Mommy

Mary Sparrow · 12-05-2004, 09:26 AM

Just beautiful!

Sharon Knettell · 12-05-2004, 11:53 AM

Charming!

Am I the only one not bothered by the doll's head? Watch PBS's Antiques Road Show and see some the antique dolls, how odd the older ones look and how much they fetch. I think this quirky, much loved doll places this baby in a 20-30's time frame which only adds to the charm. It is so much more interesting than the generic, insipid mass produced dolls of today.

Mike McCarty · 12-05-2004, 12:39 PM

I agree Sharon,

I don't find any fault with the doll. I also think this is a great drawing for several reasons, the first being the quirky nature of the doll juxtaposed with the wonderful rendering of the subject, also, the element in the background is artfully done.

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.

Laura B. Shelley · 12-05-2004, 09:40 PM

Gorgeous. I've experimented with a technique like this for children's portraits, and I didn't succeed a fraction as well as you have here.

I particularly like her unsmiling sideways glance and the slight sense of jeopardy emphasized by that weird little doll, which removes any saccharine element from what is otherwise a beautiful drawing of a cute baby girl. I can certainly see why you've always liked that photo!

Chris Saper · 12-06-2004, 09:01 PM

David, Nice to see you back!

I love the subtlety you have used in modeling your mom ( tell her she just doesn't look a day older

)

Regarding the doll, I think that it looks like the light is coming from a different direction from the light on your mom...?

Post more!

David Draime · 12-06-2004, 09:38 PM

Thanks Laura. Like you said, that "sense of jeopardy" in her expression is what I love. It's like "this is my doll, so back off!!" I only wish the photo showed more of her hand clutching the doll. I could have added it by using some other reference, but by the time I thought of it, it was too late - there was not enough room at the bottom of the page.

Thank you so much Chris! It is good to be back. It's my intention to post more. I guess that means I need to do more.

David