Eye training - a series of cast drawings
 

I've just started a series of cast drawings which I thought might be interesting to share here.

I'm planning ten of these drawings initially, following the progression of the Bargue plates as far as I can. the first two will just be schematics, to get me used to sight size drawing and the measuring technique. On the third I'm planning to refine the lines, as in plate two of the Bargue drawings, and on the fourth I'll begin to add tone, as in plate three of the Bargue drawings. If I'm doing ok at that point, I'll add more tone on the fifth.

The general idea is that I add something new at each stage, working up to a finished cast drawing on the tenth one.

Although this series will probably take me a long time to complete, (the first drawing shown here took about eight hours,) I'll come back to this thread and add the drawings as they're done.

If anyone here who has done this before, or is currently doing this at a real atelier, has any comments, I'd very much appreciate any feedback you might have on my approach. I've put up a more detailed write up of how I approached this one on my site here:

First cast drawing - Clytie One

A perfect beginning, to my eye. I'm jealous of your few errors. I struggled a long time to get where you are.

Post more often than naught -- ten steps is okay, but don't feel that 20 will overburden your bandwidth allowance here. The intermediate stages are much more useful to many than the "perfected" plateaus. The goofs and the the corrections are every bit as much a part of the process as the gallery-ready slides, and far more instructive and inspirational.

And in fact, if you catch yourself in error, please shout it out. That is the greatest encouragement to all of us who rarely get it right the first time.

Getting it right the first time must, in fact, be about the most boring occupation in the universe. Not that I'll ever know.

Which is a big part of why I don't do watercolour.

Thanks Steven.

The drawing is far from perfect. Unfortunately I work in a small room and my camera tripod doesn't get up to eye height, so I had it sitting on a swivel chair for this photo, as far back as I could get it. Despite my best efforts, I couldn't seem to get a shot from exactly my viewpoint, making it hard to judge the accuracy of the drawing from the photo. Plus I'm all fingers and thumbs with a camera. I'll try to get a better shot on the next one.

I must also thank you for your posts here on sight-size drawing, they've been a big help. The Bargue book also has a good section on sight-size.

I think part of the difficulty in teaching yourself this stuff is that no matter how strict you are with yourself, your eye is necessarily less developed than a drawing master's eye would be. There's no one to say, "Have another look at that left eye..."

I console myself with the thought that the practice will be excellent eye training, whether I produce any decent drawings or not.

Despite the aforementioned difficulties, on this drawing the shadows on the base, and the shadow cast by the base, fairly scream at me. You can see that on the photo, bad as it is. I got a bit tired and rushed that part. I had a strong word with myself and threatened to throw myself out of my atelier if I don't do better next time :)

Speaking of shadows (and I'll quit interrupting after this), I did want to add that you've either instinctively or deliberately approached the desirable 2/3-1/3 ratio of light to shadow for these kinds of objects. That of course more easily contributes to the depiction of form than if you had to work with great subtlety in a narrow range of values over a large area, and it is as well an expression of composition. The same ratio of light to shadow could be maintained with the light coming from a different direction, yet the composition would be altered, and it would be a different picture.

Paul, I found that working from the cast was a excellent study, for me. The Bargue drawings did prepare me for the cast and the cast work helped me better understand working from the model.

You mention a possibilities of critiques even self critiques. If you post your image in the critique section i am sure that members will respond. A word to the wise never change anything until you can visually see, in your minds eye, what that change will do. It is like playing chess. Having sead that check the width of the head.

Wish you the best that you can be
mischa

Hi Mischa, thanks for your comments.

I think I'll leave the drawings here rather than the critique section though, primarily because they're not finished drawings, just exercises in accuracy. The problem with critiques for these drawings is that unless I can get a reliable shot from exactly my viewpoint, accuracy can't be properly judged from a photo. I hope that makes sense.

I've taken down the set up now so can't re-check the drawing, or correct it any more. I'll try to post 'in progress' shots of some of the next drawings.

Steven, that's interesting what you say about the proportion of shadow to light. I hadn't thought about that at all. What I have done is tried to control the light in what might be called an 'old master' approach.

It's natural light from the window, with all but a square foot or so screened off, to give me lighting slightly above and to one side of the 'model.' After a few experimients with different lighting, proximity to the window etc, I'm beginning to realise that less is often more. This is pretty much how I light the subjects for my still life paintings.

Hi Paul, I'm delighted to see you posting this because I've just ordered a cast from Giust Gallery and, armed with the Barque book and some sharp-eyed artist friends willing to tell me where I'm "off", I'm getting ready to roll as soon as it gets here. (Usually I draw from a Planes of the Head cast but I'm feeling the need to expand.) Your drawing looks excellent to me. Steven and Mischa, it's good to know you both have had much experience with this, I hope you keep posting as well.

Second drawing underway
 

That's great Linda, hopefully we'll be able to compare notes as we go along. Please feel free to Bargue in (ouch!) on this thread with your own drawings.

I should point out to anyone reading this thread that I haven't the faintest idea what I'm doing. Don't take this thread as a recommendation on how to do cast drawings, I'm learning as I go.

Today I started the second drawing. This shot is a work in progress at the second stage. Stage one is selecting, measuring and placing the marks for the main points on the form, stage two is literally 'joining the dots.' At this point I've been working for about five hours. Next I'll be making corrections to this stage before proceeding to refine the outline further, then laying out the shapes of the main tone blocks. At that point the schematic will be done and I can start the next one.

I got a new tripod today which means at least that I can get the camera to my eye level, but I'm still struggling with getting shots that look the same as what I see when I'm drawing. For reasons I don't understand, the drawing appears substantially larger than the cast. I know it's out, but it's not this far out. It's mostly down to my lack of knowledge about how cameras work I'm sure, but it just confirms my deep mistrust of these nasty mechanical contraptions.

Great Stuff Paul, where did you get your casts and how much?

Hi Ngaire,

I got them from ebay, this one and one of adonis which I haven't drawn yet. I think they were about

corrections
 

Here's a picture of the drawing after a couple more hours, all I've done is correct a few mistakes to the outline. The most obvious bit I got wrong is the length of the nose.

Steven, you asked me to shout out when I found myself in error, well here it comes: I've just realised that I'm not 90 degrees to my drawing board, so I have perspective on my drawing, with a vanishing point somewhere off to the left of me. The right half of the drawing is bigger than the left, or at least it will be when I look at it flat on. Does that make sense to anyone else or have I lost it?

I'm glad I decided to do these in stages, I can make sure I get this right on the next one. Being as I'm only going up to schematic stage with this one, I'm going to finish it off anyway.

It's funny, the camera was trying to tell me this all along, it's why I can't set horizontal guides across the image and have them line up on the shots, why my drawing always looks bigger than the cast in the photos. I suppose I should apologise to my camera now, but just a little bit.

Unfortunately the light is going now and I'm away for a few days from tomorrow, so I'll continue with this one when I get back.

I thought it might be useful to illustrate what I think Paul has discovered about the distortion that can be introduced into a sight-size drawing if you are not sighting your measurements

Steven, that's exactly what I've done. Thank you for putting it so much more clearly than I could.

[QUOTE=Steven Sweeney] There

Yeah, there

This drawing is finished now, which is a bit of a relief. Owing to life being busy (I got married last month,) and to me taking longer over the measuring, this set up was in place for a fair while, allowing time for mishaps like tripping over the easel and the cat taking a fancy to the plumb line. That, coupled with the drawing board angle distortion, makes me less than confident with the accuracy of the result, but the eye training is good regardless.

One of the main things that concerned me during this drawing was where I was putting the dividing lines between the shadow and light areas. I'm not convinced I've done such a great job of it. One session I'll think I've got it pretty much right, only to think it's entirely in the wrong place on the next session. I guess adding tone will be the real litmus test, which should start to happen on drawing four.

This one took about twenty hours I think. As with the last one, there's a fuller write up of it on my web site.

Paul:

My sincere congratulations on your marriage. May you find joy in every moment together and may you both notice many a God's blessings even in times of intensive discussions.

I see that your exercises are coming along quite well and that you are getting a hang and importance of the Bargue exercises. Each stage that you do you should notice how important the presiding stage was. If you have not made that observation you have cheated your self.

Many a artist of today do not realize the painstaking task of learning to draw. Some would rather go for the quick fix for one reason or the other, finance or whatever. All the shortcuts are understandable but what a joy it is when you get on that road to master your craft.

The Bargue exercises, when done properly, are a wealth of information. This information is essential when working from life.

One example: working a Bargue sample drawing and later using the same method for the cast will teach one not only to see but to understand the relationship between line, shadow, half-ton and light. With the sample B. drawing and in cast work if all is set up correctly gives one total control of the work area. Working from nature and natural light, especially natural light, one must have a complete grasp of the previous lessons in order to proceed at a reasonable pace.

Copy the Bargue line figure drawings, the comparative method. They in them selves have a wealth of information.

Wish you all the best

Steven:
grate set up demonstration explanation. How much pain would one endure if they did not know this and to think, Paul was ready to trash his camera. :-D

Thanks Mischa, "intensive discussions" - I like that. :)

Thanks also for the encouragement, it's nice to know I'm on the right track.

I couldn't agree more about the progression in the Bargue plates. It is, after all, a drawing course, and certainly seems to have been envisioned that way. The next cast drawing will still not have tone, but will correspond to the second Bargue plate, where he begins to refine the outline a stage further from the even-width straight lines he uses for the schematics in plate one.

I need to get back to the Bargue plates soon, because my general plan is to stay one step ahead with the Bargue plates of the cast drawings, so I get to see how he does it first.

I confess, I'm a little apprehensive of adding tone, when I get to that stage. I'm not convinced that my charcoal technique will be up to the job. I've recently started a series of small tonal still life drawings to try and whip myself into shape before I try doing it on a cast.

I have a question for those of you who have done the Bargue exercises: On many of the plates, especially in the darkest darks, I can see parallel lines running through the tone. At first, I thought that this was the grain of the paper showing through, but the more closely I look at them, the less sure I become. It looks to me like Bargue may have used these (almost perfect) parallel lines to fill in the tone blocks, followed by smoothing with a stomp or some other implement - am I right?

You might reduce some of the anxiousness about this by not worrying at first whether the value you put down matches

That sounds like a good way to approach it Steven, thanks for the advice.

[QUOTE=Steven Sweeny] toned in relation to each other, rather than each to an

Quite right, but if you establish your lightest lights (which will be the unblemished white paper, or white chalk if you're working on toned paper) and your darkest darks first, and then leave them alone, you won't push either out of the drawing. Instead, you'll have to interpolate the remaining values between those established extremes in your value range.

And yes, we can't draw "light" (in the sense of that reflective surface), so we represent it or suggest it by making sure that we preserve at least some ratio of the relationship between that reflective surface and the surrounding areas. To oversimplify, if "real life" gives us a 100-value range, but for all practical purposes we simply don't have the materials to draw or paint the lightest or the darkest 10, then our drawing will necessarily lie within an 80-value range. But we preserve the ratios between the values, so that a difference of 10 value steps in nature will have to be represented in the drawing by an 8-step difference, an adjustment that will avoid the "glass ceiling" or "floor" problem. But the difference will still be convincing with respect to the representation of the reflected light.

Across the Mississippi River from my old office is a shipwright's dock for repair of towed river barges, which are metal and, so, there's a lot of welding going on all the time. One of the local master landscapists, Joe Paquet, did a painting of that scene, on a fairly bright day, and yet through his command of the value relationships, he convincingly created the appearance of a tiny welding arc -- about the brightest light you'll see, after the sun -- from a vantage point over a hundred yards away. Of course, he couldn't even begin to accurately depict the arc's intensity in an absolute sense, so he used the brightest hue he had available and then adjusted everything else to "fit" between that and the darkest dark he also needed to complete the scene.

I admire and hate people like that.

You know, I've been mulling that one over for months now, I even started a series of drawings to try and figure out the best answer. And here you go, cutting cleanly through all my fretting with a clear and simple answer which, now that you've said it, seems blindingly obvious to me.

I admire and hate people like you ;)

Dear Paul

Thank you for starting this thread. I too have Clytie and am eager to start drawing her for practice-Bargue style.

What a difference it makes having something solid (3D) to practice from instead of photocopies of the Bargue plates.

She was worth the extra dollars to get her here to me 'down under'.

I just have to figure out a good lighting position for her etc.