Sea Otter Eats Squid

[JayS]

This drawing is a result of an otter trainer throwing squid at an otter. I thought the otter was enjoying his meal well beyond an average expression of "Just another fish day." The otter was probably about 6 or 7 feet from me. We were separated by a plexiglass window abut 2" thick. Amazingly the docent said that they had to take rocks away from the otters because the otters would throw the rocks at the windows and break them. This is the same stuff bullet proof glass is made of. I don't want otters throwing rocks at me! I was also told that the average sea otter in captivity could live to 45 years. In the wild usually half that is a typical lifespan.

You can see from the reference that the otter is pretty well defined. The squid, not so much. So, I invented a squid arm to better define the calamari lunch. The water is also a challenge. The otter is a fascinating study of abstract wet fur and well-defined hair. Contrast was also a highlight (pun intended). Lots of good dimension comes from the shift from solid blacks to pure white.

I'm pretty happy with this drawing. Nothing is ever prefect and here in the Colorado Rockies several people have commented that they don't see what the otter is eating?

The highlight of yesterday was I spotted a black bear eating road kill just 10 miles south of my house. We had a Bear Jam for about an hour. Shades of Yellowstone!

This drawing is a significant movement away from the reality of what I see and a move toward pure invention.

[JayS]

The drawing image transferred darker than the real image.

[PogArtTi]

I love the tale!
Really?!
Those otters used to break glass by throwing stones?!
Amazing animals !!!

JayS I'm blown away with the wet fur effect you achieved!
I couldn't believe it's drawn so well!
It is looking wet, amazing!
I love the effect very much, it is impressive to me.

Everything looks well drawn from my point of view, the squid's arm was a good idea, it's suggesting very well what otter is enjoying - well done!

The only thing, that's little bit distracting me is the black part of the otter's jaw (lips).
It is black,sharp edge, sort of triangle shape...
I think it could benefit if edge was a bit softer?, blurred a bit, to lessen the sharp edge/line effect...
I am judging it while following the uploaded photo, but I'm aware it can look perfectly fine on your original art JayS

It is very impressive drawing to me.
Thank you for share, and for your story.

[Laurene]

You certainly succeeded in rendering the different textures such as the wet fur and the squid tentacle and these are not easy to achieve!

I do think though that the composition itself makes it a little difficult to make out the subject. I see it because you explained it to us (great story by the way!), but I can see why someone might not immediately make it out. This is a very challenging piece, so well done!

[Mike Sibley]

Jay, I've not adjusted anything, just let Affinity Photo do its auto thing. You mentioned blacks and whites and contrast, so I think this is closer to your original image:

JAY_Sea-Otter_sml.jpg

First, I think this is too good By which I mean, I think you've put a lot of work into every area, but "a lot" is too much in some areas.

Coincidentally, I'm 3/4 the way through making the next DRAWING HAIR video, and part of its advice is to always question what you see. Analyse, understand, and then draw that understanding. The result will probably not look like the reference, but it will have clarity. That said, your reference leaves a lot to be desired. Even working out where the water line is around the otter isn't easy.

So, there are four areas I want to mention:

A: To my eye, these are shapes that don't mean anything. Rather than add to my understanding of what I'm seeing, they confuse. There are similar shapes in the reference - and they don't make much sense there, either. One solution might be to invent your own patch of wet hair, because that WILL make sense to you - and to us. Overall, though, your drawing of the obviously wet hair is excellent.

B: The otter is laying on its back and this area is underwater. Making it sharp brings it to the surface, and that damages our ability to detect the edge of the arm (leg - whatever) that's feeding the squid to the mouth. The photo doesn't help with that either.

C: This is awkward. I'm almost certain the left-hand shape is clumped wet hair on the paw. And that the right-hand shape is either wet hair just under the surface, or foam, or reflection. But here, both shapes are identical in treatment, making one look like an expansion of the other. And that damages our sense of the paw. In fact, I'm not convinced either were worth including, because the curve of the arm is undoubtedly the most important edge to display.

JAY_Sea-Otter_sml.jpg

D: And this one really bothers me. This abstract shape, along with all the background, is so sharply defined that it appears to be a part of the otter. It's terribly distracting, and not even necessary. It plays no part in the story at all. I just want to make a case here for foregrounds being sharp, and midground and backgrounds being soft. I'm not a fan of out-of-focus, but "soft" or "soft-edged" is definitely worth a try. It results in this:

JAY_Sea-Otter.jpg

All I've done is to slightly blur the background and any part that is under the water, except for the immediate foreground. And now that awkward shape is obviously behind the otter, and the otter is centre stage and the star of the show. And so is your clever addition of the squid's arm.

Thanks for the thorough description of your experience. I knew nothing about Sea Otters and really enjoyed your description.

I have actually seen a Sea Otter - once. I was photographing an Elephant Seal somewhere down LA way. As I swept the camera right, a man alongside me said, "Well done for spotting that Sea Otter". Both I and Seal had passed by it without noticing it. So I said "Thanks!" and panned left. I got a couple of long-distance photos of it on its back eating something. And that's my one experience.

[JayS]

Arthur, Thanks for your thoughts. With respect to your comments about the otter's lip...I think the issue here is that I made it too even. Upon reflection is see varying levels of definition along the length of the lip and I didn't do that, expecially where the lip meets the upper jaw.

Laurene, thank you for pointing out the different textures. I wasn't even thinking about that as I was drawing. I worried that the forest would get lost in the trees. There is so much abstraction in the otter's fur I worried that the animal would be lost.

Mike, As I was drawing this I kept thinking "Mike will want to be able to see and understand the story. Especially the arm and the tentacle." But I wasn't able to really make sense of what I was drawing. AND IT SHOWS! As an exercise in understanding I will comment on each of the four areas you mentioned.

A) Patches of wet hair. In looking at these patches I have come to understand, after I drew them, that the dark areas under the wet hair are the shadows that lift the patches above the body of the otter. By darkening these areas more and extending them further with a graduated shadow I can give more dimension to these areas and perhaps a better understanding of them.
B) Yes! Diffusing the underwater areas helps a lot. The arm got lost and the reference doesn't help. I worked on this and my imagination fell short here too. I wondered whether or not this was really the eaten part of the squid arm under water? What if it overlays the otter arm? I am not clear about this yet.
C)I think that this is the body of the otter floating out of the water. I'm currently thinking about the use of highlights to help separate edges of where the water meets the animal. This would help with the overall definition of the image too.
D) I read the abstract shape as sunlight on the water created by the disturbance of the otter's movement. If this is correct, I failed to convey the dimensionality of the water's movement. I think a strong case can be made for complete elimination of the large area of reflection and following through with a thin line of highlights to suggest ripples.
Overall, your suggestions are ways in which I can simplify the image and strengthen it at the same time. I am a bit surprised that we see so much the same and at the same time a whole lot differently.

The next work in progress is a Griz eating an elk being watched by a hidden coyote.

On a personal note I have been diagnosed with a blockage in my bladder. On Wednesday I will undergo surgery to remove the blockage and then have two months of recovery to look forward to. The Dr. told me that I can't lift more than 20 lbs for 2 months. It's a good thing a pencil weighs a lot less.

Thanks to you all.

[PogArtTi]

On Wednesday I will undergo surgery to remove the blockage and then have two months of recovery to look forward to.

Be strong JayS!
All the best to you!

It's a good thing a pencil weighs a lot less.

But remember - single pencil in your hand at the time of drawing!
NOT two or bunch of them

[JayS]

Made some changes.

[Mike Sibley]

With respect to your comments about the otter's lip... I think the issue here is that I made it too even. Upon reflection, I see varying levels of definition along the length of the lip and I didn't do that, especially where the lip meets the upper jaw.

I agree with you that there are varying levels of definition. But where I disagree, is that none of that is relevant. By all means take what makes sense to you from the ref, but ultimately you need to draw what looks right for your drawing. If that means, for example, describing the three-dimensional shaping, even though none or little is apparent in the reference, then you should be adding that shaping.

As I was drawing this, I kept thinking, "Mike will want to be able to see and understand the story. Especially the arm and the tentacle." But I wasn't able to really make sense of what I was drawing. AND IT SHOWS! As an exercise in understanding, I will comment on each of the four areas you mentioned.

It does show, but I'm really not surprised. I understand why you'd want to use that photo, but it's a horror! There are times when if you look at a reference for long enough, it gradually begins to make some sense. But I'd not want to attempt this myself. Adding the squid's arm was a lovely idea, but finding and refining the otter's hand would have been even better. But good luck with that. Even though I know where it's hand should be, I fail to properly detect it.

A) Patches of wet hair. In looking at these patches, I have come to understand, after I drew them, that the dark areas under the wet hair are the shadows that lift the patches above the body of the otter. By darkening these areas more and extending them further with a graduated shadow, I can give more dimension to these areas and perhaps a better understanding of them.

Whether I agree with that or not (I do ) it's of no matter. What matters to me is that you're thinking along the right lines. Always question what you're looking at (as you'll see in the next video).

B) I wondered whether or not this was really the eaten part of the squid arm under water? What if it overlays the otter arm? I am not clear about this yet.

I'm not clear about that either. But I think the story is more important than adhering to what actually occurred. In this case, does it matter if it really was "the eaten part of the squid arm under water". Or, to put that another way, where would YOU like the parts of the squid to be. For example, as we can't work out where the hand/paw is, you could throw another squid arm over the otter's arm. Now we know what it's eating, where its arm is, and why we can't see its hands. I'm not suggesting you DO that, just suggesting a possibility.

C)I think that this is the body of the otter floating out of the water. I'm currently thinking about the use of highlights to help separate edges of where the water meets the animal. This would help with the overall definition of the image too.

Now you're talking! I've used surface tension, quite effectively, in the past to describe edges of bodies in water. Of course, surface tension wouldn't really exist in this swirling, moving water, but little bubbles and bright highlights would.

D) I read the abstract shape as sunlight on the water created by the disturbance of the otter's movement. If this is correct, I failed to convey the dimensionality of the water's movement. I think a strong case can be made for complete elimination of the large area of reflection and following through with a thin line of highlights to suggest ripples.

Again, I think you're thinking along the right lines now. I think you included something because it was there, and that it probably signalled reflection... probably... If you thought it unquestionably described the water's reflection, then there's an excellent chance that everyone else will see it that way too. But I think you took a gamble that didn't pay off. Also, I must point out that your water is much lighter than the water in the original, and, in this case, I think that's important. And it's one reason why your otter is a bit lost - the water is fighting for attention.

I just took a look at the reference again. Do otters have claws? And thumbs? Because I think I can see claws on the end of a paw. And if they have an opposing thumb, it would put the claws where they'd need to be if the paw was clutching a big chunk of squid. Or I might be wrong

Overall, your suggestions are ways in which I can simplify the image and strengthen it at the same time. I am a bit surprised that we see so much the same and at the same time a whole lot differently.

Well, I don't think the reference helps in that respect. But yes, you can simplify it and strengthen it. First, stop thinking "it's in the reference, so it has to be in my drawing". No it doesn't. Nobody who sees your drawing will see the reference. All they want to do is understand what they're seeing, and enjoy your experience of the otter with you. We're artist - we're allowed to lie!

On a personal note, I have been diagnosed with a blockage in my bladder. On Wednesday, I will undergo surgery to remove the blockage...

The very best of luck with that. And wishing you a very quick and full recovery.

Sorry - I just realised I missed the changes. I'll take a look tomorrow morning as I'm closing down for tonight.

[Laurene]

Wishing you a speedy recovery Jay.