tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post894703013638865370..comments2024-03-18T11:06:05.506-04:00Comments on ILLUSTRATION ART: WORKING DRAWINGSDavid Apatoffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293486149879229016noreply@blogger.comBlogger147125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-58193047780916041332010-09-13T13:13:53.035-04:002010-09-13T13:13:53.035-04:00great stuff, such talent.
dont leave art man.great stuff, such talent.<br />dont leave art man.Sahin Deryahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15948702622186158480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-42522989977019648402010-05-08T21:24:45.201-04:002010-05-08T21:24:45.201-04:00"why do his master copies (such as those feat..."why do his master copies (such as those featured in Uwe Fleckner's book, for one), made from museum walls even late in his life, exhibit the same treatment of folds/drapery/etc?"<br /><br />Pics or stfu.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-3696738849051519272010-05-07T13:56:14.307-04:002010-05-07T13:56:14.307-04:001. That your points are easily substantiated by th...1. That your points are easily substantiated by the presentation of mere fact does not argue against their origins as insight.<br /><br />2. Epiphanies about anything are decidedly uncommon.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-36729173757714180932010-05-07T13:49:18.456-04:002010-05-07T13:49:18.456-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-73061722093088597092010-05-07T00:55:33.013-04:002010-05-07T00:55:33.013-04:00I made a typo above. When I wrote '1900s' ...I made a typo above. When I wrote '1900s' I meant '1800s,' I should say. 'Awkward' is also the actual word that Hockney uses. At the end of that century the secret was lost, he says, and only until Hockney's brain ticked over was it discovered again... When the camera lucida somehow magically disappeared out of all studios - which, if we believe Hockney's assertion of their ongoing and constant use through time, would be like the paintbrush suddenly disappearing from the painter's inventory - we returned to 'awkward' images.<br /><br />I would say my two points are common sense rather than insight. Much or all of Hockney's argument is based on a lack of it and whole table-legs of his theory can be knocked out by simply pointing at things. Hockney's whole book/argument is just plainly nonsensical and, not to insult Howard, I think to buy into it - to read it and say, 'Makes sense...' - you've definitely got to be of a deficient and exceeding unquestioning mind (gullible, one might say) or, and this is what I think many of the followers fall into, wanting to believe so as to have an excuse for your own artistic lacking and/or reliance on tracing/projectors/etc.<br /><br />How did the Cubism movement start, Howard? Something in the water? Other artists responding to and seeing new possibility in the work of one, learning from it and exploring it in their own work? Did the planet shift? Fables have been constructed by the purposely blind, throwing out any evidence that would be counter to the myths they have created for their heroes but the reality, Howard, is that a traveling salesman was going around at that time selling this glass device that, when held to the eye, produces an image much like those later painted under the banner of 'Cubism.' They had glass at the time, you know, Howard. Even though there's no mention of this distorting piece of glass in the process, well documented as it often was, we know in fact that such glass was able to be made at the same time at these paintings, eh, Howard...Casperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241779202084110962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-91829774074375365632010-05-06T14:04:51.261-04:002010-05-06T14:04:51.261-04:00Very penetrating insights, Scott, which, taken alo...Very penetrating insights, Scott, which, taken alone, demolish the sense of Hockney's argument. <br /><br />Your clarity of mind is much appreciated.<br /><br />kevkev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-53706095182513236132010-05-05T07:42:52.189-04:002010-05-05T07:42:52.189-04:00"Look at the way Ingres ahndled the folds of ..."Look at the way Ingres ahndled the folds of fabric in those drawings that are obviously a result of using a prism camera lucida (anyone who has used one recognises the qualities it imposes)."<br /><br />I've never bought that Ingres used such a device but I've heard the argument before and I know that Ingres was what started David Hockney off on that nitwit theory of his. To those that say that Ingres' folds point to a camera lucida, I ask why do his master copies (such as those featured in Uwe Fleckner's book, for one), made from museum walls even late in his life, exhibit the same treatment of folds/drapery/etc? To explain that, you'd have to say Ingres took a camera lucida to the museum, set it up and with that made these copies of masters... Why? To what end?<br /><br />I see now, looking up, that there is actual discussion of Hockney's theory.<br /><br />You, Mr Howard, say: "There is no effective counter to Hockney’s argument." <br /><br />There most certainly is. Besides agreeing with the points given by Ferrara, particularly in regards to the horse, I'd like to put forth two more very basic and obvious counters, things that should be coming to any halfway sensible mind:<br /><br />1) If a camera lucida was so crucial, and (as Hockney asserts) responsible for a radical change to realistic images (with its later disuse/drop in the late 1900s or so returning us to the awkward, such as the work of Hockney himself...), how does one explain artists maintaining their usual skill/quality with self-portraits?<br /><br />2) If such devices are responsible for the "overnight" shift to life-like images, Hockney's great argument, then how does one explain the shift to realistic sculpture that occurred at that same time? If a lucida was what was required for artists to make the leap forward, then what were they using to make the same achievements in sculpture?<br /><br />To me, Hockney's whole theory, if he had truly tried to settle these questions at the start (instead of choosing an agenda and then trying to make it fit, as even he admits he did), could've ended there, without a single page written...<br /><br />The people that buy into Hockney and this hole-ridden theory of his are the same simple-minded sorts that get taken in and excited by such as 'The Da Vinci Code' and '1421: The Year China Discovered America.'Casperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03241779202084110962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-15709451574709110762010-05-04T14:31:13.837-04:002010-05-04T14:31:13.837-04:00i've never heard the term "working drawin...i've never heard the term "working drawings" before but it is absolutely perfect. i LOVE drawings, but there's something particularly about the drawing <i>study</i> that draws me in. they're so personal and unpretentious.Alexis Barattinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01341846421787548150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-19635257259781509282010-05-03T15:25:23.039-04:002010-05-03T15:25:23.039-04:00I've met a computer consultant who did work fo...I've met a computer consultant who did work for the Canadian government. He said that they wanted to use SEVEN different sexual classifications for their records-- heterosexual, homosexual, transgendered, asexual, hermaphordite -- I forgot the rest; it's all too complicated nowadays.Canucknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-46931493356625125082010-05-03T13:57:16.629-04:002010-05-03T13:57:16.629-04:00Maybe there Is a God. So nice to see Mr. Fluharty&...Maybe there Is a God. So nice to see Mr. Fluharty's work in the company it deserves .john cuneonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-32863166353888282582010-05-03T13:15:53.077-04:002010-05-03T13:15:53.077-04:00Rob,
It's not delusional to refer to Jones as ...Rob,<br />It's not delusional to refer to Jones as a "she". It's just an attempt at being polite. I've switched back and forth refering to her/him. It feels a little weird to say "her" but, it's no skin off my nose and I don't see why I shouldn't try to be considerate.<br />I'm more likely to say "him" when refering to a time before the operation.<br />I'm still not so sure his/her promise wasn't realized though, since he was creating solid new work up until his mid fifties...I'm not sure when you expected him to "get his own voice"normhttp://normanfelchle.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-44922882856238947402010-05-03T13:07:34.663-04:002010-05-03T13:07:34.663-04:00Rob, i take your points, but Fuchs is an exception...Rob, i take your points, but Fuchs is an exception i think... an excellent eye for composition (let's be honest he probably good have had a career as a photographer if he wanted to) and a brilliant painterly technique. i haven't seen anything he's produced without tracing so i don't know what his basic drawing skills look like, sans tracing. i'd be very interested to see something he drew from imagination only. i'm not a fan of Peak at all, and Briggs i can take or leave. i wouldn't say tracing is 'cheating'... it's just a short-cut to a more realistic image. the final thing being a bit like a photograph with a 'painterly' effect on top.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-27358270204337903192010-05-03T10:41:06.019-04:002010-05-03T10:41:06.019-04:00Laurence, it has been experience that people who c...Laurence, it has been experience that people who cannot draw well, cannot trace well, whereas people who can draw well seem to add their drawing knowledge to the tracing. Look at the way Ingres ahndled the folds of fabric in those drawings that are obviously a result of using a prism camera lucida (anyone who has used one recognises the qualities it imposes). A person without his grace would not be able to add the artist's touch to those mechanical impositions.<br /><br />Ingres was the son of a drawing master and was deemed a prodigy early on. He had nothing to prove. He used the tools at his disposal and, because of his mastery of the medium, was able to use them as a helpful adjunct.<br /><br />What tracing shows up are those without solid drawing skills. My version of the old saw is...give a man a crutch and he'll learn how to limp. And so it is with projected or traced images. To have any degree of success one needs to have a VERY solid background in drawing...at least from life but, better, from imagination. At that point, you will know how to look at a photo and pick out the salient points and foundational elements. Without that knowledge the drawing will only be of the surface.<br /><br />My approach to drawing is always based in the construction of solids...a bag with one pound of flour and another with five pounds of lead shot look different. If you understand the underlying construction of how to draw, that will be imposed on your observations. This is handy when drawing figures because you can accurately define their weight and the space they occupy.<br /><br />This is how I view every object before my eyes and also how I try to define it with a pencil. That's foundational and it does not change if i am drawing from life, from imagination or from a projected image. The end result is that the drawings all have a commonly shared quality (can't wait to hear the trolls say what it is).<br /><br />The weaked the draughtsman, the weaker the tracing. Some people cannot see that, but it's apparent to those who have been at it for a while. Look at Bernie Fuchs, Bob Peak and Austin Briggs. They cheated (according to the Amateur's Moral Code of Drawing Rules). Wouldn't you love to be able to produce tracings that are that lively and sensitive? I would.Rob Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587811799010051018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-55530915032866131492010-05-03T10:21:57.499-04:002010-05-03T10:21:57.499-04:00Not railing, actually...just trying to find the co...Not railing, actually...just trying to find the cosmic humor in it all<br /><br />FOUND IT!<br /><br /><i>The final word from The Moral Relativism department at Monty Python U.:</i><br /><br /><b>New Mother:</b> Is it a boy or a girl? <br /><br /><b>Obstretrician:</b> I think it's a bit early to start imposing roles on it, don't you?Rob Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587811799010051018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-47604792286683992902010-05-03T06:34:03.942-04:002010-05-03T06:34:03.942-04:00Great post, thanks. Wish I could draw as them, it&...Great post, thanks. Wish I could draw as them, it's so incredibly detailed!Harry Hildershttp://www.harry-hilders.info/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-73085999890245331702010-05-02T18:06:12.040-04:002010-05-02T18:06:12.040-04:00LOL! Rob, that was a pretty severe reaction to Jon...LOL! Rob, that was a pretty severe reaction to Jones' sex change. Relax man, your own balls are okay, no one's going after them. Honest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-74842831890306405642010-05-02T16:15:13.450-04:002010-05-02T16:15:13.450-04:00Tom, i don't have a definition of drawing, i w...Tom, i don't have a definition of drawing, i was just thinking about tracing as it was brought up in the discussion about projectors/camera obscuras.<br /><br />if people think that traced paintings/drawings look the business then that's wonderful.<br />to me they look flat, facile and lifeless. they show me only that the wrist has managed to follow the shapes on the paper/canvas (a beginner could do the same) and that leaves me only to judge the picture on two levels; how good was the initial photograph* that the<br />artist conceived to be traced ? and how good is their final rendering of that photograph* ?<br /> <br />when an artist draws from their own imagination they have to dig into an excitement level that the tracer can't imagine. they have to engage all of their ability in visualizing as clearly as possible the image they wish to convey onto paper. the energy and concentration needed to <br />do this comes across in the final image. the excitement evident in Fluharty's** work wouldn't be there if he had traced the imagery. indeed his work wouldn't even exist if he had to trace it. the distorted re-imagined, heightened reality he creates is only possible when engaging the spacial imagination.<br /><br />*to anyone who needs to pick up a camera before they can start creating a drawn/painted image, you might want to ask "shouldn't i be a photographer instead ?"<br /><br />** likewise John Cuneo, Heinrich Kley, Jeff Macnelly... to only scratch the surface.Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-42536810041891599182010-05-02T13:39:58.127-04:002010-05-02T13:39:58.127-04:00LAURENCE JOHN
Yes I think your description of th...LAURENCE JOHN<br /> Yes I think your description of thinking 3d nails it.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-60966254859309993522010-05-02T13:37:28.923-04:002010-05-02T13:37:28.923-04:00LAURENCE JOHN
I see what you mean by tracing, I ju...LAURENCE JOHN<br />I see what you mean by tracing, I just thought it was interesting that the person intuitively understood what information I was conveying, outlining or copying the shapes I was looking at, to me copying and tracing are closely intertwine, because the aesthetic motivation tends to disappear in the process, instead of placing a piece of paper directly over and image I was holding the plane i.e. tracing paper perpendicular to the scene and tracing. Drawing is what one is interested in, what motivates us to pick up a pencil. Not a very good definition but the best I can come with right now. Do you have a definition for drawing?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-80273257313361747742010-05-02T12:36:03.316-04:002010-05-02T12:36:03.316-04:00"oh you are tracing what you see." It wo..."oh you are tracing what you see." It woke me up to what I was really doing. <br /><br /><br />i wouldn't call that tracing, i'd call it copying from life. for tracing the image has to be projected on the art surface by whatever means (anyone remember Grant enlargers ?) and you simply follow the shapes. it makes the possiblity of slippage almost nil. it doesn't exercise any area of the brain that deals with the far harder task of imagining a person or object and rotating it in 3-D space. what do you call 'drawing' Tom ?Laurence Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11988700485839219253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-78351096667426030182010-05-02T11:20:35.771-04:002010-05-02T11:20:35.771-04:00Rob,
If you find something pitiable, why rage at ...Rob,<br /><br />If you find something pitiable, why rage at it?<br /><br />I, for one, look forward to seeing new work by Jones, just like I awaited new work, and then was rewarded by Brian Wilson, and Frank Frazetta, after each had their own life-threatening illnesses to conquer.kev ferrarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09509572970616136990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-3328079023291062882010-05-02T11:03:37.814-04:002010-05-02T11:03:37.814-04:00Certainly there are styles and schools that are re...Certainly there are styles and schools that are respectable, but art history does not seem to deal kindly with imitators of highly prolific and individual artists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-39591441543880162262010-05-02T10:35:48.930-04:002010-05-02T10:35:48.930-04:00I’ve been reading the references to the talented, ...I’ve been reading the references to the talented, and deeply disturbed, illustrator Jeffrey Jones who felt compelled to undergo the deceptively named <i>sex change operation</i>. How airily some fall back to the new language of self-delusion…politically correct sensitivity, referring to the renamed and re-plumbed Mr. Jones as <i>Ms. Jones</i>. The PC among us showed off their Orwellian NewSpeak in referring to Jones as “she.”<br />Gosh, that makes you feel all warm and empathetic inside, doesn’t it. Yes, Jeffrey, we accept whatever you do, no matter how cringe-inducing because we’re truly sensitive human beings. We’re so sensitive that we rename anti-social behaviors to more palatable confections. <br />When castrations were routine…choristers were castrated in order to prevent coarsening of their voices. Think of the fabled harem guards. Still, those emasculated men were referred to as “he.” A gelding is a “he.” So is a steer, or a wether. Even the dog and cat you’ve had “fixed” is a he. But throw our language out the window and have it modified to fit the sensibilities of the indoctrinated…or as Eric Hoffer called them, “The True Believers.”<br />Does it strike anyone that referring to the self-inflicted wounds a mentally disturbed person as “decorations,” is a bit of a stretch? By those same delusional PC standards, a person indulging in coprophagy would be “on a special diet.” The Greeks were hopelessly insensitive when they did not come up with some confection about Oedipus choosing to become “otherwise abled.” Yet, in a show of misplaced empathy we hear the acceptance of deranged behavior (this falls under the PC rubric of “personal choice”) and show our deep feel-good-about-myself acceptance by referring to Jones as “she.” Hey, it was just her choice, but she’s the same old artist we always admired.<br />Talk about a tin ear and not being able to hear what you’re saying. Here’s the reality …Jeffrey Jones was an exceptional talent (noted more in the breach than the actual work) always promising to reach great heights. It now appears it was his inner demons preventing him from the heights that <i>should</i> have been his. He was respected for what he <i>could do</i>, not so much for what he did do. His marvelous stylistic skills hid content that was derivative. Still, those skills were so stunning that we all thought he would soon find his own voice (as far as content was concerned) and become a towering figure in modern illustration. Sadly, that was not to be.<br />Sadly, promising artist was deeply and profoundly at odds with reality. The decision to be emasculated could not have been lightly taken. To protect themselves from future lawsuits, the surgeons would have to have explained the entire process and it’s lasting effects. This man not only agreed to cut off his male sexual organs but to also cut himself off from normal society. Sure, there would always be those with faked empathy introducing him around as Catherine and calling him “she” (and ignoring the Adam’s Apple) and one wonders what to think of those who willingly partake in delusional behavior. Is it crowd hysteria with a small crowd? Whatever it is, it’s playing into a lie. Jeffrey Jones is not and never will be a woman…a she. Jones is now a eunuch, a castrati – and a tragic waste. Nonetheless, he’s still a “he.”<br />I cannot imagine that his career will ever flourish as it might have. The reason is simple, and this will flicker through even the most PC indoctrinated mind…what he did to himself is so far beyond the pale that there is no way one could think of him as reliable. This is the big billboard that announces the end of his career as an illustrator. The best he can hope for is to have scraps thrown to him. He has, in effect, reduced himself to a spectacle. What a tragedy. I’m sure that most of us would have husbanded that fine talent with more care than Jones has. <br />Rather than protest that your delusions are the truth, be truly sensitive and weep for the loss of a special talent to mental illness. What a freaking tragedy!Rob Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07587811799010051018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-4559856382841694612010-05-02T10:10:32.828-04:002010-05-02T10:10:32.828-04:00LAURENCE JOHN
Tracing is tracing drawing is somet...LAURENCE JOHN<br />Tracing is tracing drawing is something else. My first how to instructions on drawing was Betty Edwards Drawing on the right side of the mind. I was making a drawing in a restaurant and someone came up looked at my drawing and exclaimed "oh you are tracing what you see." It woke me up to what I was really doing. Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04641223414745777056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12189014.post-52247371499616047242010-05-02T08:19:57.513-04:002010-05-02T08:19:57.513-04:00Toad squats, croaks...Toad squats, croaks...hook no baitnoreply@blogger.com