This is the third post in a series devoted to a copy of a Sargent portrait drawing.
This is more than an exercise in copying,however. Whilst I do hope to finish with a good copy of the portrait, I’m not looking for an exact copy, mark for mark.In fact, I’m much more interested in the lessons I can learn along the way than the end result. These lessons centre aroundwhat I believe to be the three fundamental principles we need to learn in order to make a convincing translation of what wesee onto paper:
- Accurate judging of shape
- An appreciation of form in three dimensions
- A sound understanding of value relationships
These fundamentals are the same whether we’re working from a flat copy – a copy of a drawing like this one – or from life.I don’t believe the process should be fundamentally any different. There are, of course, many other considerations which go intoa really good piece of drawing. Expression and design are at least as important as the three I’ve listed. To many artists,they are both more important and might be paramount, the first three not figuring at all. But that’s a rather different kindof drawing to the kind I’m interested in – representational drawing.
I also believe that, as important as expression and design are, they’re best approached after at least a basic level of skillin the fundamentals of representation has been achieved. This exercise is one way of working towards achieving that level skill.Based on my own experience, I think it’s a pretty good way and I hope it might help you too.
In the first and second posts of this series, I’d got asfar as laying in the main shape of the head on the paper with what I hope is a fair degree of accuracy. In that stage, I wasconcerned only with the two dimensional shape of the head. In this second stage, I’m going to be thinking much more in threedimensions, and am going to attempt to develop the form of the head and face.
Whilst it would be perfectly possible to doa decent copy of the Sargent drawing without considering this at all, we might find we’d be a bit stuck when we tried to dothe same thing with a real subject. And by trying to get a feeling for the three dimensional form of the subject, I’ll produce,I believe, a more convincing sense of depth and form in the copy. I’ll also stretch a skill that will be a big help when I’mworking from life.
First, I’m going to mark in the positions of the eyes, nose and mouth. The picture below shows the drawing with theposition of the eyes, nose and mouth already placed.
For the eyes, I’ve drawn a line from the outside cornerto the inside corner of each eye. For the right eye, I already have the inside corner of the eye marked since it wasone of my initialanchor points put down in the first post. I just need to mark a point for the outside cornerand join them up.
Already at this stage though, I’m thinking about the form of the eye, its overall shape, so I’m starting to switch from twodimensional thinking to three dimensional. In an ordinary two dimensionalcopy, you might not consider the form that much. It might be enough just to copy the pattern of the lights and darks in the originaldrawing. But that won’t teach me much about form and would miss the point of this exercise. I want to use this exercise tolearn more about the form and construction of the head, and how that form can be translated into light and shadow in a drawing.Specifically, I want to learn someting about how Sargent achieved that translation in this drawing.
I think this is one of the reasons why working from photographs can be an ill advised approach for beginners. The tendency is toproduce a piece that might be superficially fairly accurate to the photo, but will be lacking in form and depth, lacking an understandingof the underlying structure. I think that’s important. One of thereasons I find Sargent drawings to be such good models for an exercise like this is that he deliberately simplifies and strengthensthe forms in his drawings, he doesn’t draw exactly what he sees. We’re working with a two-dimensional medium in drawing, and we needall the help we can get in creating a convincing illusion of three dimensions – a feeling of form. An approach that emphasisesplanes and form at the expense of small detail will go a long way towards achieving that.
For the next part of the drawing, I’ve decided that I want to block in the eye on the left. So let’s think about eyes for aminute. In its most basic form, an eye is a ball in a socket. Most of the ball of the eye itself is hidden in the socket, and drawnover the ball are the eye-lids. We only see about a sixth or less of the actual eye. I’m not an anatomy obsessive by any means, butI’m going to take a short diversion through the construction of the eye at this point because it’ll help me understand exactly whatI’m trying to draw here and help me avoid some common errors.
If you asked someone who hasn’t drawn since they were a kid (which is most people) and asked them to draw an eye, it wouldprobably look something like this:
That’s an eye, right? Pretty much everyone would recognise that that’s an eye. It’s almond shaped, like eyes are, and you can see theiris and the pupil, and we’ve even got some eyelashes. Astounding level of detail.
You could describe that with words, have someone copy itfrom your description and they’d end up with something like that, and tell you it’s an eye you’ve just described. Very handy when we wantto communicate the idea of an eye to someone, or to give ourselves as a generic symbol, a concept of an eye from which all other eyesare derived. Bloody useless in a drawing however (unless you fancy yourself as Picasso and you’re deliberately drawing like a child for the effect).I’m pretty sure that’s not what Sargent did though. Let’s try it:
Hmmm. Pretty sure that’s not what Sargent did. Might pass for a piece by Terry Gilliam though.
As obvious as all this might seem, I believe that that generic, schematic eye symbol is so strongly fixed in our minds that itcan impose itself to some extent on what we draw, even if we’re trying to draw what we see as closely as we can. It can happen withanything, a mouth, nose or hand. You see it allthe time in beginners’ drawings. They’ll be a mixture of observed visual fact and schematic ideas.
And if you don’t watch it, thatevil schematic eye will creep into your drawing even when you’re pretty good and distort your work. Always our brains are trying toforce us into schematic renderings of what we see, away from visual fact and towards generic, categorised symbols.
This is a detail of a plate from Drawing the Head and Hands by Andrew Loomis.
He’s describing the same effect here in pictures, and although I think it’s a pretty good illustration, our head shape that our eyesfit into is no more a flat block (as he has it here) than eyes are flat almond shapes. So let’s have a look at how the eye is reallyconstructed and how it fits into the skull:
Not pretty. But clever. I found this image on this interesting page of3D graphics models of eyes. Cool.
It’s pretty clear from this picture how the eye is suspended in the eye-socket by fleshy bits and muscles. If youreally wanted to you could learn the names of all those muscles and fleshy bits, and of the parts of the skull around the eyesocket. Personally I’m not that bothered about that as long as I’ve got a good idea of the real shape and construction of an eye.You can get too obsessed about these things I think.
For further reading, you might want to have a look atHuman anatomy for artists: the elements of form By Eliot Goldfingeron Google Books, and this page, alsoon Google books, from the Atlas of human anatomy for the artist By Stephen Rogers Peck.
All very interesting. Now I’ve got a much clearer idea of how the eye is constructed, and that’s going to help me when I’m thinkingabout the form of Lady Sarah Spencer’s right eye. If I look at the 3D model of the eye, and feel around my own eye with my fingers, Ican feel which parts are hard bone and which are soft flesh. I can feel the edges of the eye socket and the ball suspended within it. Itmakes a tremendous difference to actually feel the form beneath your fingers, so that’s exactly what I’m going to do next.
Some time ago, when I was learning about the planes of the head, I sculpted a full size head out of clay which emphasised the formof the head in simplified planes. I won’t go into too much detail about that here, but it had a profound effect on how I appreciatedform in drawing and helped me to think in three dimensions. If you want to read about what I felt I learned from that, see the previouspost on the planes of the head.
Having convinced myself of the effectiveness of sculpting as a learning tool in drawing, I did the same thing with Lady Spencer’sleft eye. I made a model of it:
This isn’t going to be winning any sculpture competitions any time soon, but it did help me to understand how the variousforms around Lady Spencer’s right eye fit together. In this pic, the light is coming from the opposite side, but nonetheless it alsohelps me understand how those shadows in the drawing are created by the forms.
After playing about with a lump of Plasticine for afew hours, I now have a three dimensional mental model of the eye area. When I come to draw that part of the face, I’ll beturning this model around in my mind and that seems to go a long way towards helping to overcome the schematic, 2D, concept eyeand also having a more developed appreciation of the form. All I can tell you is that I think this method makes a huge differenceto drawing and you should try it.
So now I’ve got a better mental model of the form around the eye, I’ll start putting it into the drawing. I’m firmly into threedimensional thinking mode at this point.
I still need to make sure that the ball of the eye is placed correctly in the head, but sinceI’ve already got accurate points for the corner of each eye and a dividing line across the eye between them, the going is much easier.Building up a fairly accurate two dimensional scaffolding to hang the three dimensional forms on is really paying dividends at this point,I shouldn’t have to do too much correcting of the positions of things.
Things are moving on now and I’ve blocked in the ball of the left eye and the eyelids of the right eye. The right eye is looking alot like my little sculpture now. Hopefully it should be pretty obvious now that I’m not copying the marks I see in the original drawing,I’m conceptualising the form.
To the left of the drawing, I’ve done a more realised version of the planes of the forms of the right eye and how they fit together.That’s helping me envision the smaller forms within the main drawing, but also letting me think about how the light will be falling oneach of those planes. I’ve often thought it would be an interesting exercise to take one of these drawings and copy it as if the lightwas coming from the opposite side. I wonder if I could still get a likeness? It should be possible if the large forms are right.
Here’s the last pic for this post. After a bit more work, I’ve got most of the main planes established and some of the smaller formsare beginning to take shape. Excuse the pun. It would be possible to keep on working and refining this stage I guess, but at this pointI decided to start adding some tone, some light and shadow, and to move on to the next stage.
In The Practice and Science of Drawing (as anyone who’s been here before will know is one of my favourite books on drawing)Harold Speed talks a lot about building a two dimensional scaffolding on which to hang the drawing. Mostly, the point of thisscaffolding is to get measurements and proportions right. That’s exactly what I’ve been doing in the prior stage to this one.You could look at what I’m doing here as a three dimensional scaffolding.I’m less concerned with how the drawings looks at this point than I am with how much an appreciation I’ve got of the planes and forms,in simplified, large blocks.
So far, I’ve tried to establish the first two fundamentals I was talking about at the beginning of this post: accurate shape and anappreciation of the forms in three dimensions. In the next (and probably last) post in this series, I’ll move onto establishing a soundunderstanding of the value relationships. At that point, the drawing will be all but finished and hopefully the benefits of putting allthis work in at the start will show dividends.
This exercise is posted in four parts:
1. Setting up and establishing the main points
2. Judging Distances and Laying in the Main Shapes
3. (this post) Three dimensions: Establishing planes and form
The Keys to Colour - Free 6 step email course
Learn how to:
- mix any colour accurately
- see the value of colours
- lighten or darken a colour without messing it up
- paint with subtle, natural colour
Dear Paul. I am thankful for the classes that you give us. I am a woman of 60 years that this learning to paint and my life changed from the moment which I also discovered that I can to create my pictures. a hug for you
(Sorry, I don’t speak english)
Hi Adriana. Thanks for the hug, here’s one back 🙂
I think that’s a wonderful thought and I’m glad you posted it. And your English is fine. I often hear from people who worry that they’ve left it too late to learn to paint. In fact, if I’m honest, I worry about it myself sometimes.
It’s nice to be reminded that the primary reason to paint is the sheer joy of creation, and you’re never too old for that.
Thanks for the comment.
You are a great and hard and friendly worker, Paul.
In this case mi english , yes, it is poor.
😉
The new post just arrived; thanks so much for all your hard work, and for the reference shots for the eye. This is one of the most challenging areas for students to comprehend, and molding it in clay is an excellent teaching tool. Well done!
First so glad to hear that you are managing your art practice in amongst your v busy life; Second it’s wonderful to hear from you again;
I found your use of sculpture in the process of drawing fascinating – i’d recommend it strongly as well – it changed my perspective – i literally saw things differently after i’d done a short course on scuplting the human head (clay) – helped no doubt by the power of touching and feeling and moulding the shapes.
Excellent rendering! You explain it so well. I’m learning to do portraits, and I have also copied Sargents Lady Agnew to study his technique. He is a great artist that I admire. Thanks for sharing.
Mary
I too thank you for this. I am going to go try my first drawing using this method–I’ve never done it this rigorously–and the sculpting part too. I think your insight about using a drawing to copy, rather than a photo is so right. Learn from Sargent, great idea. Judy
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your wonderful insight! I got a copy of Sargent’s drawings to give it a shot. I am glad you are back and hope you continue to post and share more of your great lessons!
All the way from Panama,
Marie
Wonderful post! I love how you write, Paul – you’re so very readable. Very glad to see you here again, I love following along.
Hi Paul,
I am happy again and again to read every post of your thoughts and your work..and if it’s a long time ago, i am also happy , cause I think you’re busy with your job…and that’s also a good news…
Always learning with you, we’re here to enjoy your share.
Thanks Paul.
The best
Thanks very much for all the comments.
Andrés, you may think your English is poor but you got your point across perfectly well and I thank you for it.
Julie, I agree. there’s something particularly difficult about eyes. I always get the fear when I get to the eyes because it’s so easy to mess up, perhaps because we’re so used to looking at people’s eyes and take so many visual cues about a person from them. Understanding the forms around the eye makes a big difference I think.
Thanks also for that wonderful email, the Victor Hugo quote will very likely be finding it’s way into a post soon. I found it quite inspiring, especially given the limited time I can give to practice these days.
Hi Irene
>>i literally saw things differently after I’d done a short course on sculpting the human head
My experience has been the same. so much of what we perceive is tied into our preconceptions I think, what we expect to see. Perhaps that’s got a lot to do with why sculpting a form can be so effective a method for understanding a drawing. We notice aspects of form when we’re molding it with our hands that we don’t notice just by looking.
Mary, I’m also a great admirer of Sargent’s. I personally think that the key to the strength of his work is (largely) to do with his understanding of form, and the way he translates it, rather than copying the visual impression. I sometimes think that his stupendous facility with the brush can actually distract from that. But I do remember reading somewhere that it was his aim to make his paintings seem effortless, even though they weren’t.
Hi Judy, that’s great that you’re going to give this a bash. Please do let me know how you get on with it if you’d like to. One of the things I’d love to do with this site is to set up exercises like this and have a bunch of people get involved and do them and post the results here, so that we can all learn from each other. A kind of collaborative series of posts. Unfortunately I just don’t have the time to organise it right now, but maybe one day…
Marie, I’m sure you won’t regret purchasing that Sargent drawing book. I’ve copied most of the drawings in it at least twice, more for some of them and I learn a little more about structure and light every time I do one. Transferring that knowledge to a ‘real’ portrait and seeing it work has been very rewarding for me. I’ll post the results after I’ve wrapped up this series.
Linda, always wonderful to hear from you – mostly because you always say the nicest things 🙂 Sorry I’ve had so little time to keep in touch lately.
Elie, I’m so pleased to see you’re still here and still reading along. I must admit I was wondering if I’d left it too long and everyone would have wandered off to more interesting (and more frequently updated) blogs. It’s heart-warming to see comments both from old friends and new ones on this post.
It’s fair to say that this site is something of a lifeline to me now, a connection back into a world I can only visit occasionally now, but one I’d like to be spending more time in again as soon as I can. Thanks everyone for showing me that it’s still worth me posting, however infrequently I do it. Not that you could ever really shut me up for good anyway of course.
Welcome Back!!!
I was struggling with the proportion of the eyes to each other given that one eye is smaller than the other due to perspective…I will have to take time to read your post in detail…congratulations on your excellent detail in these posts, do keep them up…
Hi Paul, good to see you back.If I may add my twopenny worth, like you I’m a big admirer of Harold Speed and he, like Sargent, always advises getting the big shapes in first, so when painting an eye, for example, he reccommends you put in a shape from the brow to the cheekbone and then gradually refine it til eventually at the end the you can drop in the eyeball “like a poached egg on a plate” as Sargent said. I have found with this approach the amazing thing is how soon the form looks finished, often long before you get to add details like lashes or pupils. Of course that approach is more suited to paint than pencil but I feel sure Sargent applied it to his drawings as well. I’m looking forward to your next post.
Thanks Helen 🙂
Arjuna, yes that’s a fair point. The eyes do look a little mismatched at this stage. It’ll all come out in the wash though.
Hi David. Yes, I remember that quote about dropping the eye into the shape around it, thanks for reminding me of it. Big shapes to little shapes is a very sound approach, I agree.
In basic concept this is no different really, I’m making the form before I worry about the details. I don’t doubt that Sargent was thinking a lot about construction of forms as he works, and suspect that he used the ‘general to the specific’ approach too.
Your point about sculpting helping the drawing is so true! Making sure that the overall shape is correct and building details out of that usually makes my work turn out better.
Glad you’ve found that too Eric. It makes an amazing difference I think – has to be tried to be appreciated!
How cool to see a new post from you,
I am just now copying a potrait from an Adrew Loomis book and was reminded of a quote from Sargeant-He said that a potrait was a drawing of a person with something a little wrong with the mouth. Too true,too true. This is hard, and I suppose it should be!
Pete
Paul – your updates here may be infrequent currently, but that does nothing to diminish this site as one of the very best resources on the web for people who want to seriously improve their drawing and painting skills. Keep going, it’s not just worthwhile, it’s very valuable!
Thanks Dave, I really appreciate that.
It does frustrate me that I can’t write more often, but I’m trying to keep it going as best I can until I have more time. It’s really good to hear such encouraging feedback.
Paul – I’m slowly making my way through your site. It’s amazingly generous of you to share your process like this. I have returned to drawing after years away and am stunned by how your instructions have lead to a leap ahead in my technique. I don’t get to work from models very often but I’m finding that the science in your approach has made it possible for me improve even just doodling about at home by myself. Thank you!
That’s fantastic news Frith, you’ve really made my day with that comment! Thanks for letting me know.
Once again I find myself checking in for some grounding. I live in east Texas in the U.S. and because of my work I am autodidactic. That is to say my learning resources are limited to a local bookstore, the library and of course, the net.
I have always found your blog/website to be “the real deal”.
It’s always inspiring and at times,brutally honest-
A quality sadly lacking in the current self-promotional climate of the free-market that the internet has evolved into.
I continue to attempt the copying of the Bargue plates upon your recommendation.
You’re right. They are difficult.Very difficult.But as Newton said I am fortunate enough to stand on the shoulders of giants. Thank you for your generosity.
Kindly,
Pete
Hi Pete, nice to hear from you. It’s great to hear that you’re sticking with it. Yes, I found the Bargue plates difficult at first too, but I think that’s probably a sign that they stretch us beyond what we’re used to trying for, which has to be a good thing.
Thanks very much for letting me know your thoughts on the site too. It’s really good to hear that you think of the site that way since that was my main goal when I started it.
So far I’ve avoided any hint of commercialisation – introducing ads and such like – although I have been considering putting together some short course materials which would be for sale. I’m currently in a position where I have pretty much no time for the easel and am trying to dream up ideas that might give me an alternative income and let me get back to it. So the site may eventually end up with a revenue model of sorts. That said, if I ever get to that stage I’ll do my best to make sure the materials and the most useful and practical that it’s within my power to make them.
Hi Paul, I check back every few months to see if you’ve done any new posts, and feel sad that you haven’t had time, given you’ve inspired so many people, myself included. However I understand completely, and am very grateful for what you have contributed, and it’s great to hear from all the other people who’s lives you’ve touched. I’ve often thought you should somehow get into teaching art as an income stream for yourself, as you have a wonderful analytic approach to developing your own skills, are well read, and your dedication and enthusiasm is indeed just the kind of inspiration people need. It seems many artists do need to teach classes to support themselves. The online courses sound like an interesting idea. Whatever you do, I hope you are making time to draw every day along with eating that apple after you’ve drawn it :). Doctor’s orders for the artist, for a healthy mind and body.
Hi Wendy, it’s great to hear from you again – it’s been quite a while!
I’m pretty sad too that I don’t have time for the site now to be honest. I’m hoping to get back to it at some point but there are just too many demands on my time at the moment.
Actually I’d love to teach. I think more than likely the only way I’ll be able to do it is virtually, possibly through this site. I love the idea of webinars and think that could really work for teaching painting and drawing.
But at the moment that’s a long term goal that I’m working towards very, very slowly. If there’s one thing I have learned though, slow and steady progress and persistence is the only way to achieve our goals and Ido believe that one day I will get there!
Thanks for stopping by again, I hope everything’s good with you and you’re still drawing and painting.
Hi Paul,
I also was thinking this days : What Hell is doing now our generous and believed Paul ?
I have now my reply…
Have a good ( and slowly..) way , were wainting to read you again.
Unfortunately, I have no time at all to paint, since I moved to the south of France from beginning of the year..New job,new life..but the same love of painting.
The best of the best for you
sincerely
Elie
Hi Elie,
I sympathise with you not being able to find time to paint. Very frustrating! You’re in a wonderful part of the world though, hopefully you’ll be able to find time to get back to it soon.
Have you seen Julian’s site? He’s in the south of France and often paints landscapes as part of his ‘painting a day’ thing. Very beautiful work:
Julian’s paintings.
All the best,
Paul
I came across your site by accident and this was indeed for me what is generally called ‘a happy accident’. Your approach is most instructive and friendly and although I have not read all of your comments and instruction, I feel your work will inspire and assist me in my present situation having, like yourself at one stage, just started drawing again after quite a few years.
Many thanks for your site – I will read on – and on – and on …
Kind regards,
Paul Austin
Hi Paul, and thanks for taking the time to comment. I hope you do find something here to help you along.
I’ve finally got round to beginning the final post in this series, although it might be a little while coming…
Paul, I’m an artist of 60 years’ experience and an art teacher (private) of 30 years
continuous experience with an atelier open in a small downtown. I find the Bargue method very rigid, although I do a spontaneous version of it, using negative space and sighting “relative” distance on all four sides, from roughing in the action line for the set of a fact and drawing loose ovals around it, then “finding” the correct proportions by retreating the 10 feet space. I find this is more right-brained, and not only that, but it more nearly approximates the slow speed with which the eye adjusts to all the new data coming in from staring at the form. Rather than fixing rigid points, I treat the form like a lump of clay, retreat 10 feet, see miscrepancies & return & correct. I was bored to tears watching a teacher at PSA sight-sizing a face & talking & never putting anything down which wasn’t absolutely “right,” and I find this whole stance to be teaching-deficient or learner-unfriendly and bullying on the psyche & producing elitist camps & “oh, isn’t that wonderful, I could never do that.” In fact you could, quite easily, and with erasure & correcting of soft initial masses. Is there not some balancing teaching from the Old Masters (my Old Masters teacher in Germany taught me quite differently from this Bargue method, using squinting and proportionality, but I don’t know that it has a name & therefore, the new school SOUNDS more authentic. I rather doubt that it is the only way, or even necessarily the preferred way, of drawing. Of course you would need to see my drawings & paintings to judge my words. It’s joriginals.net. I’m open to comments. Joanna A. McKethan