OK- but- as we always say: there is no hard, fast rule about what’s good and what’s bad in picture-making.
The truth is this:
Certain approaches produce certain effects.
Then the question is this:
What effect do you want to produce?
Maybe your picture is meant to convey a sense of obscurity, a sense of mystery- then perhaps some areas of light and dark should be kept less distinct. For example, let’s take a look at one of the greatest teachers that I’ve ever had, and whom some of you currently have: Leon Steinmetz.
His works are not illustrations, but rather contemplations of ideas found in classical literature. Here we have a few drawings from his series “Dante Meditations”.
The artist describes his process:
“I picked up some Dante – ‘The Divine Comedy.’ I was reading ‘The Inferno,’ and started, almost subconsciously, doing drawings, sort of meditating with pen in hand.”
So although we see some forms emerging out of the darkness (a few images of Charon, ferryman of Hades perhaps?) Steinmetz obscures the forms by allowing one value shape to merge with another, creating the effect of the atmosphere that one might find on the shore of the river Styx.
See more here:http://leonsteinmetz.com/
The guy who first popularized this fragmenting of form was in was Caravaggio. To him it was more important that shapes be divided into light and dark. As you know, the effect is called Chiaroscuro- literally translated: clear/obscure.
Wow! Talk about creating a focal point and obscuring the secondary elements via value contrast.
And take a look at my contemporary favorite: Mark Tennant.
It’s obvious that a clear depiction of the figure is only a secondary concern. Primarily is arranging dark and light shapes in and of themselves. In many cases he will obscure or fragment the form by uniting figure and ground* through like hues and values.
See more here: http://www.marktennantart.com/
*Keep this in mind- when we say “figure” in the context of “figure/ground”, we don’t necessarily mean “human figure”. In that context “figure” refers to any shape imposed upon another shape (which is the ground). So when we are looking at a still life, for example, there is a figure-ground relationship: the objects of the still life are the “figure”, and sum of the surface upon which they sit and the background is the “ground”.
I find the drawings based off Dante's Inferno interesting because I also did a drawing based off the book for another class, and came up with a black and white drawing that is somewhat abstract, similar to the ones here.
ReplyDeleteI love,love,love Mark Tennant's work! Maybe the figure is not a primary concern when he makes these drawings, but I think the fact that his light and dark value shapes meld so cohesively makes it important when looking at the whole drawing. They are beautiful. It seems like he puts down only the shapes and areas that are absolutely necessary and gets those parts just right, so that it forms the whole figure.
ReplyDeleteMark Tennant's work is the perfect example of trying to get a shape without line. His figures consist of different chunks of value that fit together to show the shapes and curves of the figure. He is also able to get away with leaving parts of the figure blank because our eye automatically sees an implied line from the values that he has put down.
ReplyDelete