Portrait Artist Forum - View Single Post

David Draime · 12-05-2004, 01:52 PM

Thanks everyone for your kind replies.

About the doll's head: I agree with all of you!! It is a very weird thing, this doll. It's part of the reason I love this photo so much. Sharon, you're exactly right. The photo was taken around 1929-30. (I can't figure out how they thought these things were cute. It reminds me of Chucky - if I were 3 again I'd be terrified to have this thing in the corner of my bedroom staring back at me. Even now, I'd be a little unnerved...). The top of the doll's head has these gentle ridges which (I gather) is to emulate hair. That, as well as the way it is painted (you can tell from the photo that it has some sort of paint job - more than just mere shadow) and the fact that there is some unusually strong reflected light playing along these ridges on the right side of the doll's head - all that combined makes for a rather difficult passage to read - and render.

Add to that the fact that I didn't render it all that well (!) - hence the confusion. But it brings up a good point. If something looks a little hard to read (or weird or quirky), are you obligated to change it - simplify it - so your viewers won't be distracted, or do you plow ahead and faithfully render everything you see, as you see it - and risk the portrayal being compromised in the viewers' eyes? I don't think I want my viewers to be distracted from the overall image - as some of you clearly were.

I'll probably tweak it a little bit to see if I can convey better what I think is going on there - just so it reads better. I think at some point we just have to put all references aside and try to look at and judge the entire drawing on it's own merits. After all, most of our audience will never see our photographic references.

12-05-2004, 01:52 PM	#7
David Draime Juried Member Joined: Feb 2004 Location: Perris, CA Posts: 498	Thanks everyone for your kind replies. About the doll's head: I agree with all of you!! It is a very weird thing, this doll. It's part of the reason I love this photo so much. Sharon, you're exactly right. The photo was taken around 1929-30. (I can't figure out how they thought these things were cute. It reminds me of Chucky - if I were 3 again I'd be terrified to have this thing in the corner of my bedroom staring back at me. Even now, I'd be a little unnerved...). The top of the doll's head has these gentle ridges which (I gather) is to emulate hair. That, as well as the way it is painted (you can tell from the photo that it has some sort of paint job - more than just mere shadow) and the fact that there is some unusually strong reflected light playing along these ridges on the right side of the doll's head - all that combined makes for a rather difficult passage to read - and render. Add to that the fact that I didn't render it all that well (!) - hence the confusion. But it brings up a good point. If something looks a little hard to read (or weird or quirky), are you obligated to change it - simplify it - so your viewers won't be distracted, or do you plow ahead and faithfully render everything you see, as you see it - and risk the portrayal being compromised in the viewers' eyes? I don't think I want my viewers to be distracted from the overall image - as some of you clearly were. I'll probably tweak it a little bit to see if I can convey better what I think is going on there - just so it reads better. I think at some point we just have to put all references aside and try to look at and judge the entire drawing on it's own merits. After all, most of our audience will never see our photographic references.