WIP Black Tailed Deer

[JayS]

I've been thinking about the grass. I think I did it all wrong. Technique is not spontaneous enough. I'm going to do this over.

[Mike Sibley]

I've been thinking about the grass. I think I did it all wrong. Technique is not spontaneous enough. I'm going to do this over.

I agree, Jay. It's controlled to the point of being unnatural - close to natural, but simply too clear.

And there's no recession. No recession from front to back of the entire area of grass. And no recession locally. There are only two values throughout: light blade or black background.

When I'm drawing grass spontaneously, I might quickly outline a foreground blade or two, so there are very visible blades that tell us what everything around them is, too. Then I enjoy myself creating the background behind them. And that begins with black holes that define the midground shapes, then those shapes are variously shaded to create depth. Some almost disappear into the background darks; others come forward, but not as far forward as the (as yet unshaded) foreground blades. Like this:

GRASS-SLE.jpg

Then you have to remember that the grass, as a whole, will quickly degrade as it becomes further away. And I'm not suggesting my way is the only way, but it does need to conform, to what we expect to see in Nature.

You already have the right idea and approach. But it’s not working because you're creating detail in distant areas where we could never naturally see it.

[DavidBunyan]

Hi Jay, I suffer from the same thing at times. I think it's having the confidence to allow yourself to be a little random with your pencil strokes and to allow your mind to fill in the gaps.

Having said that - when I've seen some hyper-realist works - I feel they must have stayed completely true to a reference.

[JayS]

Thanks for the thoughts. I'm starting the rework of the otter today. In about a week I'll get back to the bucks. It seems that even while I'm working on something different the unresolved are running around in my head working themselves out. Your comments help dig deeper.

[Mike Sibley]

Having said that - when I've seen some hyper-realist works - I feel they must have stayed completely true to a reference.

I've been fighting the urge to respond... and I lost

I agree that hyperrealism does look as though it's firmly tied to a reference, and most probably it is. But I'm also left wondering, "why bother"?

I'm not a fan of hyperrealism. I certainly do marvel at the technical prowess of the artist - I think their mastery of the medium is superb! But they aren't telling me anything more than the reference is. So why not just be content with showing the reference. Or am I missing something?

tldr: I admire the technical mastery, but it's not art.

[Mike Sibley]

Your comments help dig deeper.

When you are drawing the rocks behind the otter, Jay, are you thinking:

This rock needs to be clearly separated from the next one, and I should add some tone in its bottom half to show that it's rounded.

Or

The light is shining from the left, so my shadows will fall here and here. But maybe I should darken them a little, so each rock is clearly separate from the next.

Or

If I was on the beach right now, what would I expect to see in this area? And then maybe: The rocks are very light, so they'd reflect light - and that reflected light will dilute their own shadows. In other words, they'll be more of a mass of light rocks, rather than being individually distinguishable.

I think the first two produce mechanical, calculated results. And the third will have a greater feel of reality.

I'm partly talking about this because when you drew the grass around your deer (which I think was over-thought) I noticed that you first placed your flower heads in position. They were all identical; they were all the same size; and, please forgive the phrase, they were all "Mickey Mouse" flowers - by which I mean, they were caricatures of real flowers. The result was a false appearance with no recession.

But if you just think "what would I expect to see here?" as you worked - and incorporated the flowers into the grass as you let your thoughts and memories flow onto the paper - I think the outcome would have reflected your idea of "what's natural" rather than thinking "technique".

On the other hand... maybe I'm just having a weird morning

[JayS]

Mike I'll take your weird mornings over my own any day. Maybe you should do a lesson on "How to think like an artist." I'm serious for these reasons: 1) When I go for a hike I'm looking for subjects for my art. Bears, Elk, deer, coyotes, and all the birds that seem to show up and follow me around. As I put each subject in the viewfinder of my camera, I'm thinking about what is around them and are they in the right position and what is the light doing? Then I check the technical stuff on the camera to make sure the settings are good. Finally, I set the shooting mode to rapid fire, seven frames a second. then I press the shutter hoping I'm surprised. I've a collection of over 200,000 images of which only about 300 have made it to the drawing board. Most of the time I'm thinking, "What can I eliminate to make the image better. What you are teaching me is what is essential to tell the story. My thinking needs to be multi-dimensional. 2. When I say dig deeper, you are helping me see things I was too lazy to see. Like the recession on the flowers. You are right they are all the same. If only I were a cartoonist! Just kidding. When I was drawing the grass and the flowers, I was using an illuminated magnifying glass. I remember thinking I can't draw any smaller. Then you showed me grass you had drawn that was different in different areas of the drawing. Fantastic, You used different approaches to get the result you wanted while I was stuck on one way. Mind expanding. More importantly you showed me how to use different ways to enhance the variety in my work thereby increasing interest in my drawings. 3. On the average I draw between 5 and 8 hours a day, every day. My work is worse for it. There is a period of time during the day when my mind is fresh and what I'm doing is interesting. Then being tired creeps in but I keep on keeping on. The rhythm of the work takes over and I'm sloppy. My work shows it and your comments frequently point out those faults. Like not taking on the challenge of the water in the first Yellowstone Otter drawing. The best outcome for me is to learn to recognize when I'm not thinking. I'd be better off grabbing my camera and going in search of wild horses or something. Maybe even better taking one of your lessons, 4. Active thought is kind of like an adage I was told by a pencil artist 17 years ago. Watching this individual draw was painful because of his slowness. It would easily take him 10 minutes to put a single line on his drawing, I asked him how long it took him to complete a single work. He said, "There are 2 answers to that question. First, an hour of looking is worth an hour of drawing. Secondly, an 11X14" drawing takes about 250 hours. I thought that what he was saying is "Think about what you are doing." You say the same thing when you say, "You have to understand every element of your drawing." This means I have to understand water. How it flows, how the light hits it, how reflections work. How shadows fall on the water. This may be as much as 100 hours of work before the pencil touches the paper and another 100 hours in between pencil strokes.

I'll answer your question about otter rocks in the otter post later.

I know that his forum is where we all have the opportunity to learn from each other. I have noticed that for the past 3 weeks my posts are at the top. I want more fresh posts from everyone, please. Otherwise, I'll feel that I'm not being fair to you all.

[Mike Sibley]

Jay, I'll respond to the rest ASAP, but I wanted to comment on your drawing.

First, When you were drawing the deer, you were thinking about the grass, and creating it negatively. I'm not saying that's the only way, but it's what I would do too. OK... it is the only way

Second: You've begun the grass at the base and recognised that the grass extends below the bottom of your drawing. You've planned its structure, too. But... you're drawing it positively. I contend that the reason you can detect the edges of the blades of grass, is because they are surrounded by holes of various depths. Dark holes, that the lighter blades stand out from. So, try working background to foreground. Create the black holes first. Work forward and create lighter holes. Using the holes, at all times, to define the edges of the blades of grass.

It's easier to show you than to describe, so take a look at NEGATIVE DRAWING Part 1 starting at 3:52 up to 8:28. That's what I'm trying to describe. Designing the foreground, and spontaneously creating the midground as you work on the background.

I'll get back to the rest of your post soon. My main office computer is dying, and I'm busy setting up its replacement.

Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible

[JayS]

I have great empathy for dying computers as mine went belly up and the replacement took about 2.5 months. Supply chain issues. May you be much more fortunate. I was so dissatisfied with the above new beginning I started over yesterday. I'll take a look at Negative drawing part 1.

[PogArtTi]

It's really a great lesson to follow all your comments dear friends.
JayS you're doing amazing arts and picking up lessons quickly, and you are so passionate to re-work your art to make adjustments ASAP, awesome attitude!
The grass!!!
It's as difficult to me as the water is
I'm struggling to understand it's nature, so my attempts are always questionable
I do appreciate all your hard work in here.
I love the drawing, I will follow !!!