EVERYONE'S WORK - BRITISH MUSEUM 3/11/15

I have gathered from the various e-mails that everyone was glad to have the input and companionship from fellow members, so that's great.  It can be a very solitary business this painting game.

I am going to share ELIZABETH's work first. She said "It was nice to meet up as we all felt a bit stuck and needed some encouragement.  Jane got out our notes and we looked at what you had to say about our work. What you said to me was to look at the hierarchy so I thought I would do some quick sketches of what I see first with out any detail. Then I did one with more detail. I felt the first ones were the more direct. I may be able to work on the last one (no. 5). "

Elizabeth no. 3    British Museum

Elizabeth no. 4    British Museum

Elizabeth no. 5    British Museum

Elizabeth no. 1.  Pat at the BM

Elizabeth no. 2   Pat at the BM

What super drawings, Elizabeth.  As you say, they are simple and direct, leaving much room for future consideration.  The two of Pat are lovely studies, using that line, which is now so much a part of your individual handwriting!
No. 3 has elements of many of your drawings - cafe conversation overheard.  In terms of possible heirarchy, think of what else you can do to lead the eye on from the foreground individuals to something else beyond.
No. 4 again is beautifully seen.  Did you see the 'Imagine' programme on Monday about Antony Gormley?  Fascinating.  These line drawings of yours remind me of some of his recent pieces - have a look anyone who hasn't seen it.
No. 5 is great!  What a fabulous drawing, telling a story.  I love the girl in the foreground looking at her phone, and then this wonderful figure doing something else in the background.  Let your paintings weave a mysterious narrative - not something explicit - almost like you are placing the figures on the stage, and then it's up to the viewer to come up with the story.  The drawing of the back of that head (of the standing figure) is magical - really lovely.  More like this please.  You would be able to find these unspoken stories in the most mundane of settings.  When you work it up, think about what we said about hierarchy - what's most important?  What do you look at first?  then what? How does the eye move around on the stage you've set up?  Lovely stuff - well done.



Next we have JANE, with the following :-  "Pat K and I thought we would concentrate on shape and colour, which didn't quite happen with me!

At lunchtime we showed each other our work.

For me it was grappling with the glass roof. I will try and work on combining patterns perhaps."

Drawing 1 This was my last drawing of the day
from another view point. I liked the pattern of the steps

Drawing 2 This is the first drawing I did.
Trying to get to grips with the glass patterned roof.

Drawing 3 Blind Drawing

Drawing 4

Drawing 5. This is drawing 4 with the pattern of the
roof overlaid on top. Inspired by the reflection
of the roof in the windows of the circular old library.

Very interesting Jane.  Going back to my comments last time, the words 'flat and yet voluminous' pop out.  That's when you drawings work at their best.  If we start at the end, with your drawing no. 5, it is basically a flat design.  yes, there might be a little space implied in the overlay of pattern, but its very shallow.  So, you can have a great time with different colour schemes, but in the end it would be a flat pattern, like a fabric design.  However, compare that to drawing no. 4, where you have the stairs rising through the picture.  We can understand them as being stairs, and a certain amount of linear perspective is drawn in, especially in the foreground.  However, the stairs have been strangely flattened, and I think it's all to do with the horizontal nature of that central kink, and the horizontal rectangles behind.  It creates a tension, an almost tangible question-mark. That's very nice.  Like I said last time, it's all about distorting drawings for a reason (ie. not just bad drawing).  I like this very much, and it ties in with your spiral stairs of last time.

With that in mind, you need to have a think about how you deal with drawing no. 2.  the roundness has been flattened by the fact that the outer edges are not shown.  So, do you imply roundness by the perspective curves top and bottom, or flatten them off??  At the moment that's unresolved.  Then the roof is obviously reaches over and out - so there's your 3D element.

Drawing no. 1 is a fine drawing - it must have taken ages!  There's LOTS of opportunity to play with your perspective here. 

Remember - FLAT AND YET VOLUMINOUS!

Next we can share what PAT K. has done :-  "For me clarity and depth of colour had to be top. Of the list. I think Ipartly achieved this in two of them.-the two I worked on in the Chinese room (top left & bottom right). I find it difficult as you know to resolve clarity with a degree of  mystery as there are always several threads  pertinent to the whole-does that make sense?"

Pat K

I think you have just asked one of the main important questions for you, Pat!  How do you keep a sense of mystery and the unexplained, but maintain a certain amount of definition and clarity?  I think this question has dogged you for ever!!  The temptation is to think that to achieve mystery, everything needs to become ill-defined and mushy.  I PARTICULARLY like the two Chinese room ones, especially the top left one.  There's a lovely sense of knowing what you're looking at, combined with a huge journey of discovery and wonder as to exactly what it is that you are looking at.  Very well done.  The two 'layers' of pots implies space, but is not specific.  I especailly like the combination of line, well thought-out line, in addition to the ares of colour.  Super, Pat!  Then the green and red one is very different, mainly because of its un-Pat-like colours.  I wonder what you think of them.  

The bottom left painting has possibilities, but is inclined to descend into a bit of mush if you're not careful.  Think of where you could use crisp white edges in your paint (doing the equivalent of what the drawn lines are doing in the piece above).

Then the top right is very interesting, as an abstarct collection of rectangles, but doesn't hold the mysetry of the others.

A very good day's work Pat.  Can you transpose that into further paintings???

PENNY has sent in the following :-

Here are my British Museum efforts!  I started out trying to leave room for more development in the painting.  Then I got hooked on pots again as metaphor for people.

BM1  Juxtaposition of Canadian carved profile of sphinx inspired by picture in 19C Bible and totem pole face.  I think this might offer possibilities for forming lines in different ways - e.g juxtaposition of colour blocks, scraffiti, etc.

BM2  Broken pots in the Mesopotamian section.  Two girls in hijabs just happened to sit down on the other side of the display case.  Mesopotamia 2015?  

BM3  Fallen pot and part skeleton, also in the Mesopotamian section.

I happened to catch the latter half of the Imagine programme on Antony Gormley in the evening after the BM visit.  I think that what I’m trying to do is a bit like what he is doing so well with his cast figures.  But it’s a fine line between the message being too obvious and not obvious enough!  

Penny BM1

Penny BM2

Penny BM3

This really fascinating.  I think where we need to start is to think about how you are presenting your 'content', and your subsequent compositions.

BM1 has been left deliberately open and available for interpretation, and further changes such as decisions about colour etc.  It is the way that the shapes divide up the paper that interests me.  They are open shapes, that stretch to all 4 edges.  The resulting 'design' is a very flat one, and however much tone change etc. you applied, the picture field would be shallow, and it would be read across and up and down, not so much 'into'.  The spaces are as important as the objects.
BM3 also has components (I won't call them objects) dividing up a space, and the spaces read as part of the composition.  However, the addition of some form-defining tone separates out the objects from the background, so the eye sees them much more as something on a background.  Do you see the difference between 1 & 2?

Then BM2 is a completely different thing.  The composition is an elegant pyramid reaching up through the space.  The pyramid is compelling to look at, because of its contents.  There are pots defined by line, pots defined by tone, pots which merge together, and then, the heads become part of this pile - head bearing such significance because of the hijabs.  Can you see that there is so much more to feed off, because of the varied language, and the context, and the implied meaning, and...and....  In terms of meaning, and the pots being a metaphor for people, this is utterly readable.  It is more complicated to read the implied significance of the pots in the other two.  BM1 offers something, because of the reference to human faces, but it's a struggle to get much further with it.

Glad you saw the Antony Gormley - so powerful.  Difficult to find a parallel between his work and painting, but it's all about context really - recognisable things (figures) in powerful contexts.  I still go back to your little figures in strange spaces that you did at Greenwich that time.



PAT W. sent the following, :- Very little I'm afraid as I nipped off to the Ai Wei Wei ex. at the academy (very moving ).  First one was Elgin Marbles where I meant to "abstract" the strong lines of movement between the human figure and the centaur (?).  I shall have to assume the angles of the missing heads!
The second became a bit frantic as so many people  and high pitched children's voices resonate 
In that hall! Hope it shows a bit.?

Pat W. no. 1

Pat W. No. 2

Talking about powerful work, Ai Wei Wei is another!  Imbuing objects (pots or whatever) with meaning to represent people, and make political comment - just linking back to Penny's work!
Pat, you are SO good with the coloured chalks!  the light radiating from the two drawings in no. 1 is amazing!  First question - why do you need to assume the missing heads? - especially if you are abstracting the movement and the lines - let the heads be missing and play on the ambiguity of that - it's a powerful device.  Then, if you ARE going to abstract the movement, then do that. I think you were caught up with still needing to make 'good' drawings of the figures.  You can still do it, if you try working another piece from this one.  Feel the tension in those two counterbalancing shapes in no. 1.  I really commend you on the use of the red within the shadowy greys.  Super.
No. 2 is quite powerful in its scale.  The tiny, ant-like figures rushing around in front of a giant carved figure - is it friend or foe?  It plays nicely with our sense of scale, and makes us ponder on the context.  I can almost hear the noise level!

Well done Pat.  Play on these ideas of ambiguity and meaning.  Weave your magic story-telling skills.

EVERYONE'S WORK - OCT. 6th 2015

The first person to send in was PENNY, who'd had a bit of a soggy day at the Wellcome Museum, and said :-

1. Trying out some new pens from Cass Art and attempting to use the staircase as a graphic element rather than a physical object.  First drawing for over two months!

2.  Looking at bottles as light/dark or line and seeing how much I needed to draw and how much could be omitted.  I think a painting might omit more.

3.  Part of the current exhibition by Alice Anderson of objects covered in copper wire.  An old vinyl record turntable I think.  Again, viewed as a light/dark graphic design.  Drawn mostly in the dark and beefed up afterwards.  Not sure how I will introduce colour into this.

Penny no. 3

Penny no. 1

Penny no. 2

It has been a while, hasn't it!  looking back, it's interesting to see that your last entry had you being much more 'open' in your drawings and possible interpretations.  I don't suppose you've had much time to see whether you could work those up.

These three seem to have reverted back to 'old Penny' - superb drawing and structure, but pieces that are almost complete as they are.

Your no. 2, of the bottles, is probably the one with most developmental possibilities, in that it's quite open.  However, the structure is very much one of lines on a background, however much you add in/leave out.

Your no. 1 is a great drawing. It has a really exciting and sparkly tonal rhythm, and I love the sense of steep perspective.  A drawing to break yourself back in, but it might be difficult to develop onwards in colour.

No. 3 is well drawn, but it's very obvious in it's depiction of a lit object against a dark background.  It doesn't have the push and pull of the staircase (no. 1).  as you say, might be difficult to know how to move into colour.

I think you need to revisit what you did last time.  As I said, maybe you've tried to work from them but didn't have success, so have abandoned that way of working?  However, having been off for a while, it's really important to re-ground yourself, and that's what you've done!  Thanks Penny.

Next up is ELIZABETH, who said "I  went back to café drawings as there was a very strange sight of a upside down figure hanging from the ceiling over the stairs and this with the curves of the stair were very unusual and I tried to balance this against the people sitting at the tables(nos. 1-3).

Nos. 4-6 I selected two of the paintings I have done on my Festival Hall drawings one which I have attached. No.1 I think it too fussy and so no. 2 I tried to simplify like the drawing and I like it better.  I don’t know if it need a bit more detail in the picture.  I cut off a bit of the bottom when I scanned it.  "

Elizabeth no. 1

Elizabeth no. 2

Elizabeth no. 3

Elizabeth no. 4

Elizabeth no. 5

Elizabeth no. 6

What a spooky and weird thing to have on the ceiling!  I think your drawing no.1 possibly works best, as we're visually drawn to the light and dark silhouettes seated at the bottom first. It's only once we start to look around, first at the writing and the strong dark shapes, that we then notice this upside down figure.  Because you've locked it into the dark area, it works as a component of the drawing.  In drawing no.2, I feel the upside-down figure is too prominent.  Sure, it opens up a strange debate, but a bit uncomfortably (but maybe that's good?).  In both versions in sheet no.3, you've got the upside-down figure worked in the same manner as the draen figure in the cafe (either light or dark) - this makes the figure very much a presence, but a deliberately baffling one.  So - your choice....do you want it found after a while, or be an equal player in the visual exploratory journey?

As for your Festival Hall pieces, i think you're right.  the first painting (no.5) has got a bit overworked, wheras no.6 is delicate and mysterious.  In fact the figure doesn't pop forwards at all.

So, your 'theme' this time has been one of visual heirarchy.  What do you see first, and what after that? What is the speed at which you discover any 'hidden' content?  How bold do you want to be with your description of odd juxtapositions?

You have the skill to do all these things - it's just being aware of them, and what you want them to do for you.

Next up is JANE :- "I attempted two drawings of the rather complicated spiral staircase. Because I was so busy trying to get the shapes, my lines were probably not the right thickness in the right place.

My first view (second in the order presented) was looking straight at and up the stairs. The second drawing was looking down on the stairs. The more I looked the more interesting the views became.

I am also including my hopefully final attempts at the Clapham Common Bandstand, plus the image I am sure I have over worked no 5! Penny suggested using the green under the dome. So I thought I would try it. No 7 was the original light grey under the dome, but it made a cut out shape in the image. I couldn’t see how to rectify it. Interesting Elizabeth and Penny like the simple Bandstand image. They thought it was more fun. In my more complicated image the quirky drawing could be considered bad drawing if I am trying to be too realistic, but not realistic enough?"

Jane no. 1

Jane no. 2

jane no. 3

jane no. 4

Jane no. 5

Jane no. 6

Jane no. 7

Jane, I love your drawings of the staircase.  They are fabulously sinuous.  The drawing is very clever.  They are distorted, and yet work as weird spirals, added to by the exaggerated perspective on the floor.  They are flat, and yet voluminous. Clever touches like the horizontal 'windows' at the top of no. 2, flattening the obviously voluminous curve behind them. You must try and work up something in colour. 
In terms of drawing, and thinking about your 'bad drawing' comment, the staircases look as if they have been drawn by someone who knows what they are doing, and deliberately skewed.  That's OK, and very interesting to anyone looking.
The bandstand pieces - yes, they too have been distorted, but they are nearer to that tricky boundary between distortion-with-knowledge, and bad drawing!  It was to do with the tool you were using I think (ie. the i-pad), which has a clumsiness to it.  However, if you go with that, then you can distort them further and make it obviously deliberate, and more fun!  It's if you're trying to make it do the same thing as you would get with a more fine tool, like a pencil, that you come unstuck.  So, I'm with Penny and Elizabeth really - fun and simple is good.  Having said all that, I also like the business of no. 5 - it's unashamedly busy and lively.

As for the green under the dome, yes, a good idea!


I've not had anything from anyone else.  There's still time
Just to remind you that the next meeting is Nov. 3rd, and I think there's a move to meet in the British Museum.

JANE AND PAT W.

JANE has now sent in the following thoughts and images :-  "I was rather taken by this exhibition (Alice Anderson - at the Wellcome Museum). I was rather taken by the fact that all the objects were wrapped in copper coil. She is dealing with memory. We know what things are even if we don't realise it.

The objects ( shelves, rope coils and ladders) interested me in different ways:

The texture of the coils
The light on the coils
Combining shape and shadow
Negative space

It is a lovely venue. I only got as far as the exhibition."

Jane no. 1

Jane no. 2

Jane no. 3

Jane no. 4

Jane no. 5

Jane no. 6

Jane no. 7

Jane no. 8

jane no. 9

jane no. 10

Jane no. 11

Jane no. 12

What a great selection of work, Jane.  As ever, the thing that you've zoomed in on is pattern and rhythm.  You've kept it very much in the 3D world this time, aided by your shadows and overlaps of form.   Now this is different from 3D represented by perspective (as you have in no.8 especially).  What's the difference?  The answer lies in the DEPTH of the 3D field that you're creating.  When you are relying just on overlap and shadow, the depth of field is quite shallow, and so you can read the 2D components really easily, and find interest in both.  However, as soon as you use linear perspective, the depth of field increases, and the pull of the volume you are creating is very strong.  If you look at no. 8, it is actually really difficult to see anything other than the implied volume.  The pattern of lights and darks is hard to make a priority. Compare that to no. 2, where you can enjoy both the pattern, and the implied space.

Look at no. 6, and it's rope hanging in a space.  Compare with no. 7, and the space behind is implied by the horizontal line (no angled linear perspective), but you can enjoy the patterning of the rope.
The line drawings create a very shallow space, but a space nonetheless, due to their overlapping nature.

This is a really fascinating thing to explore.  We've talked often about what to do with linear perspective, which often trips you up.  Maybe a clue lies here?  How deep a space do you want to create?  How dominating should the reading of that space be?



The lastly, PAT W. has sent in the following:-

"Predigeous building but I can't say that much other than the staircase interested me!

Walking back to kings Cross I climbed up to the back of the courtyard of the British Library and spied this lovely confection of St Pancras rooftops"

Pat no. 1

Pat no. 2

Pat no. 3

Pat no. 4

Pat no. 5

I think this selection finally clinches the fact that you are so much better when using limited colour, Pat.  Your two versions of the staircase are really great.  I almost don't think the second one needs the figures.  the form of the stairs is so strong, and compelling, with that strange twist in it, it almost stands on its own without the need to explain it with people.

I really LOVE your St. Pancras rooftops.  What a scene to unravel!  Again, just that touch of colour to animate it, but not to confuse it.  Well drawn perspective (very necessary here., unlike what I was saying to Jane), wonderfully dramatic sky to throw everything forwards  - really super!

Compare with no.5, where you have gone back to illustrator mode.  I'm really not sure what it was you were gripped by, but the trees are a bit limp, and the cars appear to be standing on their noses.  Sorry Pat - I'm being blunt, because I think you just need to leave this way of working behind, and explore further the really skilled and impressive other work you can do.

No. 3 is intriguing, just because of the subject matter, I guess.  Well put together, but still not as compelling as nos. 1, 2 and 4.  It is what it is - a little girl being puzzled by a flayed exhibit (& who wouldn't be!).

Keep up the great work, Pat.

That's it for now.  The next Tuesday dates were Oct 6th, Nov. 3rd and Dec. 8th, unless other plans have been made.

I look forward to seeing what you get up to next time.

EVERYONE'S WORK - 8th SEPT 2015

I have a selection of work sent from different references, so i'm going to start with the ones directly related to the visit to the Wellcome Collection on the 8th.  Funnily enough, this is one of those places that I was going to book up, but it was closed for refurbishment for ages, and i was always slightly worried about crowds.  I hope you found it a good spot!

GERALD first of all :-  "They are all orthodox sketches i.e. I was looking at the subject as I drew, but I was trying to work quickly and minimise detailing to record what was important to me."

Gerald no. 1

Gerald no. 2

Gerald no. 3

I have just looked back at the last entry from you.  I think you need to stop gathering information now, and see which of these drawing styles is best for giving you freedom the be creative when you work them up, counterbalanced with enough information to satisfy your drawing desires.
Last time, you kept the detailing to a minimum, with some really quite open tonal blocking - working a lot from memory. This time you've gone much more for the structural drawing.  This is especially the case in no. 3, where the dynamic form of the subject is fully explored.  Nos. 1 and 2 have areas of skilled observation (eg. skeleton - is it a bit abused in its anatomical order??).  They are super drawings, but I can't say which form of information gathering will be most useful to you.  I think that needs to be your challenge for the forthcoming month - explore that question.



Next came PAT K, who has also sent in some work from previously, so I will deal with that later.  She says :-  

"The building and displays were interesting historically and also from recent addiitions to the building and recent discoveries in medicine.

I found the two images I'm including very relevant to the present building-1stKurt  Schwitters1922 collage. (image 2 below)-and 2nd image-Le-Corbusier& Pierre Jeanneret-villa Savoye 
Poissy1928-31-Taken from a book I have on Modernism."(image 3 below)

Pat Drawings

Pat image 2

Pat image 3

How very interesting, Pat.  I am assuming that you've sent these two images through because you like them?  Although one is a 2-D creation, and the other is a photo of something 3-D, they both have one thing in common, and that's their boldness and clarity of form.  There is no indecision, no fudging, no suggestion.  It is all very clear where one shape or space stops, and the next starts.  They are both very, very tonal - no colour, really in the 2nd, and an overal colour tint in the first.  It's the clarity of boundaries and decision-making which is so interesting with respect to you and your work!

So - your work.........  Drawing top left (1) HAS that clarity.  I can see what you were getting at, and it is a very powerful image. It is also rich in mysterious spaces and pleasing shapes. Bottom left (3) - ditto, but you may feel the image is a bit shallow in its possibilities.  Bottom right (4) is very bold in colour, which is again different for you.  I can see that you were really trying to be brave and push on to something else.  The one that is a bit more muddled, maybe, is top right (2).  I can see what it was, and you have tried to define your spaces, but it doesn't have the fascinating possibilities that no. 1 offers - places where the imagination can go.

And I think that's the key.  Rather than fudging the actual definition in the drawing/painting, make your decisions clear, but let those resulting forms do the work of taking the imagination on a magical mystery tour!  Very difficult, but your two illustrations do it, and your drawing no.1 does it. 

STEPHANIE managed to get to the Wellcome Museum, saying :-  As you will gather I’ve signed up for a painting course, all day on Tuesday at the Art Academy — it’s intended to try and help you find your ‘voice’. We will see.  I’ve recently been in Scotland, and made a number of landscape sketches, including some with some floppy watercolour.  I want to use them as the basis of the work I start in October on the course, but will bring them in December.  Difficult to capture on the iphone,  and I need more time to work on them.

I had a tense day on Tuesday, due to a lot of other stuff going on, so relaxed (or tried to!) by looking at the Sexologist Exhibition that was currently showing.  I had had in mind trying to do a really detailed drawing, so decided to copy the only etching that Van Gogh had ever done — of his doctor, Gachet.  It was a fascinating exercise, trying to render his strokes on the page.  As you can see by the  comparison  I only got part way through — and now, looking at them side by side, I see how much more work there is to do.

The other thing that intrigued me was a big, fat ugly sculpture called ‘I can’t help the way I feel..’ v poignant.  Done quickly, partly blind with a square bit of graphite. 

Stephanie drawing from sculpture

Stepanie Drawing from Van Gogh etching

Van Gogh etching

  I want to start with you rendering of the sculpture.  I REALLY like it.  That's what comes of working intuitively - you FEEL the form.  The varied marks you've made with the side and point of the charcoal are very powerful, and I can really feel the fatness coming through from your drawing.  Whatever comes from your new course, make sure you stick to partial blind drawing - it works so well for you, and stops you from becoming too stilted and self-conscious.

Then, your copy of the Van Gogh.  Again, you've got that lovely line, so I'm guessing these were made partly 'blind' too?  That hand is so very difficult, but you've managed to get it really well, and it helps to not think 'hand' while doing it.  It's just a set of shapes.

As you say, his mark-making and description of form and volume through these marks, and space behind etc. is remarkable.  Making it colourful without using colour!

I will be most interested to know how you get on with your course.  Enjoy.

ELIZABETH did not go on Tuesday, but said :- "I did not go today but they are a selection from what I have done over the last week. Some of the drawings concentrating on windows and some on some people worshipping. They kindly let me draw them."

Elizabeth no.1  'High Praises Ministry'

Elizabeth no.2 'High Praises Ministry'

Elizabeth no.3  'High Praises Ministry'

Elizabeth no.4  'Figure in Window'

Elizabeth no.5 'Figures by Window'

Elizabeth no.6  'Orangery'

This is definitely the right plan - just follow a couple of simple themes and see what you get out of them.  Just think of all the past greats who have just done that - Morandi and his bottles being just one.

The studies of the worshippers are very tender and beautifully executed, especially the first two.  I love the way you can transpose a drawing from +ve to -ve.

I find the window pieces quite magical.  You have played with the sense of transience and transparency with the figures.  Are they reflected, or seen through?  Are the even solid themselves (esp. no. 5)?  And then the way that you deal with the windows themselves - lots of little panes, each with it's own bit of handling.

I can't really add to this, except to say that you just need to keep exploring these two themes, pushing a bit more each time, and just see where they get you.  Familiarity will give you the foundation from which you can experiment.  Well done, you!

Lastly, I also have some other images from PAT K., worked up from last time.  She says " The aim was to simplify the image-subject.? And to add more colour-to aim to extend my usual palette"

Pat no. 1

Pat no. 2

Pat no. 3

Pat no. 4

Pat no. 5

 

Pat no. 6

These were sent in before you had your very brave day at the Wellcome.  I can see, already, that there is a desire to be more positive in your decisions-making about areas/colours/ tones etc.

Straight away, i will say that I like no. 5 especially, because the colour of the trees has been reduced, leaving them as an interesting TONAL area, and allowing the orange to come through against them.  No. 3 also has a very nice rhythm of the blocks against the sinuous shapes of the trees.  That leads me on to no. 4 - here the shape/colour of the trees doesn't add anything to the picture.  In no. 3 they make a lovely couter-rhythm.  In no. 4, they sit there (!) less effectively.  No. 6 has got a bit indecisive - especially visible against all the others.
Just be careful not to make all you little square shapes the same size and weight.  Look back at the Schwitters earlier - all on a theme, but with plenty of variety and movement too.


Anyone else to send in?  Penny? Jane ? Pat W.?

Please do, if you have anything to share.