tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post5541779095189533736..comments2024-03-28T22:57:07.128-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: COMIC-CON 2010 (conclusion)David Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-62725937038350918092015-11-07T16:10:46.428-05:002015-11-07T16:10:46.428-05:00Thanks for posting these amazing images.Thanks for posting these amazing images.Paul Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111046740999084703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-70443114712159377132010-08-21T01:52:55.337-04:002010-08-21T01:52:55.337-04:00Kev, I can tell you've been looking at Sickles...Kev, I can tell you've been looking at Sickles' drawings again. If you spend enough time in their presence, all the rest of this elaborate conjecture lapses into insignificance.<br /><br />One last Bernie Fuchs story: Fuchs told me he had been asked to illustrate Ernest Hemingway's "Old Man and the Sea" but turned the project down. I said, "Why? There's a great tradition... Noel Sickles illustrated that book." Bernie smiled and said, "That's just it-- I didn't think I could do as good a job as Sickles."David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-7849910846057071792010-08-21T00:52:01.828-04:002010-08-21T00:52:01.828-04:00Overall, I think the best case to be made that Sic...Overall, I think the best case to be made that Sickles never projected anything is simply how great he drew.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-81136139986424473482010-08-20T23:57:54.014-04:002010-08-20T23:57:54.014-04:00Thanks Jesse,
Those are great.
For those who are...Thanks Jesse,<br /><br />Those are great.<br /><br />For those who are reading along but aren't that familiar with Sickles' work, his phenomenally great monograph has a great many pages available on <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=wtgQ4C8Zq9sC&pg=PA101&dq=Noel+Sickles+senate+on+the+spot&hl=en&ei=uE1vTKGvJITGlQf2uMmfDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">google books.</a>kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-20151828754443013062010-08-20T20:40:00.400-04:002010-08-20T20:40:00.400-04:00Since I promised some Sickles scans, and David men...Since I promised some Sickles scans, and David mentioned his on-the-spot Senate drawings, here are a few that didn't show up in the Scorchy book:<br /><br /><a href="http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/resr4gc2/sickles.members-only.jpg" rel="nofollow">(1)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/resr4gc2/sickles.conference.jpg" rel="nofollow">(2)</a><br /><br /><a href="http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/resr4gc2/sickles.cops.jpg" rel="nofollow">(3)</a><br /><br />Grab 'em quick!Jesse Hammhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02253641550766389238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-2636764510250755542010-08-20T19:40:49.727-04:002010-08-20T19:40:49.727-04:00My view on this issue is that all new information ...My view on this issue is that all new information is good, as long as we are capable of receiving it with a little mature perspective regarding its meaning and significance. <br /><br />I was interested to see the cowboy photo that Sickles used. (If I'd thought about it, I would have assumed that he didn't use live models but I probably would have guessed that he used some Hollywood movie still instead). It's kind of neat to put the work of art together with the photo reference, just as it is neat to see the tree near N.C. Wyeth's house that he painted into the background of one of his pirate illustrations. As neat as they are, it is exceedingly rare that such factoids would cause me to change my view of the artistic merit of a picture. <br /><br />So we have at least one data point where Sickles drew from a photo (the cowboy picture). I can add another: a drawing on tracing paper of the inner workings of a nuclear reactor, with all kinds of complex pipes and tubing going all over the place. This is much closer to the "tracing" that Laurence advocates, although I would think less, not more, of an artist crazy enough to replicate that system freehand when a far more sensible alternative was available.<br /><br />On the other hand, we have data points where Sickles drew pictures very similar to the ones on this post and did not use a photograph or a projector or any similar device. For example, he did a series of excellent drawings on site at a political convention for Lithopinion, where he drew scenes taking place in front of him at a restaurant, drawing on the restaurant's place mat or the restaurant check while other people watched. And of course, we already mentioned his drawings in the Meglin book, On The Spot Drawing, which many people here would swear were done by tracing a photograph. <br /><br />I have featured a number of drawings by Sickles on this blog in the past because he is a particular favorite of mine. Based on the above discussion, I think it is difficult to be certain whether he did any of them with or without the assistance of photography. But if you asserted, for example, that Sickles looked at a photograph in drawing <a href="http://illustrationart.blogspot.com/2009/08/one-lovely-drawing-part-27.html" rel="nofollow">this picture</a> of oxen, I would think that you have an instinct for the capillary, and that you must be missing out on a whole lot of the poetry in drawing. If you further told me that Sickles had "traced" the grass in the picture, I would say that you use the English language differently than I do. <br /><br />This puts the debate over photography in an entirely different category for me than for many of the commenters. For me, it is only one of those "neat-to-know" facts that doesn't affect the merits of the artist or the art. For those of you who are more emotionally invested the outcome, feel free to continue the debate.David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-22551718851628688792010-08-20T19:01:37.011-04:002010-08-20T19:01:37.011-04:00अर्जुन said...
"witchcraft"
If Lucifer ...अर्जुन said...<br />"witchcraft"<br /><br />If Lucifer is supposed to be rendering talent in exchange for souls, then clearly Nordic bands Witchcraft and HIM are twice burned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-71188235721691737032010-08-20T17:53:50.070-04:002010-08-20T17:53:50.070-04:00Jesse,
If we agree to discount my obfuscations, c...Jesse,<br /><br />If we agree to discount my obfuscations, can we also discount your hallucinations?<br /><br />I'm not going to repeat earlier discussions about the style these were done in and why the drawings look the way they do. You may come to understand what I've said in this thread at a later date if your concerns in your own art change.<br /><br />अर्जुन, photos can easily be small enough to project to 8x5 using an overhead attached to a drawing desk. Using a negative would be, I think, too dark. I've never heard of anyone using a negative. If you've ever worked in a darkroom, you know that it takes about 5 minutes to take a 1x1.5 negative and blow it up to a 2x3, or 4x6 photo. Either way, I doubt a negative was available of such a historical photograph.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-40622151019546279632010-08-20T17:21:04.167-04:002010-08-20T17:21:04.167-04:00Kev, thanks for discounting that list of obfuscati...Kev, thanks for discounting that list of obfuscations, but the question remains: why would Sickles would do the underdrawing I pointed out if he were tracing? <br /><br />If you can't answer that, some more Latin names for muscles should suffice.Jesse Hammhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02253641550766389238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-68754693028802294642010-08-20T17:08:46.338-04:002010-08-20T17:08:46.338-04:00Can I get a discount also, or do I need a coupon?Can I get a discount also, or do I need a coupon?अर्जुनhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724439749828805512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-28300688531960766652010-08-20T17:06:31.461-04:002010-08-20T17:06:31.461-04:00""but if a photo is small, one enlarges ...""but if a photo is small, one enlarges it to a convenient size. That's a major advantage of using a projector rather than a lightbox.""<br /><br />The negative is smaller~<br />If one references with a medium format camera, the detail quality would be such that one simply places the negative into the enlarger and projects downward onto any thickness of illustration board one wishes, eschewing printing the damn thing to begin with. (not sayin' thats what he did, just sayin')<br /><br />"seems like witchcraft"~<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnUIfFQnkEM" rel="nofollow">Colour me red.</a>अर्जुनhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724439749828805512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-3015049359222893612010-08-20T17:01:38.499-04:002010-08-20T17:01:38.499-04:00Jesse,
Even though I've held traced drawings...Jesse, <br /><br />Even though I've held traced drawings done by illustrators from the 1950-1970 era in my hands, seeing how they looked, I will discount that. I will also discount my experience tracing from projectors and my knowledge of how they are used. I will discount my intuition. I will discount what Neal Adams, and others, have told me. I will discount what Fuchs told David. I will discount the fact that with minimal effort, I achieved a match between the photo and the western bar illustration, which then reasonably explained why everything else was done the way it was done in the picture. I will discount how different Sickle's work from the 40s looks from this stuff. I will discount that you seem never to have used a projector, that you can't understand where I came up with the 5x8 figure, that you have no idea how low the projector can go to the drawing board and still allow the hand to move freely underneath, that you think using a projector means making precise drawings, that you can't seem to understand that Sickles was drawing loosely on purpose, which only works because he already can see where the line can ultimately re-merge with the reference.<br /><br />I will discount all that, and declare you the winner of the thread.<br /><br />On another note: Brachioradialis. ;)kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-14559902994258678222010-08-20T15:49:30.945-04:002010-08-20T15:49:30.945-04:00Kev,
"5x8 is not too small to be projected. ...Kev,<br /><br /><b>"5x8 is not too small to be projected. Especially if the photo itself is small."</b><br /><br />Not sure where "5x8" came from, but if a photo is small, one enlarges it to a convenient size. That's a major advantage of using a projector rather than a lightbox. <br /><br /><br /><b>"Your contention that outlining disproves graphing from a projection is mind boggling. That is exactly the way one would go about making the trace, before embellishing."</b> <br /><br />The scribbled vertical pencil lines on the cowboys' legs and arms are not outlines. These lines pass through the middles of the limbs, and are rough indications of their locations, not their contours. <br /><br />The pencil lines indicating the bar-top and foot-rail aren't outlines, either. These lines pass straight through the figures. This is structural underdrawing; unnecessary when tracing. <br /><br />If you or Laurence can explain why Sickles took these steps in the context of a tracing, I'm all ears. Perhaps he did trace this image, but these apparent guidelines cast doubt on that theory. <br /><br /><b>"When I overlayed the two pictures I just adjusted the photo ever so slightly to get a match."</b> <br /><br />It's notable that any adjustment was necessary. (I should add that Laurence's scans, split into two images, conveniently obscure the disparity between the left cowboy and those on the right. To match one up unmatches the others. Also, Sickles's thick black linework obscures various disparities. Here's a <a href="http://www.cartermuseum.org/collections/smith/images/details/LC-S59-122.jpg" rel="nofollow">clearer photo</a> for anyone else interested in making their own comparisons.) <br /><br />In the past, I've laid my own drawings over their photo ref to check their accuracy, and discovered that no adjustment was necessary at all. This isn't often the case, but I'm not Sickles. The point is that detailed photo-accuracy is a reachable goal for any seasoned artist who follows the proper methods. <br /><br />I'm reminded here of theories that Stonehenge, the Pyramids, and the Easter Island moai were built with help from aliens, since we supposedly can't accomplish such things without computers and tractors. Our culture has become so reliant on technical aids that the idea of succeeding without them seems like witchcraft. Skills honed by decades of specialized training are viewed with suspicion, and explained away. That isn't to deny that mastercraftsmen can use technical aids, but this trend to distrust old-school expertise is troubling.Jesse Hammhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02253641550766389238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-71324261153220244202010-08-20T15:04:41.547-04:002010-08-20T15:04:41.547-04:00"I agree he did use that cowboy photo..."..."I agree he did use that cowboy photo..."<br /><br /><br />wonderful. then my arrogance, inexperience and amateur sleuthing wasn't ENTIRELY a waste of time.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-27113272687433977522010-08-20T11:24:05.270-04:002010-08-20T11:24:05.270-04:00Laurence,
My theory is not the issue. Your arrog...Laurence,<br /><br />My theory is not the issue. Your arrogance about your theory and your unwillingness to let go is. So is your attitude about people who don't agree with you. It shows you are on a mission from god to persuade everybody when you can't know for a fact. Why?<br /><br />My own theory is that I like these drawings. There are similar drawings by Sickels that were drawn on site without photos in front of witnesses. I agree he did use that cowboy photo, but I don't know exactly how or why or how often he did it and neither do you. Maybe the editors of Time Life books gave him classic photographs and asked him to modernize them for their contemporary readers. Perhaps he fooled the editors by secretly plagiarizing a photo because he was too untalented to do any better. I don't know, but neither do you.MORANnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-71153202334215075892010-08-19T18:52:29.480-04:002010-08-19T18:52:29.480-04:00"I don't mind that you and I have differe..."I don't mind that you and I have different theories"<br /><br /><br />i don't know what your theory is yet Moran, as all you've told me is that i don't know what i'm talking about. well, do you think the Sickles cowboy drawing looks like it was drawn over a projected image or not ?Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-79634138006292079332010-08-19T18:28:04.321-04:002010-08-19T18:28:04.321-04:00Laurence,
How many of the other people you named...Laurence, <br /><br />How many of the other people you named said they knew unmistakably what Sickels did? Only you. How many of them said people who disagreed were deceiving themselves ("i can only assume you want to convince yourself of it for some reason.") Only you. How many of them spent so much time running experiments about what Sickels must have done (based on their own personal skills as an artist)? How many of them agreed to say "drawn over a projected image" instead of "trace" because of its negative connotations but then kept using trace? <br /><br />I don't mind that you and I have different theories. Everyone is entitled to any theory they can support and you have supported your view well. I like that. What I don't like is that you have left 14 comments trying to persuade people that you know something for a fact, which you don't, and telling them that if they don't agree with you it can only be because they are lying to themselves. That sounds like a man on a mission to me. <br /><br />Anonymous, was that Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?MORANnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-76275428362087997542010-08-19T12:22:17.701-04:002010-08-19T12:22:17.701-04:00MORAN is a bit of a Jeckyl and Hyde, Laurence. Jus...MORAN is a bit of a Jeckyl and Hyde, Laurence. Just ignore him when he turns obsessive compulsive and angry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-15392350985077748502010-08-19T03:55:12.082-04:002010-08-19T03:55:12.082-04:00Moran, i'm clearly not the only person who ...Moran, i'm clearly not the only person who 'can't let go' since Jesse, Kev and David are still commenting. as others have said to you before, if you don't want to read past 40 comments, don't read.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-42636973696966137662010-08-19T02:47:30.116-04:002010-08-19T02:47:30.116-04:00Laurence,
Everyone else explained their theory an...Laurence,<br /><br />Everyone else explained their theory and moved on. You are the only one who is so certain what Sickels did that you can't let go. You tell anyone with a different view they are deceiving themself. Why can't you tolerate other people's perspectives?<br /><br />Your proof comes from your own experience and limits as an artist ("i could tell it was drawn over photo, and that comes from my own experience of trying that very thing many times.") Are all your arguments and tests and experiments really about protecting your self-esteem? Do you need to believe that it is impossible for any other artist to make such pictures without tracing photographs?MORANnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-60403993541615183592010-08-18T19:15:28.405-04:002010-08-18T19:15:28.405-04:00Jesse, the distortion is extremely minor, and mech...Jesse, the distortion is extremely minor, and mechanically consistent. When I overlayed the two pictures I just adjusted the photo ever so slightly to get a match. This could just as easily mean there was a slight variation in the aspect ratio of the photo scan or the shot of the drawing used for the article or the scan of that drawing made for posting it on the web, as for the actual use of the photo by Sickles. <br /><br />(I spoke too quickly in assuming it was a slight projection error.)<br /><br />5x8 is not too small to be projected. Especially if the photo itself is small. There are ways and ways to get things done in the studio.<br /><br />Your contention that outlining disproves graphing from a projection is mind boggling. That is <i>exactly</i> the way one would go about making the trace, before embellishing. <br /><br />If one accepts that photo projection may have been part of Sickles' process on the cowboy picture, one must also accept its possible use on the pictures that accompanied David's post.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-52040599464813165882010-08-18T17:55:12.144-04:002010-08-18T17:55:12.144-04:00Jesse, i've placed the drawing over the photo ...Jesse, i've placed the drawing over the photo here:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/35bhdab<br /><br />and here:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/37drdpe<br /><br /><br />the guy on the left has slipped a bit in Sickle's version so i've lined him up again. the bartender looks deliberately moved as Kev has already noted. if you still want to believe these weren't drawn over a projection/lightbox or were done by 'contour' drawing or freehand that is your call. i can only assume you want to convince yourself of it for some reason more than anyone else. you certainly haven't convinced me, but full marks for effort.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-38302705808468972482010-08-18T16:15:22.203-04:002010-08-18T16:15:22.203-04:00Laurence,
Thanks again for providing a scan of t...Laurence, <br /><br />Thanks again for providing a scan of the cowboy art. In trade, I'll post some scans of other Sickles drawings soon.<br /><br />The drawings David posted were small enough to make tracing unduly impractical, and the perspective in at least one of them was disparate enough to rule out tracing, but that's not the case here. However, there are still problems with the theory that this one was traced. <br /><br />For one thing, even apart from changes which can be chalked up to compositional decisions (such as the location of the bartender's head), the sizing/positioning of figures in the drawing doesn't quite match the photo. Kev attributes this to the possibility that the projector was angled, or there may have been some flaw (in its lens?) to cause a squeezing effect. Another possibility is that the figures drifted slightly as Sickles freehanded them. <br /> <br />You can also see in the drawing where Sickles scribbled in rough guidelines (the bar-top, the foot-rail, the basic positions of the mens' limbs) in pencil, indicating generally where these elements were located, before he drew the image in darker lines. If the image were traced, I can't imagine why Sickles would take this step. <br /><br />So while I can't confirm that Sickles didn't trace the image, there are indications that he didn't, and that the drawing's accuracy can be attributed to his mastery of techniques like contour drawing. (Contour drawing, BTW, is the approach Leon used to draw the pic I linked earlier. It enables an artist to draw collections of objects without underdrawing, and accounts for the dead line you noticed there.)Jesse Hammhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02253641550766389238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-43490154815432486192010-08-18T09:01:57.582-04:002010-08-18T09:01:57.582-04:00Kev Ferrara wrote: "I think this signifies a ...Kev Ferrara wrote: "I think this signifies a projection of the original photo was used to graph the drawing as a starting point."<br /><br />Kev, I don't know if that is the most "tactful" description but it certainly strikes me as the most accurate, sensible and agenda-free. Thanks for a solid, experienced assessment.<br /><br />Laurence John, my copy of 'Lifestyle Illustration of the 60s' has not arrived yet, but as I understand it (from Today's Inspiration) the book consists of <br />"illustrations from British Women's magazines of the '60s," not the US magazines where the styles originated. I don't know if that has any impact on the reaction you describe.<br /><br />Your reference to Bernie Fuchs reminded me of the time I interviewed him about his use of photographs. We had just been looking at a series of car illustrations he had done as a young artist in Detroit in the 1950s. They were very realistic, technically impeccable paintings of cars in environments with people, and he did them without photographs. Fuchs described the day he was visited by an illustrator from the legendary Cooper Studios in NY, who was incredulous that Fuchs was not using photographs. He laughed, saying "you'd never survive in the big leagues in New York. You just couldn't keep up without photographs. I can tell you invented these two figures in the background, and if I can tell, your client will be able to tell as well." Fuchs, who was ambitious to compete with artists in "the big leagues in New York," felt stung by the criticism and began using photographs more and more. <br /><br />Yet, he regularly relied upon the technical skills he had patiently acquired in Detroit. He showed me one of his famous illustrations, a picture of a young girl playing the piano in a crowded saloon. He had posed models and took photographs of the girl, the crowd and the saloon. Someone objected "yeah, but in order to get that angle in the illustration, it looks like you had to change the perspective from these photos of the girl and the crowd. It looks like you rotated them slightly in opposite directions to achieve the effect you wanted. You also changed the light source. How did you do that?" It was as close as I ever saw Fuchs come to a smirk. "Well... that's kind of the trick, isn't it?"David Apatoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-89075976181972616782010-08-18T05:07:38.664-04:002010-08-18T05:07:38.664-04:00"If I were to make a sweeping generalization ..."If I were to make a sweeping generalization about Sickles, it is that, as time wore on and the illustration business changed, his artistic values adapted."<br /><br /><br />tactfully put Kev.<br /><br />for anyone else still reading, you've probably already seen the new book 'Lifestyle Illustration of the 60s'. there are several posts about it over on 'Today's Inspiration' blog. if you haven't seen it yet, it's probably the biggest,fattest compendium yet of this era and is an invaluable document of the stylistic tics that dominate the work of this decade. 'graphing' a reference photo and rendering it in a quick, slippery, liquitex style was de rigeur. Bernie Fuchs seems to be on nearly every page, only it's not him, it's a copyist ( for anyone who thinks that today's illustrators copy each other... wow, have a look at this book ). me, i love and hate it. mostly that style makes me feel slightly queasy.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.com