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.
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.
