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.