Portrait Artist Forum    

Go Back   Portrait Artist Forum > Pastel Critiques
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search


Reply
 
Topic Tools Search this Topic Display Modes
Old 01-31-2002, 07:04 PM   #1
Sampo Kaikkonen Sampo Kaikkonen is offline
Associate Member
Student of Arts
 
Sampo Kaikkonen's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 9
Working on a pastel nude




Hi

This is not actually a portrait but rather a nude study. I hope it is ok that I show it here anyway. I am doing it just for fun and for training myself. The drawing is made with white, brown and black pastels on brown paper. I am currently working on the curtain.

Any comments would be welcome.
Attached Images
 
__________________
Sampo Kaikkonen
http://www.artnstuff.net/gallery.php
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2002, 10:45 AM   #2
Steven Sweeney Steven Sweeney is offline
Juried Member
PT 5+ years
 
Steven Sweeney's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Location: Stillwater, MN
Posts: 1,801
This model has a lovely "S"-curved gesture that nicely leads the eye through the drawing. There's a full range of values -- albeit mostly in the shadow range -- in what nonetheless appears to be a quite dimly lit setting, perhaps early dawn. You said you're working on the curtain, which I assume must be sheer enough to admit the relatively bright light onto a few parts of the figure. You've worked to clearly state shadow shapes on the figure, which are essential to create form.

Anatomical presumptions are just the starting point when you're doing a life drawing with a unique individual standing in front of you, so there's really not much I can offer by way of detail, but I'll mention of couple of general things that caught my eye.

I gave some thought to the distances from the neck to the shoulders, as the distance on the near side seemed relatively short . . . or else the other side was long, without apparent reason for the difference. I thought perhaps the head was in slightly the wrong position or the wrong size, but my experimenting with that didn't pan out. I think it comes down to two areas. The distance across the far shoulder is in fact, I think, ever so slightly long -- hold up a dark piece of paper to shave off just a sliver of the outside turn around the deltoid area. On the other side, I think the distance may be correct but the trapezius muscle from the top of the neck toward the shoulder is perhaps too prominent, like what we'd see on a bodybuilder, and it optically displaces that back edge of the neck, causing the distance to the arm appear short. Again, the suggested modification is only very slight, a concave crescent shaved out of that area where the trapezius meets the neck.

One last thing on that other (far) shoulder. It seems that it should be rising slightly, not continuing to fall, as it nears the neck. Perhaps you're trying to avoid an awkward parallel with the bottom line of the chin, but I think the shoulder shape needs that bit of attention.

I was also trying to sort out what appeared to be excessive foreshortening in the legs, so that they appeared much too thin for the torso, but I realized that in fact the arms were covering parts of the legs' thickness. I think that's instructive, though, to be mindful of the way a particular pose can unintentionally create a problem -- a hand resting on a hip, say, so that all we can see is fingers, giving a awkward "claw"-like appearance; an arm falling straight down alongside the torso and hip in a limp parallel; a hand seemingly amputated by its disappearance behind another limb or an object.

I don't think I'm seeing the piece well enough to comment much on the shadow shapes, except in two places. It seems that the upper edge of the dark shadow on this side of the breast on the viewer's left would curve upward as it followed the anatomical curve, and would grow lighter as it rose toward the light, rather than remain so sharply defined right up to the edge of the tonal shape. On the other breast, the shadow shape underneath seems way too dark, considering all the light around it.

Lastly, the perspective on the frame on the wall painting behind the figure doesn't seem to agree with the table or desk apparently sitting below it. Perhaps there's a room corner back there that I can't see, but something's odd about that frame.

It's a very lovely pose and drawing. I hope you'll push it along even more.

Best wishes,
Steven
__________________
Steven Sweeney
[email protected]

"You must be present to win."
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2002, 09:40 PM   #3
Timothy C. Tyler Timothy C. Tyler is offline
Inactive
 
Timothy C. Tyler's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Location: Siloam Springs, AR
Posts: 911
It's so hard to follow Steven. I always feel like saying,"yep!"

I do agree with most of what he said again and do think the breasts seem less defined and finished as compared to the rest.

The head appears exempt from the compression of the figure below it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2002, 03:24 AM   #4
Sampo Kaikkonen Sampo Kaikkonen is offline
Associate Member
Student of Arts
 
Sampo Kaikkonen's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 9
Thank you Steven! I knew there was something wrong with the neck and shoulders. Just could not figure out the exact problem. Thanks for pointing it out.

I haven't seen any problems with the shadows on the breasts area. But now that you said it I have to agree.

The perspecive of the frame is not wrong. That actually is a corner desk below it. Perhaps I should try to make the rooms corner more visible.

Thanks for the advise. I will make the corrections. It is good to do it now when it is still easy. I am also going to paint this subject with oils when I have the time.

Thank you Tim also although I couldn't really understand the sentence "The head appears exempt from the compression of the figure below it" because of my not so perfect english.
__________________
Sampo Kaikkonen
http://www.artnstuff.net/gallery.php
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2002, 11:41 AM   #5
Timothy C. Tyler Timothy C. Tyler is offline
Inactive
 
Timothy C. Tyler's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2002
Location: Siloam Springs, AR
Posts: 911
What I mean is I think the head looks fine. I feel the body may have been photo'd with a maybe a little wide angle? say 35-40mm? and it "appears" the head was not...(normal 50mm)? maybe it only appears that way. It's nearly there and good work anyway. Tim
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing this Topic: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

Make a Donation



Support the Forum by making a donation or ordering on Amazon through our search or book links..







All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.