Drawing critique

[Mike McCarty]

I was commissioned to do a portrait of this man's fiance. After taking her photographs I was able to coax him into a couple of pic's. I would really like to get this loosen up thing going. Any comments on the decisions that I made would be helpful. I will post the photo after the drawing.

[Mike McCarty]

here is the photo

[Steven Sweeney]

Perhaps part of the "loosening up" that you're working toward could be realized in terms of thinking about simplifying shapes and values. I'll just refer to one area to try to explain what I mean, and that's the shadow side of the face. If you squint down enough as you look at the reference photograph, you can almost get to a point where it appears that you could represent the head using only two values, a very light gray and a very dark gray. It's not quite that clear cut, though, because there's a fair amount of reflected light, too, on the viewer's left, but let's get the big shape in first and deal with the reflected light as an adjustment to it. As you squint, you can see not only that the shadow side is very much darker than the lit side, but the contour of the shadow is quite sharply delineated. There's a virtual line, peculiar to this person's likeness, working down from hairline to Adam's apple, very distinctively describing the facial features, and on one side of that line is a very definite light and the other side a very definite dark.

As you squint at your drawing, you see instead a much more gradual transition between values and a very much more limited extension of those values. You've given up a lot of the benefit of that great lighting set-up. Within the shadow shape are lots of small patches of value that don't, it seems to me, do as much to suggest form as would an overall simplification of that whole large shadow shape. Keep as much unity in the value shapes as possible. Don't "look into" the dark areas too hard in order to be able to "see" subtle lights -- if the lights aren't there when you squint, then for the benefit of simplification, of "looseness", they aren't there, period. This includes, for example, all that light you've introduced around the eye on our left, an eye which in fact is in quite dark shadow.

By the way, the "rule" -- yes, the "should" -- on squinting is that it's used to simplify and discern the relationship between value shapes, but you don't want to draw the darks as dark as you see them when you're squinting.

So, make sure the contour of that shadow shape is carved out all the way down and around the peculiar angles of the Adam's apple. And note that the lit side of the neck is nearly as light as the lit side of the face, yet you've got it considerable darker. The two areas are actually part of the same unified light shape, only "accidentally" interrupted by the shadow on the underside of the index finger.

It's because the overall shadow shape is too light that you've found yourself overdarkening the lines of flesh creases on the neck and the small shadow are just above the collar. Squint at the hand as well, and you'll see there, too, that there really is not a dark black line separating the heel of the hand from the wrist, nor is that triangle of reflected light that bright.

The dark side of the shirt does need to have some lights pulled out of it (with a kneaded eraser), not because I'm "looking into" that area for light, but because there's such great constrast between the sides of the shirt that they look like two different garments. At least some small bit of light is crossing over to the shadow side.

One last item that may seem to go to fussiness rather than simplicity -- but doesn't really, since even simple gestures have to be correctly placed -- is the line of the mouth. That's very characteristic of this man's likeness, and I think the side of the mouth on our right has been represented as too narrow, and that it has remained horizontal too long before dropping down into that distinctive triangular shadow shape at the corner of the mouth. There's also a convex area on the contour of the cheek near that corner that I don't see in the photograph. Finally, squint at the left side of the mouth and that light running all the way across the top lip to the corner will disappear, as it should.

Security is sending a detail up to drag me out of here, so that's it for now. Squint. Simplify well-defined and correctly valued shapes. That will "loosen you up".

Steven

[Mike McCarty]

Steven, thanks so much for all the thought you put into your critique's. No doubt I could have spent a lot more time on this drawing. I think each of your points are valid.

Could you comment on the basic composition, the decisions regarding void space at the bottom left and the treatment above the head and to the right of the figure? Does this style of composition distract in your opinion? Anyone's opinion? By using this style could it be argued that this is "merely a study" and not a portrait?

Yunno, I find that these drawings (when rendered properly) can be as time consuming as an oil painting. Anyone else find this to be true?

[Lon Haverly]

This drawing certainly shows your ability in form and sensitivity to likeness. Time is the defining factor which determines style in a drawing. The more you work a drawing, the more it becomes like everyone else's. I usually regret overworking a drawing especially when it comes to the background. I like the composition here, with the open areas of negative space. Line quality is the main thing I look for in a drawing, as much as the form. If the lines are beautiful, the drawing will also be beautiful.

Kudos for trying to loosen up! Looseness is good if it does not compromise the beauty of lines. The line work in the background is a bit cluttery in my view. A bit scribbly. Perhaps it distracts a bit by just being a bit heavy handed. Perhaps it overpowers the subject slightly. But the composition is nice. All a bit subjective, I should say. I would perhaps liked to have seen this drawing with very little background work, say, only enough to show the highlight in the viewer's right facial edge, and so as not to overpower the more sensitive linework in the important aspects of the face and hands.

I think that a good drawing is every bit as weighty in terms of art as a good painting. I am prejudiced, as I draw for a living. I appreciate a good drawing every bit as much as a good painting. They are so rare. Hats off to you for this drawing!

[Mike McCarty]

Thank you Lon for the kind words. Your comments are helpful. I use these "extra photo's" that I am able to capture as opportunities to experiment. I had no commission regarding this image and so I feel I can go in any odd direction I choose without the pressure.

I'm sure I could have gone further with the detail, and I might yet, but I feel strongly that it is the composition that first sells the bacon.

[Lon Haverly]

You may have a point there regarding composition.

I should experiment more with composition for myself as well, as I am in so deep a rut it is really bordering on total commercialism. My day consists of doing demonstration drawings of shoppers in such a quick time that they will not be late for the movies. You can't get into much "creativity" there. There are so many ways to do this art, and I tend to have such tunnel vision.

That is why I spend so much time in this forum. I want to learn and grow. I think I am capable of more.

[Leopoldo Benavidez]

Mike, this is just a drawing for something more involved later? Anyway you are certainly getting to the core of things. Well done!...L

[Mike McCarty]

Mike, this is just a drawing for something more involved later?

Not neccessarily for this image but for future compositions. I know that a successful painting means getting multiple components right, but I have it in my mind that a good composition is weighted more than any other component. I am stretching and struggling in my mind with just where the borders or limits of good comp. are.