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.