Unpacking the Process
February 26, 2010
There are two approaches to setting up a drawing, one which is reliant on measurement and one which uses measurement in support of the drawing. Where measurement is primary, the work is interrupted by checking every step and the over all flow is impeded. Where measurement is secondary and the drawing is suggested in a general sense, much as a hypothesis is proposed, the work is more speculative and therefore capable of advancement.
This freer beginning is easily seen in a discipline/sport such as fencing. Where the swordsman is unsure of an adversary’s ability, it is usually sensible to have an initial skirmish, getting a feel for the opponent, before attacking and subsequently leaving one’s self open to attack. In a beginner’s drawing the tendency to ‘attack’ or be too declarative at the outset, frequently undermines the work. The more experienced draughtsman will avoid hard lines, favouring fluid, uncertain, stray lines which over time coalesce and are emphasized where necessary.
This indefinite approach is effective in capturing authentic character and contributing to the second stage of the drawing process: the framework or construction, when knowledge is integrated with observation to achieve structure and coherence. Where the freehand stage of the drawing has energy and vigour, the construction stage provides a framework for the ongoing development of the drawing and allows for appraisal and revision. At this stage measurement makes its contribution in support of the drawing.
Throughout the process it helps to guard against distracting premature attention to detail. All definitions and refinement contribute to the overview at the same time that they yield definition to the parts. In this way we are looking for the larger relationships, for the harmony and rhythm of the parts to the whole. By developing the work in stages we are always increasing (rather than shutting down) the possible range of actions to advance the drawing.
May 20, 2010 at 4:54 am
Bowles, you’ve explained the union between the 2 bits that I have failed to reconcile in 35 years. But then again I always knew you were brilliant.
Euan
May 26, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Euan,
With your background in animation I can see how it must have seemed like two distinct types of drawing. This may be due to the growing emphasis on measuring as the teaching of drawing has declined.
Looking at the Italian drawings currently on show at the British Museum, from 1500 onwards you see the fluidity of line increasingly. Michelangelo is hard to beat and Raphael seems to be the inheritor.
The much maligned mannerists are really just a generation of artists who had inherited an abreviated anatomical schema and ran with it. Sometimes misjudging their proportions. But in their case, why let truth get in the way of a good story?
So good to hear from you
bowles