification of shapes and mastership of creating three-dimensionality through tonal shadings.

Tree studies

P1050825I very much liked Hopper’s tree studies. They are very forceful, they leave out unnecessary detail and Hopper manages to bring out the lighter areas over the darker shades in the foliage. I am aware of my own attempts and struggles in my first landscape drawings. I found it nearly impossible to draw a group of trees because I did not know how to get those lighter areas on top of darker areas. So these drawings are Hopper’s solution to a problem I’ve encountered, too. That was a nice experience.

The sailboat

P1050828Included just as a reminder, it is a beautiful drawing and a beautiful composition. I don’t remember to have seen the completed painting though, not sure if one exists.

 

What I took home from the exhibition visit

Earlier that day I had been outside to draw trees and was quite frustrated, because I found the task very difficult and my results very modest. I was in the mood of questioning why I would want to draw trees, or draw at all, and whether I might ever make some progress at all. Then looking at Hopper’s drawings, which included some of the sketches he made as a young man – a bit distorted, but getting better and better – instilled hope. I saw how rude and forceful his mark-making became later on, and I liked that style. Hopper was a master at bringing out the full contrast from very dark to very light in his drawings and also in his paintings. Indeed he seems to me a master of dramatic light.

The exposition instilled some self-confidence. I judge my own mark-making as impatient and not very competent because the results are not accurate representations. I think my drawings are not very good, but maybe the problem is not that they are not accurate enough, but rather that I’m not really into what I’m doing. So maybe I should just accept “my way” of doing things and get into it with more energy. “Work harder”, as I had realized earlier already!

 

A second visit to the exhibition, two weeks later

The exhibition will soon be closed, so I took the opportunity of a specially arranged evening event at the museum to go there for a second time. This time I did not go through all the rooms from beginning to end, but instead started in the middle and went a little bit to the left and a little bit to the right. I focused on Hopper’s charcoal studies. I really admire how he creates tones from deepest black to paper white. I also liked how he used tonal shades to create three-dimensionality in the figure drawings. I have just begun with the figure drawing  part of the course, and so Hopper’s drawing are very inspirational. He also drew his hands, self portraits, and made many sketches of people, some in clothes and some women nude. It may sound a bit strange but I feel inspired to just do the same.

 

References

Edward Hopper (1882-1967), American painter

Whitney Museum of American Art, New York.  Exposition presentation at http://whitney.org/Exhibitions/HopperDrawing

Posted in 3: Drawing outdoors, Drawing trees, More artists | Comments closed

Check and log: Townscapes

How did you use a limited colour palette to create a sense of depth?

Overall, I think I did not create much sense of depth with my use of colour. Maybe a bit in that the central building has the most intense colouring, while the buildings behind appear more faded. I used the same brown tone, but less intense. The sense of depth in my drawing is mostly a result of perspective angles in the receding parallels, less the result of use of colour.

 

Did your preliminary sketches give you enough information for your final piece of work?

They helped me in determining what I wanted to include and how to frame my central building. They also helped in approaching the difficulties of the faceted wall structures. The preliminary sketches would probably not have conveyed enough information for a final study from memory alone, I’d have been obliged to invent or leave out aspects like tonal shades or building details.

 

Would you approach this task differently another time?

I think I would select a different building next time, one with less stories, and would try to be closer. I’d then try to compose a drawing with better distinction between foreground, middle ground and background. Otherwise I think the approach of making small studies of details and tonality, plus drawing sketches to try variations in the composition, worked well for me. Due to the extremely hot and humid weather conditions I preferred to work on a view out of the window, rather than getting outside. This limited my options for the exercise.

 

Have you got the scale of the buildings right? Make notes on what worked and what didn’t.

Yes, I think I got the scales of the buildings correctly. What worked well were the angular perspective lines. And I like how the tiny marks for the windows seem to work. What worked less well was my use of colour for the lighter versus darker sides of the building. The sun-facing sides (light coming from the right side) should have been lighter and my coloured pencil strokes on the lower receding side of the main building seem to distort the scale a bit.

 

Have you captured the colour and atmosphere in your studies? How did you do this?

I think the red-brown colour for the central building was well chosen and also the decision of using a light blue tone worked well for the sky and the two buildings in the background. I don’t know whether I captured the atmosphere in my drawing. I’m not sure whether I even realized some kind of atmosphere in the scene. In a technical sense, there are errors in the colouring because the sun-lit sides of the buildings should have been lighter, and overall colour intensity was stronger in the scene.

Posted in 3: Drawing outdoors, Check and log, Townscapes | Comments closed

Townscapes

Exercise: Study of a townscape using line

I found the instructions for this exercise confusing. What was meant by “use two sketchbook pages”? With my portrait bound sketchbook, the double portrait format wouldn’t work for my idea for this drawing. Why would I have to make notes about weather conditions? I couldn’t make sense of it and decided to approach the task in a straightforward manner.

It took me a while to decide on a view because outside it was so hot that I preferred to draw a view out of the window. I chose the backyard view because here I was able to decide on foreground, middle ground and background. I made a pencil sketch indicating my eye level first and then tried to get the angles of receding parallels correctly. When I had a rough composition on the paper, I put the pencil aside and completed the drawing using a black pen.

What I liked about the exercise was that it took up an idea I had developed during the previous sketch, of starting a drawing with a pencil outline and then completing it using a darker medium. And indeed the drawing is very sketchy which seems to reflect my timid style but in the darker colour the result is more satisfying to look at.

P1050779

Exercise: A sketchbook of townscape drawings

P1050782I made several sketches of a building I can view from my bedroom window. This was a concession to the hot weather because I wouldn’t have been able to work outside for more than a few minutes. But as it was, I could sit comfortably and study my subject.

The sketches were light, as usual. I mostly focused on how much of the scene I’d include in the drawing. On the one hand, I felt a natural tendency towards selecting just a single detail of the building, for example a window or a wall edge, and develop the drawing outwards from there. On the other hand, I interpreted the task as asking me to capture a scene, rather than making a detailed study. So I abandoned details and tried to get the shapes of the building right, and included some of the adjacent buildings.

My main concern was how much to include of the two adjacent, very tall buildings. Giving them space to the left and the right created sort of a claustrophobic feeling because it squeezed the available space for the building that was my main focus. Comparing the sketches, I’d say that the one where the right tall building occupies almost half of the sheet is the most successful with respect to image composition.

P1050864   P1050785

P1050787   P1050789

 

 

I found the task quite exhausting because it required so much concentration. I also wondered whether I should proceed to a larger drawing which included colour. But I decided to leave it at that for now.

Exercise: A limited palette study from your sketches

P1050791I decided to make a new drawing on a separate sheet of paper for this study, rather than working on one of the sketchbook drawings because I wanted it to stand out a bit. After some colour trials in the sketchbook I chose colour pencils in van Dyck brown, indian red and light ultramarine, plus black. I wanted the blue for a bit of sky but also for some grey tones and reflecting windows, and intended to build on the contrast between a warm and a cold brown tone (indian red versus van Dyk).

I stopped after about an hour because I could no longer concentrate. I think the drawing has improved with respect to getting the shapes of the main and the adjacent buildings, and also the orientation of planes is better, plus some more detail of the houses, like windows and terrasses. The drawing would benefit from some more work to apply more colour to it and add some more details.

P1050792I’m less satisfied with my ability to work with the colours I chose. I think there’s not enough variation in colour intensity. For example, the indian red is either light or a bit more intense, but I did not really master the tonality or the effect of sunlight shinging from the right side onto the fronts. Maybe it was a bit too late in the afternoon and not enough light inside where I was drawing.

It might be worthwhile doing an actual monochrome study using only one dark brown tone and try to work out lighter and darker areas with bringing in more contrast. I like judging my drawing by taking a bit more distance. This one doesn’t seem to have enough contrast. Which is actually a shortcoming of most of my drawings so far. Something I’d like to improve on.

Exercise: Statues

Preparations: Deciding on a statue

I’d like to draw a statue close to my home. I live in in the Upper East Side, at 15 minutes from the Central Park, and Google revealed that there are three statues in the Park:

– Alice in Wonderland: Alice sitting on a mushroom, and personnage from the tale around her
– Hans Christian Andersen, the story teller with a book
– The Balto statue, which is a wolf-like dog statue

I had also considered drawing a horse statue close to my workplace, but this would imply taking the bus downtown. The horse was nice, but it looked a bit conventional. Whereas the Alice in Wonderland statue is so bizarre that I think I’ll just give it a try.

Alice in Wonderland, Central Park, New York City, New York, USA (74431142)I think it’s a difficult statue to draw because there are several figures composed into a scene. In light of my constant problem of being overwhelmed by the richness of each drawing topic, it might be a good idea to focus on just one of the figures, rather than doing the entire statue at once. It might also be a good idea to go there early, because tomorrow is Saturday and probably lots of people and families hanging around the statue during daytime.

There are probably a lot more statues around my home, but it’ll take time to discover them. For now, I’ll try Alice in Wonderland to get started with something interesting.

 

Photo source: https://plus.google.com/111654232303944683798/about?gl=us&hl=en retrieved 13 September 2013

 

Drawing the Pilgrim’s Fathers statue, Central Park

I went to Central Park with the intention of drawing the Alice in Wonderland statue, but it was saturday morning 11 am when I arrived and the place was crowded with families and children playing and posing on the statue. I realized that it might be difficult to draw this statue unless I’d include the people or get up a bit earlier, to be there at 8 am latest to have an hour of quiet time with the statue.

I went off to look for another statue to draw. Unfortunately I could not remember where exactly the Hans Christian Anderson statue was, so just walked further and hoped some statue might turn up. I was lucky and stopped at the Pilgrim’s Fathers statue, showing a single father.

P1050795I had taken a selection of drawing paper in different qualities and sizes with me, plus a variety of drawing media, and chose a large A2 newsprint sheet and charcoal for the first drawing. That drawing was very sketchy and the first phase of drawing felt a bit like a ballet dance. I then drew in some details of the statue which made the drawing a bit more solid. My main focus was on proportions and giving the statue a bit of context by including very sketchy tree branches. I like about this drawing that it was made quickly and conveys something quite vivid. I also think that I captured well the posture of the figure.

P1050797I made a second drawing with 2B pencil on white medium-weight A3 paper. This time I wanted to draw a bit more slowly and include more detail. It was difficult because the figure was made of black material and stood under some trees. It was all a bit shady. Then my impaired acuity sight (but I don’t wear glasses because with these I cannot judge what I draw in front of me), which made it difficult to see details. I used the pencil more like a painting tool, instead of a line tool, by holding the tip very flat. This created broad, shady marks which I could then refine into darker areas. Contrasting to the first drawing, this time I focused on negative space and tonality, and left out the context completely. Again I think I captured the posture well, and I see a slight improvement in drawing skills.

I spent an hour drawing and then went home, because it was quite fresh and windy and I couldn’t concentrate any longer. I’d like to spend more time on drawing statues and townscapes. In particular I think that I’d improve by making studies of details, whichever object, to practice accurate representation of 3-D objects on the 2-D paper sheet.

Posted in 3: Drawing outdoors, Townscapes | Comments closed

Check and log: Perspective

What problems did you find in executing perspective drawings?

I did not perceive the task as particularly problematic. Maybe this is because I have acquired some practice with perspective drawing earlier on, before the course. It’s mainly to find myself back into it. I do make technical errors but I think I can improve on these by paying more attention and using light helping lines when making the basic composition.

 

Make note on the merits of using, or not using, rulers to guide you.

Rulers add sort of a mechanical correctness into the picture which I don’t really like. Sometimes it is difficult to make a long straight line by hand. But I prefer to have it a little curvy rather than technically exact, but liveless. I’d also rather practice perspective drawing without rulers, because I find drawing by hand more organic. Unless it’s a technical drawing right away, I’d rather not use a ruler.

 

 

Posted in 3: Drawing outdoors, Check and log, Perspective | Comments closed

Perspective

Some notes from the introduction to this project

Linear perspective

  • First principle: receding parallel lines meet at a point when extended.
  • Second principle: the meeting point changes with the height of the viewer’s eyes

Basic terms of linear perspective

  • Horizon line: The eye level height of the viewer, divides the viewing plane in upper and lower halves
  • Vanishing point: imaginary point on the horizon line where all lines meet. Lines from above the horizon angle downwards, those from below the horizon line angle upwards.
  • One-point or parallel perspective: with objects facing the viewer flat on. All lines converge to a single vanishing point
  • Two-point or angular perspective: with objects that don’t have a straight edge facing the viewer, all lines seem to converge t0wards two separate vanishing points.

Aerial or atmospheric perspective

  • Colour intensity fades to blue-grey as objects are increasingly further away from the viewer (in landscapes)

 

Exercise: Parallel perspective – an interior view

Interior viewI chose the view from bedroom into the bathroom. It was not ideal but had some lines which receded towards a single vanishing point in front of me. I was quite confident finding the eyelevel after I had made the drawing, but it was not easy determining the actual vanishing point, because my lines seemed to have several different points. The one vanishing point I chose worked well for those lines further above and below the horizon line, but less well for those elements closer to the horizon. These were the upper edges of the built-in closets, which I had drawn at an angle that was too flat, likewise the lines in the bathroom tiles. I think the upper closet edges were better using the perspective lines, but the tile lines appear much too steep. There may have been a depth or distance error in my drawing in this area, because here the correct perspective line appear very distorted and misplaced, compare to my naïvely drawn lines.

Exercise: Angular perspective

Angular perspectiveI chose a view from my terrace onto the road. It was very hot and humid outside which made it hard to keep drawing. Finally I had to stop because I couldn’t stand being in the sun any longer. But I think the main elements of the building on the corner are present. With more pleasant weather conditions, I would have liked to take more time for the trees and the balconies appearing on the left side, maybe add some colour.

I did not like drawing eye level and receding lines into the drawing with a ruler. I think the straight lines have destroyed the appeal of the drawing. On the other hand, I did in fact use imaginary or very light perspective lines to aid this drawing. I acquired the habit when I was much younger. For the future, I might use that tool more deliberately to improve my drawings, but only very lightly in the background so as not to destroy the drawing.

I also noticed that my drawings might benefit from using a really black line tool instead of a pencil. I tend to draw very lightly which makes for a certain delicacy but then again, there’s not much contrast in the drawings. With a darker pen, the drawing might get more strength. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want to draw perspective lines with the darker pen. Maybe a combination of the two would work best.

Posted in 3: Drawing outdoors, Perspective | Comments closed

Research point: Claude Lorrain and Turner

Look at the work of Claude Lorrain and Turner. Write notes on how those artists divide their landscape into foreground, middle ground and background.

Discovering the works of Claude Lorrain

My research strategy began with a look at Bridgeman education library, because the task implied looking at paintings and analysing them. The initial search for Claude Lorrain returned 33 result pages. Skimming through the first pages, I estimated that there were about 20 to 30% landscape paintings and asked myself which criteria I might apply to select some for a closer look out of the sheer mass. Then I realized that my search had returned results from many other artists as well. A change in search strategy to put the artist name in quotation marks was successful and returned 2 result pages with 122 hits, considerable reduction in volume already.

Claude Lorrain lived from 1600 to 1682. I had no prior knowledge about him and my initial questions were nationality (probably French?), which art period he belonged to, and what might be his relationship to Turner, who lived much later. I suspected that Turner was educated in a different artistic context but might have been influenced by studying Lorrain.

From a first glimpse over the image results, I found that there were many biblical and religious topics in Lorrain’s work, and I found the style very “classical”. My uneducated use of the term points to my perception of paintings guided by clear principles and rules, not much experimentation and not many surprises either.

From the thumbnail image gallery I decided to select paintings which appeared to have some details in the foreground and were not too dark. I also tried to select those I found in some way representative for Lorrain’s style. I had noted that Lorrain often used dark elements in the foreground and very light colours in the background, which has the effect of opening up the image into a wider background space. Often there are very large trees in the foreground which occupy much of the painted space, especially when Lorrain chose a portrait format.

Landscape with Hagar and the AngelLorrain also created extreme size contrast with other elements in the paintings. A nice example for these techniques is the painting ‚Landscape with Hagar and the Angel‘ (1646). The foreground shows two very large trees, which are at about the same distance like the two figures (Hagar and the Angel), but the figures are much smaller. There’s a bridge at considerable distance, whose size on the painting is about that of the figures. This creates space and distance because the viewer automatically assumes that the bridge must be far away if it appears so small. Then there are some far away mountains. These are painted in very light colours and without any detail, so they are very faint. Combined with their small size, compared to the other image elements, this supports the viewers perception that they must be very far away.

Landscape with Abraham Expelling Hagar and IshmaelIn paintings, Lorrain used colour to support evoking space. It was interesting to see the techniques employed when colour was not available, as in the drawings. I selected ‘Landscape with Abraham expelling Hagar and Ishmael’ (c1665-67), a drawing using pen and ink and wash over chalk on paper. It is a small drawing of around A5 size. Lorrain uses the same basic technique of darker/more intense tones for elements in the foreground, mid-tone washes to indicate the placement of bushes in the mid-ground and light washes without detail for background elements.

The strong contrast in the centre of the drawing between the dark tree and the very light sky of the background supports the impression of great distance. Also, the low horizon line seems to be a characteristic feature of Lorrain’s style. The horizon line is a bit below the middle of the paper sheet, and this seems to be similar in other drawings and paintings. With the low horizon, a bit more than half of the image space is reserved for the sky, even if partly covered by trees or other elements in the middle ground. This also seems supportive in generating space and distance in drawings and paintings.

As a third example, I selected a landscape painting with buildings in order to look closer at Lorrain’s treatment of these elements. ‘Aenas and Dido in Carthage’ (1675), oil on canvas, is quite a large painting, 120 x 149 cm. It can be seen as a late work, it was painted 7 years before the artist’s death. I assumed that the painting incorporated all the technical mastership accumulated over the artist’s life.

Aeneas and Dido in Carthage

Indeed, the same principles are applied again: The human figures in the foreground are the area with most intense colouring and finest detail. In the foreground, space is created through size contrasts between large buildings and trees, and the relatively small figures.

In the middle ground, elements are smaller. A presumably large building has the size of the figures, and presumably large ships are painted small size. The painting is rather complex in that it comprises more than three basic levels – rather five. These are
– The foreground: figures, trees
– The space between foreground and middle ground: some figures
– The middle ground: A large building and ships, water painted with details of the surface
– Between middle ground and far away background is another level: An area of land enclosing the water like a natural harbour. Colour intensity here resembles the middle ground, but no detail is included except the contours of trees and another building.
– The far away background: Contours of hills and water horizon line meeting the very light sky area. There’s no detail in this level, and only pale colours are employed. This creates considerable contrast to the more intense colouring and details of middle ground elements adjacent to background areas.

After studying some of Lorrain’s works, I wanted to know a bit more about the artist. From the very accessible Wikipedia summary I learnt that Lorrain was a french painter, draughtsman and engraver of the Baroque era. He had spent much of his life in Italy, presumably learning from the Italian masters. Lorrain is indeed reported to have influenced later artists, including JMW Turner and John Constable.

Landscape paintings by Joseph Mallord William Turner

Using the artist name in quotation marks as a search term, Bridgeman education library returned 677 results on 11 pages. I was overwhelmed and very unsure how to go about selecting images. I decided to skim look and select those that caught my interest as I went along.

Since Lorrain’s influence on Turner has been noted, I asked myself whether to expect the same principles of division into foreground, middle ground and background as I had seen in Lorrain’s works. Turner lived from 1775 to 1851, around 150 years after Claud Lorrain. Turner was born 100 years after Lorrain’s death.

Bolton AbbeyThe first painting was selected for its resemblance with Lorrain’s work. It is titled ‘Bolton Abbey’ (date not indicated).

It is similar in the more intense colouring of fore- to middle ground, compared to the paler background. It also employs sort of a framing effect with the large tree to the left and the stems to the right.

But there are also differences in the composition. The division into foreground, middle ground and background is less strict. The transitions are more fluent, and the elements of each level in the landscape are more related than what I saw in Lorrain’s works. Also, foreground elements are closer to the viewer than in Lorrain’s paintings. The greenery is painted with more details. Furthermore, the sky occupies less of the image space – maybe the upper third, compared to more than the upper half in Lorrain’s paintings.

Salisbury CathedralThe next painting was selected because I perceived some differences in comparison to Lorrain’s technique: Salisbury Cathedral (no date indicated). The sky is very dramatic, which takes the focus off the rather unimpressive landscape. There is no framing on the sides which results in a very open space impression. Still the spacial division into three levels is present. The foreground contains more intense colours and most detail, the middle ground paler colours and few details. The distant background shows the very pale contours of a hillside behind (!) the impressive cloudscape, and the cathedral. The cloudscape has dark and intense colours in some areas, which creates another depth level closer to the actual middle ground.

Turner used a different medium: watercolour instead of oils. The principles of creating space seem to be the same, but the visual effect is very different. Watercolours tend to be less intense, the overall impression is lighter. I asked myself whether there are different techniques for creating space, specific to watercolours vs oils.

Further looking through the image library, I found several images with almost a reversal of Lorrains principles of using intense colouring in the foreground and paler tones in the middle and backgrounds. I selected three quite similar paintings, unfortunately all without a date indication.

Pallanza, Lake Maggiore Pallanza, Lake Maggiore: Almost no detail and pale colours in the foreground, some detail in the middle ground. Then dark, intense blue sky in the far-away background, in sharp contrast with the light sky, but the contrast is between background elements, not between background and foreground elements as in Lorrain’s paintings.

Lake of Brienz Lake of Brienz: Figures in the foreground with few details – about the same level of detail as the castle in the middle ground. Intense colours connect the foreground to the middle ground and the middle ground to the further background. There is much sense of distance, but created with a technique that seems very opposite to that employed by Lorrain.

View along an Alpine ValleyView along an Alpine Valley: Another painting with dark blue spots which seem to capture the viewer’s attention. They are applied to middle ground and distant elements. Turner does not use the classical (or Baroque?) technique of using detail to establish foreground elements. He hardly used any detail at all in these landscape watercolours. This may have to do with the medium, as watercolour tends to support a more generous approach. It may also have to do with what Turner was interested in.

Landscape with Trees and Figures, c.1796 (w/c over graphite on paper)Compared to the above watercolours, the Landscape with Trees and Figures (c1796) appears very structured and classical, and has much more detail overall. There’s a tree to separate foreground and middle ground. Colour intensity is higher in fore- and middle ground. Paler tones are in the distant background, with the exception of considerable colour contrast in the sky.

Scene on the Loire, near the Coteaux de Mauves The ‘Scene on the Loire, near the Coteaux de Mauves’ (c. 1830) was painted later in Turner’s life. Here he used intense colouring for the figures and the ship in the middle ground and also set some accents in the sky. Pale colours were employed for the water throughout, both close and distant. There are large objects in the background and small objects in the foreground.

This brought up the question how Turner arrived in establishing the three depth levels, despite seemingly contradicting the principles established in Lorrain’s paintings. I think this was possible because Turner painted enough detail to permit the viewer to draw on his or her knowledge about landscapes, eg using the water horizon line for orientation. Then, the larger object further away was paler than the smaller one close by. And Turner painted middle ground elements that covered areas of the background elements, another technique to create depth.

Venice: Grand Canal with Santa Maria della SaluteAnother impressive example of Turner’s treatment of depth levels was the watercolour titled ‘Venice: Grand Canal with Santa Maria dell Salute’ (undated). The level of detail is approximately constant across the entire painting, though somewhat less in the further background. The colours seem to become more intense towards the background, for example the water area and again in the dramatic sky. Quite the opposite of typical colour intensity handling in Lorrain’s landscape painting

Cillgerren CastleBut there are also very classical paintings by Turner, eg ‘Cilgerren Castle’ (c. 1798-99), oil on canvas. This showed more resemblance with Claude Lorrain’s style. There are size differences and tonal contrasts which establish foreground and middle ground, and paler colours are used towards the far background. Also, the immediate foreground is the area with most details, as the leaves and greenery details in the upper right and lower left of the painting.

My conclusions from this journey through selected works by Turner are that the three depth levels are much less separated, compared to Lorrain’s compositions. But the breach of seemingly classical principles does not obstruct the viewer’s depth perception. I think this is encouraging, because it shows that there’s considerable freedom in the techniques to create “credible” landscapes.

It might have helped to know the dates of the Turner works I selected, because I got the idea that Turner developed his style away from classical principles into a much more liberal interpretation of depth composition. This would have become more traceable if image could be seen as they were created over time.

Sources

Bridgeman Education Library, http://www.bridgemaneducation.com

Wikipedia article on Claude Lorrain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Lorrain; retrieved 15 January 2013

Posted in 3: Drawing outdoors, Landscape drawing, Research points | Comments closed

Ending the pause!

I can’t believe that it’s already September. The official end of my pause from OCA was by the end of April, but due to relocating to New York and all the associated stress I simply wasn’t able to reserve time and space for coursework earlier. Now things have settled a bit. I have a room for my artwork and am looking forward to resuming the drawing course.

There’s still a research point to complete in the landscape drawing poject before I can move onward to the next project of part 3, perspective. I had already assembled the materials for the research point on Claude Lorraine and Turner when I made that break from the pause, but then things got again too busy to do the writeup. Now back to it…

I hope that I’ll be able to get outside and complete this part of the course before the winter comes!

Posted in 3: Drawing outdoors, Landscape drawing, Miscellaneous | Comments closed