New Universals artwork
by Salvador Larroca.
Image taken from
“Lady, That’s My Skull”

Salvador Larroca is the artist currently drawing “New Universal,” Marvel’s revamp of Jim Shooter’s New Universe stuff from the ’80s. I don’t know if the series is any good, but I noticed that Larroca is using a lot of photo reference of real actors and you can easily identify the actors in most cases. I don’t know if this is a good idea or bad. Obviously if you go to this extreme, it’s bad.

Photo reference helps me break out of my drawing ruts. I tend to draw the same faces over and over again, but drawing from photos (or life, I suppose,) makes me look at what’s actually happening. Plus, it’s fun to try to capture likenesses.

The problem with using photo reference is that errors can be pretty glaring. If you goof, something just looks off, especially if you recognize the actor.

I’ve also noticed that my drawings look a little generic, for lack of a better word. If I’m going to use photos, I’d like to work on stylizing the drawings. I also want to make sure the characters “act.” Duncan Fegredo, Steve Skroce and Terry Dodson are masters at making good-looking art with characters who actually act, not simply pose. This might be the subject of another post.

In the case of science fiction or superhero comics, it gets more difficult to draw a page when I use photo reference. Backgrounds and other figures might have a cartoony, stylized look, while the main character’s face looks completely out of place. Also, big heroic poses look down-right goofy with photo-realistic faces.

I decided to draw from a photo this morning. Here’s John Crichton from Farscape (actor Ben Bowder.)

John Crichton, Pencil and Photoshop, 6/16/07

Sketch

Reference

Chiaroscuro Drawing of a Female Model
Charcoal on Canson Mi Teintes Paper, 5/2/07

As I sat at my bench working away at this drawing, I was busy thinking about a few different things. Things at work have been tumultuous. We have new management and my job is currently being “looked at.” Sometimes this means one should start looking at jobs. My mind has been racing around ideas for the job hunt. I need a portfolio. I should “network” more, right? Monster.com is kind of crappy, right? I could always work at a bookstore. Or maybe a Chapeau Shop. You know, like, “what size do you wear, sir?” And then you answer…

My instructor’s voice woke me up from my day-dream-drawing. “Are you drawing on the rough side of the paper on purpose?”

“Shit,” said I. “I mean, ‘yes.’”

The drawing wasn’t going well, and it was my last one of the class, and I made it even more difficult by not paying attention to what I was doing. The rough side of Canson Mi Teintes paper has a waffle texture. It’s easy for that pattern to dominate your drawing, especially if you use broad strokes. I wasn’t aware of it. I was simply going very slowly and putting down small marks.

After the embarrassment passed, I decided to try to use the waffle pattern for the model’s hair and the drapery. I stuck with very short controlled marks for her skin.

This style of marking caused me frequent trips to the electric pencil sharpener. Chunks of charcoal, conte or graphite were always jammed inside of it.

From my bench, I would listen to a student, an art teacher, I believe, grind her pencil away in that sharpener, tsking and sighing. When it was my turn to sharpen and I found that I could barely insert my pencil part-way, let alone sharpen it to a point, she always popped over to ask me: “Do you think there’s something stuck inside of it?” A few minutes of surgery with a fellow student’s pocket knife would invariably produce a chunk of whatever material the woman was using.

Great class. Looking forward to more figure drawing. A big thanks to Mr. Norman, too.

Chiaroscuro Drawing of a Male Model
charcoal on Canson Mi Teintes Paper, 4/11/07

Here is a two-session, 5½ hour drawing of a male model. There are two sides to paper like this, rough and smooth. I worked on the smooth side here and it was easy to make marks. I’m working on the rough side in my current drawing. I’ll talk about that in a future post.

Chiaroscuro Drawing of a Female Model
Graphite and Chalk on Canson Mi Teintes Paper
12 X 14″, 3/15/07 - 3/28/07

This chiaroscuro drawing was a two-week pose, so I put about 5 ¾ hours into it. Using graphite forced me to slow down and build the values, both light and dark, gradually. The trick is to let the toned paper do the work. I still rendered the majority of the figure, defeating the purpose of using toned paper. There was so much to see, the subtle shifts between forms. I felt rushed, but probably would have felt that way after 20 hours.

Next week we start another 2 week chiaroscuro drawing. I’ll probably try some cool-toned paper and a sharper white chalk pencil. I’ll also work in some more line.

For a look at some really strong chiaroscuro drawings, check out Anthony Ryder’s work. He has a popular drawing book out, too.

Charcoal Reduction Drawing of a Male Model
Charcoal on Paper 18 X 24″, 3/8/07

The charcoal is much looser and gestural than the chiaroscuro. I struggled with the proportions, and this drawing is tough for me to look at, particularly the head. In fact, I was really close to cropping the head right out of this drawing. I liked going into the forms of the shoulders and torso with the kneaded eraser: it felt like painting with broad strokes. Just needed to tighten up some of the shapes and introduce some line.

(If anyone has suggestions on photographing artwork digitally, let me know. What a chore.)

Seated Female Nude
Pierre-Paul Prud’hon (1758-1823)
Black and white chalk

Photography has no limits to capturing the likeness of a subject. Babies can discern their own mother’s face; they will respond to a photograph of their mother but not to a photograph of a stranger. The vital connection we humans have with each other’s expressions is satisfactorily established through photography. So, why bother drawing human bodies and faces?

In his book, “The Undressed Art: Why We Draw,” Peter Steinhart gives three reasons that we continue to draw the human figure.

Modern media has reduced its imagery to stereotypes. Drawing reveals the variety of life.

We see a rapid succession of images on TV, the Internet, etc. that compete for our attention by being more sexy, more violent, more loud. There is no room for original thought here. Drawing forces quiet concentration and leads to unique expressions of character.

A camera doesn’t require a photographer’s presence. Drawing demands an artist’s attendance.

Humans crave visual interaction with human figures and facial expressions. There’s a lot more science to this (that I skimmed over,) but simply, we’ve come to depend on our interpretation of expressions for success and survival. (”That other caveman looks angry and sad. Perhaps I accidentally insulted his intelligence and should prepare to flee.”) People need to capture human images in a personal, non-mechanical way. Drawing the human figure invigorates the artist, and sometimes the artist has no idea why.

The human figure is the most challenging vehicle of artistic expression.

No one will know if you’ve messed up a teapot or a cloud. But everyone will spot an out-of-whack drawing of a human. This is because (a) we’re so familiar with looking at humans and we know the way they should look and (b) when you see a person, you understand that there is a lot going on that you can’t see in the form of intentions, emotions, memories and dreams.

References

• Hale, Robert and Terence Coyle. Anatomy Lessons from the Great Masters. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 2000.
• Steinhart, Peter. The Undressed Art : Why We Draw. New York: Knopf, 2004.

Man in Turban
Thomas Eakins 1867
charcoal and graphite.
(source)

Look at your fingers right now. Are they clean? No? Well, they’re about to get even dirtier. We’re drawing with charcoal!

Creating a charcoal drawing uses the same fundamentals of line drawing. You still focus on edge, but shift your focus to include value. Like in line drawings, you look for those shapes within shapes, only now you are concerned with capturing the relationships between the value of each shape.

It’s gratifying to touch art to make art, to get your fingers in there and have a tactual experience that goes beyond keyboard keys and mouse buttons. Let me describe a process for making charcoal reduction drawings that my drawing instructor, Doug Norman, taught us this past week…

(more…)

Painting by Euan Uglow

In September of 1999, a $125 million satellite from NASA approached Mars, passing gently through the fabric of space. Its mission: to boldly orbit the Red Planet and study its climate.

Curiously, said satellite overshot its target and broke apart in the atmosphere. An investigation later revealed that the accident was caused by a measuring error. The rocket scientists at Lockheed sent NASA calculations in English units rather than the required Metric units.

In my last class, I had a problem trying to measure the model. By nobody’s fault but mine, I was too far away to draw a portrait. Consequently, I was seeing large areas like her forehead measure, oh, 15/17ths of an inch, let’s say. Tough to see relationships accurately when they’re that small.

Euan Uglow (1932-2000), a British painter, measured meticulously. If you look closely at his paintings, like the closeup above, you’ll see tiny tick marks where he has referenced certain relationships. My drawing instructor, Doug Norman, calls these marks “scaffolding”. He noted that one critic said of Uglow, “he leaves these little marks because he wants you to know that this is a lot of work.”

The Egg Shape. Sort of works. Mostly doesn’t.

I enjoy drawing faces, but it’s tough to stop myself from caricaturing. In my figure drawing class, we’re trying to capture accurate relationships. I had to fight the urge to exaggerate the model’s bulbous nose with nostril-ring accent and spaghetti lips. Fortunately, Mr. Norman gave us some great insight into what kinds of relationships to look for when drawing a face … (click more to see what I’m talking about.)
(more…)