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.