Sage Grouse Dance

[JayS]

This past Saturday I went with some friends on a field trip. I got mud on my shoes, so I know it was officially a field trip! We started an hour before dawn in a blind waiting for sunlight to reveal the play of Greater Sage Grouse in a lek in Northwestern Colorado.

One of the images is of a Greater Sage Grouse male strutting his stuff. I am attracted to the curves of is display. One might even say the line of his form. He is as inflated as a grouse can get and clearly proud of it too. Around him there is a flurry of activity as other males try to establish their place in the hierarchy of the lek. The female birds seem totally indifferent to the behavior of the males. Research suggests that the females mate for life with the same male year after year. So each morning just before daylight the males position themselves in concentric rings with the most senior male in the center of the display. Then round and round the gals go until they find their guy. This behavior is repeated for the entire month of March and sometimes the first week or two of April. This year the first week of March found a solitary male strutting all alone. By 8 AM he was back under the cover of the sage where he would wait for the other birds to show up. The first week of April we counted over 200 birds in the lek. By 9:30 AM most of the birds had returned to the fields of sage. Tomorrow the birds who have not found their mates will most likely show up again.

When most of the birds had gone we left to see if we could find some wild horses in Sand Wash Basin. My friends had never seen a wild horse so when a stud came walking down the road toward us they exclaimed that today was a once in a lifetime experience. In my studio I'm surrounded by the once in a lifetime experiences I have had. They are with me every day. Such is the power of art!

Yesterday I started on the grouse. Today I am working on the dry grass environment o the lek.

[Mike Sibley]

What a fascinating description. And a story so well told that I feel I was there with you

And I'm definitely looking forward to seeing this grow.

[JayS]

Hi Mike. Truth be told I wish you were with me too. Grass has been a struggle. I think this is a little better. More variety in height, weight and shading.

[Mike Sibley]

Truth be told, I wish you were with me too. Grass has been a struggle. I think this is a little better. More variety in height, weight and shading.

Better??? It's real grass!!!! Seriously - the first thing I noticed was the depth you've achieved, because of the natural separation of the blades. And it's the cast shadows that are working so well to exhibit that separation. Now, I said that after only a quick glance... so, I'll be back in a minute after a longer look..........

OK... I've not changed my mind, It has a pleasing and interesting variety of shapes. It has a very natural appearance. It has.... OK, it has no background. But I can easily think of why that might be, so it doesn't affect the reality of what I'm seeing.

By 'no background', I mean the holes through the grass are just that - holes. If this was a patch of grass, I'd expect to see black holes with midground and background blades of grass criss-crossing here and there. But my mind is quite happy to think of this as a line of grass - such as might be growing out of a gap between two large stones or paving slabs - or it could be on top of a rise.

I refrained from talking about the Grouse earlier, because you might still be working on that. And you might still be going to do that... but I will just mention that the equal-value light markings are flattening its form. They need to be toned down to agree with the shading of the three-dimensional body.

[JayS]

Mike, Thanks for your comments about the grass. Hopefully I'm getting better.
The Grouse is flat. I've been working on increasing its roundness. In particular the leading edge of the wing is a lot lighter than the body of the bird in front of it. But I don't have the separation I want yet. We are looking at the shady side of the bird. The sun is actually behind it. But I can still increase the roundness with more attention to the top of the wing and back of the bird. With a little more confidence, I could move the sun to the front. We'll see what come out.

[Mike Sibley]

The sun is actually behind it. But I can still increase the roundness with more attention to the top of the wing and back of the bird. With a little more confidence, I could move the sun to the front. We'll see what come out.

That's exactly what I was about to suggest.

Basically, in the reference, the sun might be behind it. But, to show what attracts you to the bird - to tell your story - surely it would be better to light from the front at an angle? Do what's best for your drawing. The reference is just supplying detail, but you supply everything else. I've just finished a 2-day workshop here in my studio, and at one point I explained that no-one viewing the drawing can see into the artist's mind. You have to tell your story clearly, so the viewer understands what you are seeing - your vision.

In this case, back-lighting flattens - as does direct front lighting - so shift the light around. Draw an arrow in the margin as a reference if that helps. Then - this sounds a bit quirky, but it works - at any point just ask yourself can this point beneath my pencil point see the light, partial light, or no light. Do that and you automatically create three-dimensional form.

[JayS]

Your explanation of can this point beneath my pencil see the light is such a clear understanding. The grouse is really a dark brown which expressed as a value is only black in the distance and backlit. The drawing would be more value accurate if, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being black the value were say a 7. Here is where I question my choice of Canson Bristol paper. This paper tends to accept black graphite very well. Strathmore Plate would offer more resistance to darker values and tend more to the mid ranges. Even 2H seems to come out pretty dark on Canson. I've worked on rounding the bird all morning. So here it is...

[Mike Sibley]

Jay, I'm having three problems with this, and I've been biding my time until I had something concrete to mention.

1: THE VALUES OF MARKINGS
Although you have added three-dimensional form to the body, the markings remain the same value throughout, which flattens your hard work. Below is along the lines of what I'd try - possibly this is overdone, but it's just to give you an idea of my thinking (and some guesswork on my part as to the actual form of the grouse):

JAY-Sage-Grouse-1.jpg

2: INFLATED BREAST DESCRIPTION
The first time I saw this, it took some moments before I'd worked out that the Grouse is looking over its back. But no, I was wrong. I now know it has a short beak and is probably looking forwards... but I can't see its beak, or understand what that long dark shape with the bits jutting out of it, sitting on top of its chest, is? That's probably not a problem, but the inflated chest is... to someone who has never seen a Sage Grouse. In fact, I initially thought it was some sort of foam

I searched for information and came up with this:

JAY-Greater-Sage-Grouse.jpg

Now I understand. That chest has an intricate feather pattern that you could use to fully describe what it is, and its three-dimensional form. I'm not suggesting you apply heavy detail, but a little in the appropriate places might tell us it is made of feathers. I feel you need to explain what it is to those who have no idea of what a displaying Sage Grouse looks like - like me

JAY-Sage-Grouse-2.jpg

3: WING POSITION
In this area, I couldn't understand what I was looking at in any way until I found the Sage Grouse image. Now I appreciate that it raises its "elbow" and droops the remainder of its wings down. I think you need to find ways to display the edges of the wing. I've had a half-hearted and not very successful attempt - using a cast shadow at the right, and darkening the wing feathers at the left while lightening the puffed up chest to increase the contrast between the two.

It's also missing a leg... but I'm not going there

[JayS]

I'd better share my reference. I see what you mean about the shading of the spots. I am going to add to my personal reviews the admonition, "Look for the obvious." Thanks Mike. As for the leg my wife is cheering in the background. She also told me I was missing the grouse's other leg. Again, I should look for the obvious. Back to the drawing board.

[Mike Sibley]

I'm going to stick my neck out here and list how I'd tackle this. It is not a critique of your drawing, which is following your vision, and you know what you want to achieve. OK? This is just me day-dreaming

First, I should explain why I initially thought the grouse was looking back over its shoulder. There are two connected reasons:

JAY-Sage-Grouse-3.jpg

A: The feathers here have marking - "breaks" - in them.
B: Has NO breaks, so I see this as a long beak and not a feather.
C: And, the eye has a highlight but also has white to the right of the pupil. That suggests the highlight could be the white of the eye to the left of the pupil - so the bird appears to be looking back over its shoulder. In reality (as seen in the reference), it would appear these Grouse have no visible white in their eyes - at best a yellow tint. You need to tone down everything that is NOT highlight, so what remains reads as a true highlight.

D: I don't know what this is, but it's not its beak. The image I found shows a short, broad beak.

So, in my opinion, you have decisions to make before you begin. The chief of these is deciding what the story is, and what is important to that story. In this case, having only one leg isn't important

This bird is displaying. We need to show that. And not assume anyone knows what a Sage Grouse looks like.... like me, for example I have Pheasants in the fields around me, and Partridge - even a Little Egret at present... and three Cranes last year... but no grouse. Grouse north in Scotland - yes. In Yorkshire, England... not that I'm aware of.

So these (in no particular order) are what I would consider to be important before I begin:

JAY-Sage-Grouse-3.jpg

A pure white highlight in a black eye, with any adjacent or near whites dulled. That achieves maximum contrast in the drawing and pulls the viewer's eye to the bird's head.

E: The spread of the tail feathers. I don't know what it looks like at rest, but I'm fairly confident this array is part of the display.

The "hooked" wings (my red line), curling towards each other (if two are visible) below the breast. I think clearly explaining this element is vital. I might be reading this incorrectly, but I think the wing is partially furled, with the "elbow" (F/Blue line) at the top. Don't be too concerned about "correct" lighting of that elbow - light it in any way you need to in order to make it stand out. Then try to engineer ways to make the left- and right-hand edges of the entire wing as clear as possible. A cast shadow might work at the right - as I tried earlier.

G: At the left, those feathers are plain (no markings) except for a lighter edge. I'd play that edge down - visible on inspection, but a solid wing will tell the story more simply. Then contrast those brown feathers with the white of the chest. Looking at your reference, I'd darken the wing feathers a little, and keep the chest detail as light as I could.

In your drawing at present, I think the chest detail (around G) is a distraction that causes confusion by losing the edge of the wing within it.

Also, I might explore leaving a thin highlight down the edge of the wings, and then using a cast shadow on the white chest to clearly display that edge? Whichever strategy I chose, I'd want that left edge to be as smooth and unbroken as possible, and very sharp.

And the chest needs some detail and three-dimensional shaping. Maybe not much of either, but without it, I think it could easily become lost against the background. And including some detail should announce that it's made up of feathers. Without it, I think it looks like foam on a bird about to have a shave

H: Finally, I can see in your reference that feather H is a part of the second, rearmost, wing. It needs to be subordinate to the front wing (or even omitted).

That'll do for now. Except to say that a plan is needed, but not necessarily solutions on how to achieve it. I might recognise, for example, that I have to show two adjacent elements as being separate, but I won't necessarily know how until I'm drawing that area.