the dark secrets of construction

[egypturnash]

Last night I was having a bit of a discussion on construction techniques, spurred in part by the other person involved being amused by the 'construction' session of drawink. It transpired that she does much the same thing I do, which is a deep secret pro artists almost never verbalize in the presence of amateurs: rough in masses and flows, but only rely on precise sketching of boxes and balls and sausages and cones and what-have-you here and there, rather than having a precisely constructed rough of the entire image.

Of course, the reason we can get away with this and still have believably dimensional drawings is that we've all spent several years practicing different construction methods, learning the strengths and weaknesses of them, and internalizing them. The construction is there; we just don't have to have every step of it on the paper, because we can hold it in our heads.

Why do we conceal this from people we teach? Because it's too easy to decide 'I'm good enough, I don't need to construct' too early, and not go through the work of taking it into yourself, of having it be a well-cared-for tool that you can pull out when it's needed. Though we'll work this way in front of people, when we're explicitly explaining and teaching, out come the balls and tubes and boxes.


This is related to something else I've noticed in the path of almost any artist. Style is a distillate, not something you can appropriate. A beginner accretes details and stolen stylistic bits, making ever more complex drawings that become more believable. But there comes a point when, well, you're full. Over full, even. And that's when you begin to prune the garden of your styles, narrowing down to the seeds that grew particularly well in your soul. Nice ideas that are simply not you get left behind, and there's a very observable tightening and refining period. You can sometimes see this happening, especially in a comic book - the demands of a form like that force this refining, and the later issues are recognizably the same hand, but moving with a much clearer intent, the connection between mind's vision and the paper much stronger.

Or maybe this is just the way my style has developed - accretion, then distillation, and I see this in others because we can only guess at the processes inside the bone-cage of another's skull.

Comments

[mandrill.livejournal.com]

I'm late for work, as well...but I just wanted to say: "Very eloquently written." :-)

[xazothia.livejournal.com]

Interesting you should say this - I feel the same way about my art. Yes, I submitted to Ink's contest - but in a way, I had to "go back to my roots" to include the guidelines and what have you. I went back and drew the picture again, without construction, and it turned out much better (in my opinion). If nothing else, drawing without construction can give a drawing a much more natural, loose feeling to it.

But you probably already knew that. I'm just babbling, here. Ignore me. :)

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

You've gotta beat your head against construction for several years before you can do it unconsciously, though. Over-constructing can kill a drawing, yes, but so can unintentional flatness.

Don't give it up because you think you can; give it up because you do it in your head and only put down some of the steps on the paper. It is a gate you will only notice passing through when you look back and see it miles behind you.

[ashleyvictoria.livejournal.com]

*nods* Very true.

I've found that over the years I've gone through an almost sickening amount of styles. I'm still in the stages of developing a style that will last me for awhile, something more concrete then I've had before. For the most part, I can just put down on paper what's inside my head, but occaisionally [and now more often than before, because I'm at the beginning of a style rather than the end], I'll put down a bare-bones layer of lines.

However...I'm very uncomfortable drawing straight from my head when people are around, because the inevitable question is "Why don't you box in?" I've gotten this from more than one person, and an art teacher even stated to me that unless you box in, you're "not an artist".

Hope you don't mind me commenting, but your post was very thought provoking.

[prickvixen.livejournal.com]

Tell your art teacher to eat you. :)

...then, once you've been failed out of the class, practice on your own.

[ashleyvictoria.livejournal.com]

Actually, this was way back in time, when I was still in high school. It didn't deter me, if anything it made me even that more determined to be more talented then they could ever be. Believe me...I've been kicked out of an art class or two in my day. I've got a sneaking suspicion that the first thing they tell you in a lot of art schools is "Comic books are NOT legitimate art!" :(

I think my wording was uh...*coughs* probably a lot less nice than "Eat me". But there might be children around so I dare not repeat it ;) *blushes*

style

[kamenkyote.livejournal.com]

I agree with your theory of the evolution of style. I doubt many folks just wake up, try something and it's perfect the first time. And having worked in a comic store for way too long, I think your example with comic book art is an extremely good one. Part of this change, in their case, possibly comes not only from the need for improvement, but the huge amount of work one can take on if one is at all popular. 28 pages a month is bad enough, but if you do an annual, a special or a mini series as well, you don't -want- to have to draw the anatomy of every single figure. You need that shorthand. Cartooning is very much like creating a language. Each artist finds their own 'word' for everything, and once they've finished the lexicon, know it back and forth, it becomes more second nature. Unfortunately, in this case, constant deadlines and repetition can lead to stagnation instead of inspiring growth.

Cool subject and observances. Thanks for bringing them up.

-T'

Re: style

[shatterstripes.livejournal.com]

One co-worker, in a discussion about that phase when the style really comes together, noted a related issue: he claims there's a point in an artist's life, usually around the age of fifty or so, where there's another transformation. Either the style becomes razor-sharp, a purified essence of itself, handled with deft mastery, or things just... collapse. Into a parody of itself.

Jack Kirby's later art was held up as an example of the collapse - in this case, Kirby's failing eyesight was surely a contributor. Grizzled Spümcø vet Jim Smith was his example of someone who went down the other side of this fork, but the person saying this already worships Jim.

I think it's more that some people's brains don't cave in as they get old, and their eye-hand coordination remains relatively unimpaired. *grin* But it's an interesting thing to ponder.

Re: style

[kamenkyote.livejournal.com]

You could easily be right about the non-caving brain part. And folks like Jack, who really had one style and kept plugging at it decade after decade have something else to go with them; the cycle where their art is hip, in vogue and worshipped, and the tired old hack phase. Then, once they die, the circle repeats and you can't swing a dead cat without seeing a tribute, and interview, or a collection of the person's work. In Jack's case, too, you can't help but notice the profound influence of his style on the DC related animation in "Justice League."

So, I guess if we live long enough, and stay true to our styles, we can look forward to being considered hackneyed and stale. Great. :"D

-T'

On a related, but tangential note

[amilori.livejournal.com]

"some people's brains don't cave in as they get old, and their eye-hand coordination remains relatively unimpaired"

Have you been following the studies of the gentleman in England with Alzheimer's? He's an artist & has continued to paint as the disease progresses. The doctors are using the work he produces as a gauge for how well the medications he is taking are or are not working. They are also able to watch the progression of the disease in the deterioration of his artistic style. In some ways, the study of this one man is doing more to further the progress of medical science regarding this disease than many of the more mainstream studies can hope to do.

Re: style

[slowink.livejournal.com]

I think it's laziness, more than anything else. Hackery. Boredom with the material, and the rest of it goes to hell...
Maurice Noble still had his chops at 86-Chuck Jones, IMHO, lost it about 30 years ago..., to show one 'fork"
Artists just have to do what excites them; let's face it: for the first few heady years(decades?)we're all just pretty chuffed to be working...but if you're not busting your ass on R&S, it gets old pretty fast, and then what keeps you going? $$$? Road to hell. : )
My 6 cents!

[eselgeist.livejournal.com]

uh, yeah.. sorta like sitting with a stack of those old funny shaped "Garfield" books and seeing how the art changed and progressed into the smoothly oiled evolutionary dead end it is today.
Though I think his legs still keep getting longer and longer.

Peggy is clever, yes.

[wolphyn.livejournal.com]

Thank you.