Part 2: An objective drawing
The purpose of this assignment is to create an "objective drawing", i.e. one that is descriptive and is not influenced by personal feelings, opinions, and subjective elements.
The object that I've chosen to draw is a pair of trousers. Or more specifically, in my case, an old pair of blue jeans. Out of the objects in the list available, I chose the trousers because it is always an enjoyable exercise drawing folds of fabric; representing the different tone in the folds.
The exercise stated that I must be aware of the object's texture, physical qualities, and function. In the drawing below I wanted to draw attention to the physical qualities of the fabric:
The folds. The wrinkles. That the fabric is heavy and tactile. That the denim is stone-washed and faded in parts.
I was aiming to capture those elements above, accurately and objectively, in the drawing.
To produce the drawing, I threw the pair of trousers down into a heap. It was important to pull one leg out a little so that it more easily shows the viewer that it is a straight leg (and therefore visually informing that it is trousers). The drawing media is HB and 2B graphite, plus colour ink washes provided by ink pencils. Working with ink pencils is turning into a rather nice revelation. I find it very satisfying to brush out the ink into a wash directly from the mark making direct with the pencil:
I'm happy enough with the drawing but, I don't feel that it strictly meets the requirements of the exercise. The exercise states that the drawing must be technically controlled and have a high degree of visual accuracy. I feel I've been rather loose and representational in parts - I didn't really show specific accurate detail of stitch work, fabric joins, and belt buckles. The drawing is a generally accurate representation of the bundle of jean fabric in front of me, but it is not the technical drawing that perhaps the exercise is encouraging me to produce. But to be honest, I'm relaxed about it. I see the purpose of this - and the next - exercise in making a point about the difference in subjective and objective interpretations of what we see around us and how we draw/visually represent them.
I ponder a thought - what would a subjective drawing of this pair of jeans be like? Can one be subjective in interpretation of a jumble of denim? What emotion or interpretation could I put into the image to make it subjective?
However, perhaps we always end up with a subjective drawing, no matter how objective we aim to render something? Kimon Nicolaïdes in his book, The Natural Way to Draw, states such a point:
"For example, the canoe which you started to draw was an objective thing, and you might have made a more or less objective drawing of the scene as it actually [is, however] things within your mind were brought into play, your drawing became subjective."
Looking at this artist's work, there was some interesting points of reflection for me. For example, in the following image, there is direct observation and accurate reproduction of the physical items. But it is the composition that intrigues me. For example, the combination of different perspectives gives it a collage style:
The artwork has an aesthetic that one could more associate with "illustration" rather than "fine art". Why is that? I'm lingering on the thought of why the image above; I could better imagine in a magazine rather than a gallery. Is it fundamentally significantly that much different to Anne Redpath's painting (below) I saw recently in the Jerwood collection?
Perhaps a mix of "subjective" and "objective" drawing could produce interesting mixes (such as in those example above). For instance, accurately rendering objects, but in unusual perspectives or compositions that conveys emotion/story/interesting interpretation?
References for this exercise:
Nicolaïdes, Kimon (1990). The Natural Way to Draw. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: London.
The object that I've chosen to draw is a pair of trousers. Or more specifically, in my case, an old pair of blue jeans. Out of the objects in the list available, I chose the trousers because it is always an enjoyable exercise drawing folds of fabric; representing the different tone in the folds.
The exercise stated that I must be aware of the object's texture, physical qualities, and function. In the drawing below I wanted to draw attention to the physical qualities of the fabric:
The folds. The wrinkles. That the fabric is heavy and tactile. That the denim is stone-washed and faded in parts.
I was aiming to capture those elements above, accurately and objectively, in the drawing.
To produce the drawing, I threw the pair of trousers down into a heap. It was important to pull one leg out a little so that it more easily shows the viewer that it is a straight leg (and therefore visually informing that it is trousers). The drawing media is HB and 2B graphite, plus colour ink washes provided by ink pencils. Working with ink pencils is turning into a rather nice revelation. I find it very satisfying to brush out the ink into a wash directly from the mark making direct with the pencil:
I'm happy enough with the drawing but, I don't feel that it strictly meets the requirements of the exercise. The exercise states that the drawing must be technically controlled and have a high degree of visual accuracy. I feel I've been rather loose and representational in parts - I didn't really show specific accurate detail of stitch work, fabric joins, and belt buckles. The drawing is a generally accurate representation of the bundle of jean fabric in front of me, but it is not the technical drawing that perhaps the exercise is encouraging me to produce. But to be honest, I'm relaxed about it. I see the purpose of this - and the next - exercise in making a point about the difference in subjective and objective interpretations of what we see around us and how we draw/visually represent them.
I ponder a thought - what would a subjective drawing of this pair of jeans be like? Can one be subjective in interpretation of a jumble of denim? What emotion or interpretation could I put into the image to make it subjective?
However, perhaps we always end up with a subjective drawing, no matter how objective we aim to render something? Kimon Nicolaïdes in his book, The Natural Way to Draw, states such a point:
"For example, the canoe which you started to draw was an objective thing, and you might have made a more or less objective drawing of the scene as it actually [is, however] things within your mind were brought into play, your drawing became subjective."
Further research
I did some research on practising artists/illustrators using objective drawing in their illustrations. I came across Sarah Jarrett (http://sarahjarrettart.com/still-life-illustration/) and reviewed some examples of her commercial work.Looking at this artist's work, there was some interesting points of reflection for me. For example, in the following image, there is direct observation and accurate reproduction of the physical items. But it is the composition that intrigues me. For example, the combination of different perspectives gives it a collage style:
The artwork has an aesthetic that one could more associate with "illustration" rather than "fine art". Why is that? I'm lingering on the thought of why the image above; I could better imagine in a magazine rather than a gallery. Is it fundamentally significantly that much different to Anne Redpath's painting (below) I saw recently in the Jerwood collection?
Perhaps a mix of "subjective" and "objective" drawing could produce interesting mixes (such as in those example above). For instance, accurately rendering objects, but in unusual perspectives or compositions that conveys emotion/story/interesting interpretation?
References for this exercise:
Nicolaïdes, Kimon (1990). The Natural Way to Draw. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: London.
Comments
Post a Comment