Recent efforts

[Peter Jochems]

Beth- - Did I mention the word rules ? huh !? I think the rules of light are extremely important and cannot be simplified in this manner.

One of the most important and crucial aspects of lighting a head isn't to be seen in this horrible way of simplifying things. That is: The light reflected from one part of the face onto another part of the face. And it happens everywhere in the face. This effect is totally excluded in this example. It's better to forget that awful ball-theory, therefore.

If you want a portrait to look three-dimensional and alive then you cannot exclude these reflections within a face.

Peter

[Steven Sweeney]

But long before we get to the subtleties of light bouncing around within a form, we

Jeff, I like the treatment of the clothing on the self-portrait, and the confidence in the hatching strokes. It has a very architectural quality, because of the strength of the outline, and the lines you're using to indicate the contours. Is there a name for those lines? I'm taking a workshop where the painter is calling it an "envelope."

I also like the utterly different (and more tender?) treatment of your wife. Nice front hand. Excellent hair!

You indicated you were going to go for a higher level of finish. Please post them again, love to see them evolve.

Beth, Thanks for reminding me of this, I need to hear it every so often. Even though all my references talk about a single area of greatest light (or two, if you have a nose), I often forget and get crazy with the cheese whiz on my highlights. A little blending, and lo, I'm chalky, I'm columnar, and I'm starting over.

The head isn't a ball, or an egg, but it certainly isn't a column either. I think the value in calling a head a ball or an egg is that it's a handy little song to sing to oneself to remind the brush to focus, and to show restraint.

[Elizabeth Schott]

Just to clarify:

The "ball" example is the most simplistic shape for illustrating the concept behind the complex intricacies of light developing different forms. Sorry if my example is bad and didn't convey what I was trying to say.

Jeff, make sure you post your updates if you make changes!

[Jeff Fuchs]

Wow! Lots of responses.

Steven, you asked about the lighting for the self portrait. Well, that was a real problem, since I drew it in the evening, when light changes quickly. At the risk of sounding too Gothic: I was seated in the living room of my Victorian home. The Victorians really liked windows, and this room has several, in an octagon bay that faces north. Even with the shutters closed, there was light coming from every direction. I sat in front of a mirrored armoire, and as night fell, I turned on the sconces, which are behind me, but reflect light off the mirror, and into my face. Anyway, I found myself drawing local values with a little bit of shade on one side of my face. Natural light sound like a good idea, but it can be fickle.

Beth,

I can't buy into the "head as ball" theory. If that were true, why do so many people call me "blockhead"?

Gloria,

I used the envelope, but not very successfully. Somehow, I ended up with an unusually small head. Since I had developed the face early, I ended up erasing the rest of the body and drawing it smaller.

Peter,

Yes, I often draw pictures directly from the computer screen. I really like this for several reasons:

1. I can zoom in and out, doing a Whitaker's Waltz without leaving my chair.

2. I can lighten and darken my reference photo all I like to get hidden details.

3. With a digital camera, I can use my reference photo immediately. No film processing.

Thanks to all again,
Jeff

[Steven Sweeney]

Jeff,

I

[Michele Rushworth]

Jeff, you may find it helpful next time you are drawing yourself (or anyone else from life) in that space to block out a lot of the natural light coming in.

In Bill Whitaker's class he covered all but two small high windows, shining on each model. The other dozen or so ten foot high windows were covered up.

The windows in the north facing studio Bill chose for the class in the Scottsdale Artists School had blinds that opened from the top down so it was possible to block out all but the top couple of feet of the windows. The ceilings were also 12 feet high.

Bill Whitaker's feeling was that most artists' studios suffer from too much light. Small high light sources (especially north light) are the ideal.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Thomas Eakins called light "the big tool." Any artist who doesn't consider the strength, size, quality and direction of the light source has a snowballs chance in h*ll in succeeding. In order to create the illusion of depth on a two dimensional surface, an artist needs every advantage possible. Not considering the light source is like throwing away the ace of trump while playing Bridge.

In terms of the head being considered a ball. This is simply an analogy which champions the importance of relegating the smaller aspects to a secondary role in relationship to the big form and planes. The approach favored by most untrained artists, of giving prominence to the details, is the mark of the amateur since it results in the inevitable flattening and distortion of form.

Bouguereau said the key was to relegate the small accents to the providence of the big planes. Whether one appreciates the content of his paintings or not, his technical superiority is beyond reproach.

[Peter Jochems]

'Analogy of the head with a ball' sounds better than the 'mantra: A head is a ball'- Still, this should be said in a broader context instead of showing just this piece of the puzzle, like earlier in this thread to which I responded.

Peter

[Steven Sweeney]

Natural light sounds like a good idea, but it can be fickle.

Jeff, I realize this is heresy, but I think the value of natural light is overstated, here and elsewhere. When I'm working, it's not unusual for me to draw or paint for eight to ten hours at a stretch (with sushi breaks of course -- though not "of course", as I hate sushi and even the idea of it; perhaps I meant a libation.) I don't believe I mentioned "natural" light (maybe I said "northern") and I probably wouldn't, because where does that leave those of us who paint in the evening, or the early a.m. hours? Chopped liver? I don't think so.

And I'll tell you what, natural light over a three-hour work period, from one day to the next, over a lengthy sitting or painting, has no more consistency or continuity than water down a river. I have to say that I've never known anyone who had to produce work indoors on a regular basis and was able to do so on the luxury of natural light.

A lessor was just enquiring of me whether I needed studio space with windows, and I told her I'd just tape foil onto them anyway, so, no. I'm in charge of the light on my subject, whether for an hour or eight.