|
What a fascinating thread this is and one that is near and dear to me. As Marvin put it so well, I won't add to his comments about seeing except to include one of my favourite quotes. It is from Robert Beverly Hale: "First, we draw what we see. Then, we draw what we know. And then, we know what it is that we see."
This picks up very well on what Adrian mentioned about anatomy, for example. Knowing anatomy perfectly does not in itself allow you to draw a convincing human form. Just go ask your doctor to draw a person. What it does do, though, is allow you to better understand what is in front of you when you are faced with the human form.
Similarly, chromatic and/or value changes that occur as the form (plane) turns away from the viewer is very much a natural phenomenon, but it is not always immediately evident to the eye, particularly when that eye is untrained. However, just doing it on the canvas, in a "formulaic" way--"on faith" so-to-speak--usually results in the thing looking right. Then, if we were to look back to the model, sure enough, there it is.
So, all of the various forumlas, conventions, and systems--call them what you will--that have been devised for painting, are there as guidelines for the painter to better express their vision. None are truly "reality". They are all abstract mechanisms for representing three-dimensional form onto two dimensions. It often boils down to what works best and what you know best. Marvin mentioned his willingness to make changes as he deems them fit and necessary. I love that attitude. Moreover, some conventions work better within certain painting systems than do others and so we must fit the approach with the treatment of subject within those systems.
Also, welcome back Stephen. I hope you had a fruitful and enjoyable R & R.
All the best.
Juan
|