So, the
other day I was talking about drawing with my friend Craig and I wondered if I
still had any talent for doing so.
When I was
a kid, I actually drew a lot. My favorite things to draw were ships. I’d draw
them tiny but make absolutely sure to get all the details the same. I also
remember loving to draw (of all things) an old barn. I drew that barn so many
times as a child that I can close my eyes now and see it still.
But over
the years, I drew less and less. Then I just quit. I may have been paralyzed by
praise, but more likely than not I saw what they were doing in art class and
wanted no part of that kind of thing.
Anyway,
over the years, I’d get “the bug” for a while, draw for a week or two straight,
and then give it up. More than a decade passed since that happened, however, and
I would have thought it was out of my system if I thought of the subject at all.
Then The Objective Standard started its
interview series with artists.
This series
has so far interviewed the sculptor Sandra Shaw; a still-life artist, Linda Mann; and (just recently, to be published in the upcoming issue) a painter, Bryan Larsen.
Given my
work for TOS, I was lucky enough to
get paid for listening to and transcribing the taped interviews. In any case, however, in doing
this I felt my old desire building up again.
This brings
me back to the conversation with Craig that I mentioned at the start.
After that ended, I had an old envelope in front of me, and a pen nearby.
After that ended, I had an old envelope in front of me, and a pen nearby.
So I
started to draw.
It was
nothing big really, just a picture of an author I like (called Ayn Rand). And I wasn’t expecting
much either--which was good, because those expectations were realized. I got “a likeness” of her, but
nothing much more.
The thing
is, though, it felt pretty good.
So I
continued.
I looked up a picture of one Sandra Shaw’s sculptures, called “Tranquility,” and I drew that quickly. It
came out looking horrible! In fact, I have a name for this one, it’s called
“Frumpy” and I don’t know if even that isn’t being generous.
But, again,
actually creating this was good fun.
And I felt
even more respect for what Shaw does.
Those lines
are smooth, and sensuous, I thought, comparing them with my own. The next day,
I drew the same thing again. And the day after that, I drew the same thing
again.
Professional golf players get better by repeatedly taking shots from the same places, I reasoned; it’d probably work for me, too. I’m certainly no professional, but after a few days I got to a decent “likeness” of it.
Professional golf players get better by repeatedly taking shots from the same places, I reasoned; it’d probably work for me, too. I’m certainly no professional, but after a few days I got to a decent “likeness” of it.
In between the above takes, I attempted to sketch “Vitality,” again by Shaw...
and then, after the Shaw copies, I tried to draw a study by Larsen:
and then, after the Shaw copies, I tried to draw a study by Larsen:
It was in
drawing the copy of Larsen’s study that I realized I didn’t know hardly anything
about shading aside from just naturally making my lines look close enough like
theirs to be happy.
It was in
drawing the copy of Larsen’s study that I realized something else, too: You (or I) can
only do so much when drawing with a pen!
Like any
budding genius then I did the natural thing: I bought, wait for it, a pencil.
I figured I
might as well start, as before, by drawing an author I liked—so I drew Nevil Shute.
Again, I
think his face didn’t come out as long as it actually was, and it could have come out much better. But it wasn’t terribly bad--especially given the time I spent on it--and I felt that the shading
was pretty good for a beginner.
Next up, I
drew a painting by Leighton that I like. And, although I drew all the
other ones pretty fast, I took my time on this one.
That was partly because I wanted to make good use of the pencils (now plural) that I bought and partly because I really like this painting.
That was partly because I wanted to make good use of the pencils (now plural) that I bought and partly because I really like this painting.
I should mention that the
way I drew the old man’s face here is not as intense as Leighton has it—and
that’s important. The Leighton painting is so vastly superior in a number of ways I could write a whole post just listing the differences.
While
critical of my drawing, however, I didn’t have anywhere near that same rage I
have when I see (a lot of) other artworks. You know, the kind where you want to
scream “This is art” and kick the artist in the stomach, sending him flying
backward into a deep pit, Sparta
style.
I just saw
that there was a lot of room for improvement.
And
also that doing all this on better paper might help.
Oh, and that reading a few articles on how to draw might help.
Oh, and that reading a few articles on how to draw might help.
You can
guess what I did next.
In any
case, I’ll be posting the results of what happened soon.
Update:
There are four posts on this same topic now. If you're interested in reading them all, check out the following links.
1. How I Started Drawing Again
2. How That Drawing Thing is Going
3. I'm Starting to Like the Smell of Graphite in the Morning
4. 50 Shades of Graphite
Update:
There are four posts on this same topic now. If you're interested in reading them all, check out the following links.
1. How I Started Drawing Again
2. How That Drawing Thing is Going
3. I'm Starting to Like the Smell of Graphite in the Morning
4. 50 Shades of Graphite
No comments:
Post a Comment