What do you think about it?

[Jaroslaw Janiszewski]

hello, i wanted to do a different job than always. I wanted the female portrait to be more broken. What do you think about it. Any suggestions. what did i do right and what i did wrong. Thank you in advance and best regards 🙂

[Jack]

Hello there Jaroslaw, where you say you wanted the portrait to be “more broken”? What do you mean, exactly? Did you want to express a feeling of brokenness, as in that is the expression of the sitter, or do you mean it more in a literal sense, a brokenness in the execution of the portrait itself (if that makes any sense)? Do you want feedback on the technical execution of the drawing? Knowing this would make it easier to provide feedback whether you achieved what you attempted.

 

 

[Jaroslaw Janiszewski]

Thanks for writting Jac. I did not want to copy the topic. I wanted what would happen to be more of an expression of some of my emotions, not a copy of the photo. I wanted only the model to be an inspiration and what I did would be my new idea, not a copy. Does what I did make sense? Is it pretty? Is this a good direction?

[Jaroslaw Janiszewski]

I wanted my own interpretation.

[Jack]

Providing a critique of an artist’s technical execution is always much easier than assessing the expressiveness of an idea, which can be a very subjective matter. But as no one else has responded, I’ll do my best!

There are elements of your work that do strike me as expressing your intended ‘broken’ motif. The full value contrast of the background/shadowed cheek compared to the lit side of the head (ie high minor key), for instance, suggests a sharpness that I associate with something that is damaged and smashed. As do the sudden and violent gestural turns of the neck and harsh edge work of the clothing and outer contour. The reference photo is soft and alluring, but the structure of your interpretation is unabashedly jagged and sharp. This is perhaps undermined slightly by your tendency to render the forms softly (like the woman’s neck and chest). For me, the experience when I view your drawing is one of darkness and disturbance; it feels uneasy and unsettling, which for me are traits of ‘brokenness’. I think on this count the drawing was successful.

As for potential improvements. My only piece of advice might be to try a series of drawings of the same subject and same motif (say, brokenness); ranging from a technical life-like reproduction focused on employing the fundamentals of portraiture, to one of pure interpretation and expression (perhaps even total abstraction). I recommend this as it will really cause you to ask questions at each drawing about the decisions you’re making as you increasingly defer to the idea over observation. For me, interpretation and expression are advanced subjects that are greatly enhanced once one has command over the fundamentals and observation. This way, when an artist chooses to deviate from what he/she sees (in say, proportion, values, line, gesture, etc) it is clear to the viewer that these are in fact expressive statements imbued with meaning and not weaknesses of technique.

So upon completing an initial technical depiction of a subject rooted firmly in observation (free of expression or idea,) you can begin to ask yourself “what small change can I may to express brokenness”? Perhaps it’s sharpening an edge, or changing the direction of the sitter’s gaze, or darkening the shadow values, or emphasising a gestural turn, etc. This, in my view, will ensure all of your design decisions are purposeful. Also, sometimes less is more, and an idea can be more powerfully expressed with a few subtle changes.

The above is advice is assuming that your intention is to improve as an artist. If, of course, you only want some way of expressing yourself, then you needn’t worry much about what anyone else thinks because nobody can objectively tell you your expression is wrong! 🙂

I hope this makes sense and is helpful. Best of luck, do post more – I look forward to seeing your progress.

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by Jack.

[Carlos Perez]

Hi Jaroslav, good execution, your 2 value portrait look convincing and planned to look distorted although the experimentation looks not too creative. The bending aspect is a good to start for sure.

Let me share some of these thoughts with you

Playing with the gesture line, the shadow shapes, or the Reilly rhythms ( if you’re familiar with them) , the elements of composition,  can create an idea of the portrait, just using it the face  as a vessel that contains a different idea inside can be an approach however this process take realism out from the image,( at least on my practice)  in the case of wanting to stay real I can suggest as well to do an “ensemble” and match two realistic drawn elements, like having a squirrel instead of her nose ( just to put an example) .

That is what comes to mind in terms of experimentation with portraiture. ::)

 

[Jaroslaw Janiszewski]

Thanks for your comments. 🙂 Good advice.

[Caleb Campbell]

The rendering looks great but the structure is off. The subject’s eyes do not match. Their left eye and eyebrow is too far away from the nose and too low. Tilt the drawing and look at the face head on. Covering the subject’s left side reveals that their right side is quite good! But there are a lot of problems on their left side. If you nailed the proportions this drawing would be absolutely incredible IMO. I don’t have any long term advice about how to practice or anything, just pointing out what makes this particular drawings not work. Perhaps loomis head studies will help you nail the placement of features on heads that vary in shape and position.

Left edge of the neck is bent back too much as well, and the shoulder and traps look too large compared to the neck and head

I look forward to seeing you post some more, because wow that is some great rendering and confident strokes on the face. All you need is a liquify brush to fix this haha

• This reply was modified 2 years, 2 months ago by Caleb Campbell.

[Author]

Posts