Since writing that post I've been meaning to cover what I said in more detail, but as I've attempted to do so I've stalled at doing it. Since I really do want to cover it though I've decided to break it down into a few smaller chunks, each one being a blog post. This post is a prelude to those, and is relevant to them. If you missed the link to the last relevant post up there and want to catch up click here.
So what I said, in those misty times, was this:
"There are only a limited number of ways it is possible to get an image from your noodle and onto a piece of paper"
I then proceeded to list 6 ways of doing just that (I'm not going to list them again right now - we'll get there lower down).
Now, I still believe the list is basically accurate. The post I listed them on is still by far the most popular on the blog (three times as many views as the next most popular), but noone has ever posted a comment to say that the list is inaccurate (and as we know, comments on this blog are not what you'd call common).
Fairly accurate the statement may be, but there are probably some caveats and refinements that can be made now, three and a half years later.
So, the list, as given in the original post:
- Draw it raw, using what memories you have of the thing, and the vision in your mind and trying to draw that on the paper.
- Use references to bolster your memories and aid with the transferal of what you are trying to create from your mind to the paper.
- Copy from a reference, making changes as needed to alter the reference to your vision.
- Copy it directly, assuming the image represents exactly what you want to draw.
- Trace over a reference making changes as needed to alter your tracing to your vision.
- Trace it exactly
A couple of those are basically the same thing, but with "Doing it exactly" and "Modifying as needed," added to them. There's more granularity than that I think, and I'll cover some of that in the future posts, but for breaking down into convenient titles I'm going to slim the list down into the following:
So even beyond the granularity, there are some grey areas between those. If you look at something, and then draw it an hour later, is that Referencing, or Knowing (pretty sure you couldn't say it was copying even if you were trying to replicate it as accurately as you could when you drew it)? And of course it's possible to combine all of those techniques in one final image, but I'll cover that in more detail some other time.
To save some controversy later on I'll quickly define what I mean by each of those to refer back to in the later ones. By the way, up until I started this post I hadn't drawn Mickey Mouse since the original list was made. He's getting drawn again for this post as a fairly good example of each of the TRaCK points.
TRACING
Most people know what tracing is, or at least think they do. For the purposes of the blog I'm defining it very specifically as drawing anything over an image, be it onto tracing paper or a Photoshop layer. That's exactly what you thought it was isn't it? Fine, carry on then. You probably also think it's cheating. There's a guy over here who'd like a word with you about that (and no, it's not me in the post I linked to before that you totally didn't go and read. See? I'm on to you).
Here's a couple of pictures of Mickey Mouse I just traced in Photoshop. Yes, I know that one doesn't look like Mickey Mouse, that's sort of the point, and part of what I'll be discussing in the related post.
COPYING
This I'm defining as drawing directly from a source, but not on or over a source. This can include using mechanical means and other measuring devices. Well, that one was easy.
Here's a picture of Mickey Mouse I just copied. I'm getting bored of drawing Mickey Mouse to be honest.
REFERENCING
Referencing I'm taking to mean using existing images and using them to make informed choices while drawing. The drawing could be of the same thing from a different angle, or something completely different and (seemingly) unrelated to the reference. It doesn't have to be vastly different to the reference to count as being referenced rather than copied. Also, looking at something in the morning and trying to replicate it in the afternoon? I'm considering that referencing too, as the next day you might not be able to replicate it again, so you don't really know it.
An original (and terrible) picture of Mickey Mouse (I'm writing this before I've actually drawn it, so I'm just assuming it's going to be terrible), created using references. Also a picture I drew a day after looking at a picture of Mickey Mouse, for 6 seconds, the day after drawing the one below... Try reading that when drunk!
KNOWING
This is where you know something so well you can just draw it without needing to see it at all. The vast majority of people know how to draw a smiley face, or a stick figure, for example. Grab a pen or a pencil right now and draw a smiley face, and a stick man, and a flower, you'll see what I mean. This doesn't mean what you're creating is perfect - You just ignored my request to draw a stick man or smiley face I'm sure, but if you had done them they might be good, they might be bad, but they are recognisable to someone else as being what you intended, and you didn't use anything to refer to (and why would you? Because you didn't do it. Slacker). For all that though, if you tried to draw a picture of, say, your mother, and you're not a portrait artist who draws their mother regularly as practice or something, then it's probably not going to be immediately recognisable as being an illustration of her. There are reasons for this, and you can find a nice write up of some of the reasons at this here link to an article on io9 - it even uses Mickey Mouse as an example too.
Another terrible attempt at drawing Mickey, done before I started on this post, and went and grabbed links from the other Mickey Mouse post (so as not to see it and ruin the point that I don't know how to draw him. I think it looks oddly similar to my last attempt at Mickey without reference from three years ago, with just a few refinements that get it slightly closer.
So that's all on this for now - I'll start breaking down each of those subjects in more detail soon. I wonder if this post will be as popular as the last one featuring the worlds most famous rodent. Time will tell I guess - I'll get back to you about it in three and a half years. Incidentally, it's the blog's 4th birthday in 10 minutes. So I'm off to eat some cake - Happy Birthday Blog!
- Tracing
- Copying
- Referencing
- Knowing
So even beyond the granularity, there are some grey areas between those. If you look at something, and then draw it an hour later, is that Referencing, or Knowing (pretty sure you couldn't say it was copying even if you were trying to replicate it as accurately as you could when you drew it)? And of course it's possible to combine all of those techniques in one final image, but I'll cover that in more detail some other time.
To save some controversy later on I'll quickly define what I mean by each of those to refer back to in the later ones. By the way, up until I started this post I hadn't drawn Mickey Mouse since the original list was made. He's getting drawn again for this post as a fairly good example of each of the TRaCK points.
TRACING
Most people know what tracing is, or at least think they do. For the purposes of the blog I'm defining it very specifically as drawing anything over an image, be it onto tracing paper or a Photoshop layer. That's exactly what you thought it was isn't it? Fine, carry on then. You probably also think it's cheating. There's a guy over here who'd like a word with you about that (and no, it's not me in the post I linked to before that you totally didn't go and read. See? I'm on to you).
COPYING
This I'm defining as drawing directly from a source, but not on or over a source. This can include using mechanical means and other measuring devices. Well, that one was easy.
REFERENCING
Referencing I'm taking to mean using existing images and using them to make informed choices while drawing. The drawing could be of the same thing from a different angle, or something completely different and (seemingly) unrelated to the reference. It doesn't have to be vastly different to the reference to count as being referenced rather than copied. Also, looking at something in the morning and trying to replicate it in the afternoon? I'm considering that referencing too, as the next day you might not be able to replicate it again, so you don't really know it.
KNOWING
This is where you know something so well you can just draw it without needing to see it at all. The vast majority of people know how to draw a smiley face, or a stick figure, for example. Grab a pen or a pencil right now and draw a smiley face, and a stick man, and a flower, you'll see what I mean. This doesn't mean what you're creating is perfect - You just ignored my request to draw a stick man or smiley face I'm sure, but if you had done them they might be good, they might be bad, but they are recognisable to someone else as being what you intended, and you didn't use anything to refer to (and why would you? Because you didn't do it. Slacker). For all that though, if you tried to draw a picture of, say, your mother, and you're not a portrait artist who draws their mother regularly as practice or something, then it's probably not going to be immediately recognisable as being an illustration of her. There are reasons for this, and you can find a nice write up of some of the reasons at this here link to an article on io9 - it even uses Mickey Mouse as an example too.
So that's all on this for now - I'll start breaking down each of those subjects in more detail soon. I wonder if this post will be as popular as the last one featuring the worlds most famous rodent. Time will tell I guess - I'll get back to you about it in three and a half years. Incidentally, it's the blog's 4th birthday in 10 minutes. So I'm off to eat some cake - Happy Birthday Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment