WEEK 1: EXERCISE 1

Excellent! You're asking the right questions and coming up with viable answers. As soon as you do that, you begin to draw what you know rather than only what you can see. Everything is alive in your mind as an actual object and not just shapes and values in a reference.


All good choices. And I have to say that I think your drawing is superb! Personally, I would have omitted the horizontal saw marks, because I think they're a distraction. But this is your drawing and not mine.

Your wood grain is subtle and realistic and, more importantly, you've also included a hint of highlight down one side of every crack. That's excellent! It sends an unmistakable "this is a crack" message because a highlight will only occur in that situation - and not if it was a dark line on the surface.


Are you referring to the rust stains, rather than the rusty nail heads? Well, your rust staining is correctly constructed from darkened woodgrain. Some artists see the staining as being dark marks on the surface, which they aren't. Also, your nail heads are lovely! I really like the way the light catches the rough surface of the left-hand one. That makes the right-hand one appear to be more raised out of the wood, and it has a thin highlight around its edge, which gives it a feeling of thickness. And the left-hand one in particular shows signs of a muted highlight beneath it. That, as you noticed, suggests it's been driven in deeper than the surface of the wood.


That works for me if you're happy working at that scale. I'm more concerned about you making exercises too large - so they take you forever to draw. You can learn better from small, because it avoids the frustration or boredom. I think I would have drawn this about 7.5cm wide, but 10 is OK too. Just bear in mind that if you double the size you more than quadruple the time needed to complete it.

WEEK 1: EXERCISE 2
First, I think you submitted a photo? I say that because the lower half is unnaturally dark compared to the top half. I attempted to correct that to some extent before critiquing.


I think you're part way there. I don't usually post the reference with a drawing because it was never intended to be a copy. But in this case... notice how the reflections are more muted. I think your left-hand pile is unnaturally light. It is reflected light, so it will never be as bright or dark as the object itself. It's also not as sharp - which yours isn't, so that's OK.


No - that's OK. If you want to include shadows, go ahead. That said, I don't think they're correct. According to your shadows, we're looking at the illuminated side of both piles. That works with the left-hand pile, but the right-hand one now looks too dark. And, more importantly - the water behind the piles is naturally rippling... yet none of those ripples extends across your shadow. When they do, just remember that the front face of each ripple can see the piles and their shadow, but the tops are looking at the sky. So the ripples will most likely look like light lines crossing the shadows.

Personally, I would have liked to have seen ripples in front of the piles, too. So they crossed the reflections. Again, if you look at the reference, you can see you tiny ripples have caused the edges of the reflections to become saw-toothed, with a few ripples creating distortion within the left-hand pile.

Sometimes including these things - even if they don't exist in the reference - helps the viewer to better understand the image. For example, your surface tension works very well - we instantly know where the pile stops and its reflection starts. Even though surface tension rarely if ever occurs in moving water... but our minds understand the signal you're sending.

WEEK 1: EXERCISE 1

Superb! Not only is the first layer solid and dense, after being fixed and layered again, it's noticeably darker and even more solid. Exactly what you needed to achieve.

Strong darks are important! If we assume that your drawing has one very dark value or black in it, as soon as that dark area has been drawn you immediately determine every other value within the drawing. Every value in your drawing has to fall between that dark value and the white of your paper. If that "dark" is light you will force yourself to work with a palette of light greys. Unless it was intentional, that usually leads to a flat drawing. Setting a wide range of values, by making your darks dark will help with three-dimensional rendering and add visual impact to your work.

WEEK 1: EXERCISE 2
This looks very intuitive and flowing, and the removal of white by the 2H layer gives it a very solid appearance. I can almost run my fingers over the bumps and hollows and knots on this wood and feel them.

This was a difficult concept to explain so it's one you had to try personally. Any time a surface looks more like "drawing" than "real", try layering it lightly with a 2H. The result is a solid surface. The 2H seems to tie all the elements together, and dulls all the white content, which (in this case) wood doesn't naturally contain.

Do be careful to not over-detail wood in a drawing - not that you have. Here, where it's isolated, detailed grain might work well, but wood rarely displays a very pronounced grain - although weathering can dig into the softer spring wood and create a more sculpted surface. Wood tends to be a secondary element within a drawing so take care that it doesn't dominate the subject.

WEEK 1: EXERCISE 3

That's exactly what I feel, too, when I'm using techniques like this. One of things I like about creative shading is that the result is very often surprising but effective. And I'm loving your result!

You've created some lovely textures in this. The human brain always seeks understanding, so I can see subtle pits and hollows with shadows and highlights...

I particularly love the edges of your stone slabs. That sort of immediate creation tends to only happen when you're lost in the drawing and thinking "stone slab".

There's not much sign of the graphite clumping, but that might only happen with my lead/paper combination... and even then, I can't guarantee it will occur. It's absence isn't a problem - this works very well as it is.

I keep going back to admire those sculptured edges...

WEEK 1: EXERCISE 1

The 2B is almost capable of doing what an HB can, so no harm done. And that final HB layer will have fixed any white holes remaining in your shading.

This is definitely looking good!

You've achieved an excellent dark area of shading, and it's smooth, too. If you want to draw realistically your pencil lines should never show - and yours don't. When they do, the viewer's eye will always detect it and their brain will simply label it a "drawing" instead of something to treated as real life.

In any drawing, the 4B and 2B in particular need to be as dark as you can achieve, within the constraints of the subject, because the more contrast you can generate between your darkest value and lightest (the white of your paper), the greater will be the range of values available to you. More importantly, good solid darks will add impact to your drawings and help greatly with three-dimensional rendering.

Well done!



WEEK 1: EXERCISE 2

I think they were a good idea in this case, because they broadened the range of values within the exercise.

I like the way you've let your pencil explore the surface in this. However, there are a couple of points I want to raise.

First, this exercise didn't necessarily call for 4B and 2B layering - simply to draw woodgrain using whatever method you preferred. Then - and only then - to layer it overall with 2H. Of course, it could be that your preferred method was 4B and 2B layering , but that's produced a fairly solid surface rather than a sense of woodgrain. The next time you draw wood, try hatching instead, and always shade with the grain - preferably using tapered lines so no overlaps occur.

Personally, I'd prefer linear shading following the grain of the wood - and of course the shading itself then suggests the grain. And I'd never blend wood because it would lose the sharpness and freshness. Because you used multiple layers, your wood does look blended - although your knots are still sharp-edged, which is good.

Finally - and this is just something to bear in mind for future wood drawings - knots don't just appear without disturbing the grain. I've mentioned before that we artists become more observant the more we draw. Take a good look at woodgrain. The grain squeezes together and grows around knots, before returning to its original path. And sometimes it takes the weirdest of routes to accommodate the knot. But a knot never just appears within the grain, as your drawing tends to suggest that they do.

All that said, ultimately your exercise worked well, because that 2H layer has removed any remaining white and made your planks look very solid.

WEEK 1: EXERCISE 3

Don't worry about that. I always correct these things before I critique and post it back here. Granted, I'm guessing... but I've a pretty good idea of what it probably looks like.

I think you've achieve some lovely textures in this. The human brain always seeks understanding, so I can see subtle pits and hollows with shadows and highlights... even if you didn't intend them. That's one of things I like about creative shading - the result is very often surprising but effective.

I think you blended forcefully enough, but you can't blend too heavily if you're going to use this technique - because it's one technique where delicacy doesn't work... at least, not for me. My Conqueror Diamond White needs a solid coating of HB and/or 2H before the 2B is layered over it. If the graphite and clay of the harder grades doesn't fill the tooth, it offers too many opportunities for the 2B to be accepted. Ideally the 2B should take in some places and slide over the harder grade in others. This gives a broken appearance that subsequent hard (even brutal!) blending will exaggerate by causing some of the graphite to clump together.

WEEK 1: EXERCISE 4

Despite your problems... well, not really problems - more like experimenting until you found what worked best for you. And that's how it should be.

Despite the missing shading (which I'm sure exists), there's a lot of visual interest in this without any of it being clearly defined. And that's what I was hoping to see. I find drawing with a stump or tortillon is often a very rewarding and free way of working, and well worth experimenting with as a viable drawing method.

I never throw tortillons or stumps away because, graphite laden, they are ideal tools for suggesting soft or misty textures or objects. I use this technique for old plastered walls, dirt floors, and misty background trees, to name a few.

WEEK 1: EXERCISE 5
Susan, if you can, could you please send your images as JPGs and not embed them in a PDF page. I can't extract your image from the PDF, so I've taken a screenshot, enlarged this slightly and sharpened it. But I suspect your original looks much better!

That's not fair to Ugg boots! especially when my wife is wearing a pair.

To be fair, I know I'm deliberately stretching you at times, but it's often the only way to move forwards... and you should be rightfully proud of this drawing!

You've achieved some lovely three-dimensional shading, so the boots look naturally solid and rounded. And your shading appears to be entirely free of line, which is good, because line does not occur in Nature. My only advice is to use sharp drawing where sharp drawing really matters. In this case it's the edges of the sole at the tip of each boot. You can see in the reference how they've delaminate, which I think adds interest and tells part of the story of these well-worn boots. If those edges aren't sharp, they just melt into each other.

I can't tell if you used a lightly applied flat face and shaded in small circles to build up each area... but I hope you did. It'd an excellent way of allowing your pencil to move anywhere and explore form and texture.

This was not a shading exercise, but the physical recreation of a pair of boots. If you can see the boot in your mind as you draw, you'll draw a believable boot. Copy... and you'll just produce a copy of a boot that contains no understanding. These look like boots!

WEEK 5: EXERCISE 1

First, that outward-looking pose itself breaks almost all the rules in one go... and yet it succeeds. I think this is a very special drawing of Ann's, and I've been attracted to it ever since I first saw it on my (now retired) Starving Artists website 17 years ago.

What works for me is that the girl appears to be leaning very slightly backwards, almost off balance, and that counteracts the forward movement implied by her right-hand position and looking out of the picture. It corrects the imbalance in the composition. Also, the arrow head of her elbows points me back in, and her head is slightly tilted back so she's not directly looking out of the frame but into the dark corner. In reality she is balanced - drop a vertical from her neck and it is correctly over her ankle But her hips are thrust forwards giving her that "leaning backwards" feeling. To be honest I don't really want to analyse it - just enjoy it.


I absolutely agree with you. Personally, I think this is an excellent example of using the lighting for artistic effect without attempting to obey the laws of Nature. The light source appears to be high up on the left - that accounts for the shadow in front of her and that it only catches the back of her ankle. Her arms signify that too. But her face is also receiving light. I just noticed a shadow for the first time - cast by her right arm on her torso... if the light is high, just behind her, and between us and the girl, I think it all makes sense - including (almost) the light on the background plane. Previously I thought Ann was using reflected light to illuminate the front of the girl where light was required.

While not exactly a rule, have you looked for the eye-level? It seems low to me. I think the eye-level is somewhere around the hem of her dress or just above it. The ellipse of her belt proves that, and that I'm not particularly aware of looking down on her feet. We’re looking up at her which adds to my feeling that she’s standing tall and proud.

And Have you considered the Rule of Thirds? Other than the girl is standing in one third...
That, I think, is where the rule of thirds comes into play. She's almost exactly divided into thirds vertically. Not only do her elbows point back into the work - the point between her elbows is directly on a hot spot. And her left (lower) elbow is virtually on a one-third divisions, as is the rear corner of the skirt's hem, which is also very close to a hot spot.

You mentioned the gradated background earlier - what really works for me is that the girl appears to be leaning very slightly backwards, almost off balance, and that counteracts the forward movement implied by her right-hand position, and that she's looking out of the picture. It corrects the imbalance in the composition. Also, her head is tilted back so she's not directly looking out of the frame but into the dark corner. I wonder what she is looking at but that thought is defeated by the dark corner in front of her - in fact it's the darkest area of the background and possibly the darkest value in the entire piece, so perhaps she is only looking within herself?


Me too! I could go on all day about this work. And, even after reading your analysis, and everyone else's over the years, I'm still not certain myself why it works - but it certainly does work!