figure drawing

**Chris Beatrice** · April 15th, 2004, 01:28 PM

My teacher made a comment a couple weeks ago about one mistake a lot of people seem to make. She said that when people see dark areas, a lot of times they just throw down some charcoal/paint/etc. without having modeled the area first. Even if it's supposed to be almost completely black, there needs to be that underlying structure in order for the area to read correctly to the viewer.

That's a very good point - sounds like you have a good teacher. It's funny, though, because sometimes the opposite is true: if the form is reading correctly from its lit parts, even though a large portion of it is just flat black shadow, it still reads correctly. The bottom line, as you know, is this particular issue has nothing necessarily to do with what you're seeing in the model or source image. You need to understand what's happening in your picture and adjust. The other funny thing is, some artists actually purposefully want to create an ambiguity or tension between "flat and round" (myself included, sometimes). It's always tough, therefore, to comment on issues like this without having to guess as to the artist's intentions.

**danteort** · April 15th, 2004, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by Chris Beatrice
It's always tough, therefore, to comment on issues like this without having to guess as to the artist's intentions.

This is true, however couldn't you make a case that the work should make apparent what the artist's intentions were?

That is, should we have to guess what the artist's goal is?

**Chris Beatrice** · April 16th, 2004, 01:19 PM

I hear that response a lot, invariably from artists whose work is mainly done for reproduction & communications purposes (i.e. 99% of what you see on this site), where "what you're trying to say" should, arguably, be very clear or the piece is not entirely successful. When someone plays a game, or looks at book illustrations, reads a comic book, etc., he doesn't want to have to figure out what he's looking at, be confused, intimidated, made to feel stupid, etc.

But in the larger art world... that's not the case at all, as a rule. It's certainly not an absolute. Figuring out what the artist is trying to do, being hit in the face with something you don't necessarily like, being made to see things you don't want to see, learning new ways of seeing, etc., watching an artist try to reinvent himself, and viewers taking away entirely different things from the same piece of art, are important parts of the experience. I'm talking viewers having ENTIRELY different experiences from the same piece of art. A lot of times you need to be very well-informed about a particular artist's past work, etc. in detail, to just begin to appreciate what s/he's trying to do in the current piece you're looking at, and so on. That's how the "fine art" world operates, which is really an entirely different purpose (and certainly not a "finer" purpose!) for art. It's unfortunate that these have been misnamed as "fine art" vs. "commercial art", but the audiences, how they expect to participate and be treated, how the work is bought and sold, etc., is entirely different, and as a result the work itself turns out pretty different.

On this site I feel it's usually pretty obvious what the artist is trying to accomplish, but when I see a large charcoal drawing of a nude, I can't say that so much.

**danteort** · April 16th, 2004, 02:47 PM

Ok, I think I understand what you are saying.

I also do understand the difference between fine art and commercial art, though from a different area. I'm also a fine art musician, having studied music in school and having been playing for about 15 years now.

I'm new to the visual art world, though, so it's very exciting learning the similarities and the differences between music and visual art. Unfortunately, I'm not up to date on either, since in school you don't study a lot of contemporary music (at least not as much as you study the older stuff), and I'm too new to art to understand what's going on.

**Chris Beatrice** · April 16th, 2004, 06:10 PM

Well you may understand the difference, but in about five seconds someone else is probably going to start flaming me...

**Main Loop** · April 16th, 2004, 10:22 PM

beautiful mood in these.. the playing up of the reflected lights and core shadow does it for me.. reminds me of David Grove's drawings or bob heindels work

**Barti89** · April 17th, 2004, 07:08 PM

These are very nice

**marc_taro** · April 18th, 2004, 01:51 PM

Nice stuff - great control of the medium - I can't make heads or tails of charcoal - eeeeww dirty fingers!

does the artist erase out on these? I've seen some awesome work done with compressed charcoal and an eraser...I hope these are done on quality paper - be a shame to hear they're on time-bomb newsprint!

Love to see some oils from this person!

~m

**tinkle** · April 22nd, 2004, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Sakievich
He loved your comments, generally, though he does think it could use more contrast.

here's on of my most favorite drawings that he's done.

Wow! This picture was posted on another board, and I just had to make an account, so I could register my comments here.

What a breathtaking drawing! She is such a beautiful (and hot!) woman, and the artwork itself makes me wish I had a full size version to hang on the wall. Granted, I don't know art well, but I am very moved by this piece. I actually appreciate the somber contrast, as it adds texture and richness, yet keeps the drawing somewhat fanciful.

I encourage the artist to continue, as he's quite talented.

Send me a private message if there's a way to get a higher resolution/dimension picture. I'd love to print this out in detail (although my girlfriend might kill me if I hang it on the wall).

**Misc.** · April 22nd, 2004, 01:22 PM

Where was it posted other than here? I don't have a higher resolution than this one. I am sorry.

**Ladyviv** · April 22nd, 2004, 02:32 PM

To me it does seem that the left arm is slightly short from the shoulder to the elbow. She seems to be arching the back slightly, which would show the fingers to be a few inches down further on the thigh..... the right arm is a bit harder to tell, but I do think it also looks slightly short. That is the only critism that I have, otherwise, this is beautiful, and makes me feel the need to work more w/ the human body. The legs and feet look perfect.

**Ladyviv** · April 22nd, 2004, 03:16 PM

This charcoal is amazing. Any pointers on using charcoal would be much appriciated

**Chewbacca** · April 22nd, 2004, 09:01 PM

man the fat girl one is the hotness!!! i wish i could do that

**danteort** · April 23rd, 2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by Ladyviv
This charcoal is amazing. Any pointers on using charcoal would be much appriciated

Basically, charcoal is one of those media where you really get to play around. Lots of pushing and pulling, put in some dark, erase out to white, etc. Don't be afraid to move it around. You're never stuck with what you've got on the page, since it's a VERY easy to move medium. Other than that, it just takes lots of messing around with it. Remember that an eraser is a drawing tool, so don't go anywhere with charcoal without an eraser in your other hand.