Hayleigh

[Jennifer Geary]

Yes, it is me again. (sigh)

This is Hayleigh. I did this drawing in 2 hours...well, sketch, rather. I know it isn't perfect, but would love to see what you have to say about it. She is the sister to Kara, who I posted a few days ago. Thanks for looking!

[Lon Haverly]

Dear Jennifer,

Your drawing style appears stiff, a problem which most pencil artists struggle with. You mentioned the time it took you. Two hours is a long time for this sketch. I would suggest you just let it rip, and draw more carelessly, and let the expression come through your lines as well as your form. It is the line which expresses a drawing, not the form.

[Steven Sweeney]

I may not completely understand Lon's point, and I agree that line is a beautiful element in a drawing -- whether you're using a dozen different point-sharpened leads of varying hardness (which I do) or, say, manipulating a single chisel point to achieve variety.

But it seems to me that the whole point of variation in line quality and economy of line is to suggest form. It's the only reason I draw, outside of sketching plan and elevation blueprints for houses or boats, but in those cases I get to do three views to show form, and the client has to imagine it. In our work here, the client has to see it straight away, or we fail, and the client walks out of the gallery. Harold Speed begins his drawing text with his definition of drawing as "the expression of form upon a plane surface," his painting text the same way.

Whenever we find ourselves critiquing a drawing or parts thereof as "flat", we mean that it's lacking in expression of form. We're seeing Charlie Brown heads, instead of spherical, cylindrical, conical shapes in nature.

This drawing does lack variety in line, but to the extent that it is lacking in form, I think you have to be looking at the placement and contours of the correct value shapes as well -- also in deficit here -- with which line quality is interdependent.

Jennifer -- are you still out there? This is a very nice drawing that needs a few small pushes to make it great. What I'm inclined to say is that you look at the photo resource, then close your eyes and reimagine the forms, the way they would appear if you were looking at the person rather than the photograph. How will that look? Rounder? Sure -- a photo has already reduced a 3D life scene to 2D. Some dark lines and edges will be relieved (lightened and softened). The forehead, brow, nose bridge, cheekbones, lips and chin will be closest to us. They'll be catching the light, which (depending on the light source) means that they'll either be the lightest parts or they'll be the parts where you have a light-to-dark transition. Whatever happens there, SOMETHING ELSE will happen in the areas apart from them. (For example, the (our) left edge of the face right next to the ear in medium shadow can't possibly be several values lighter.) Those areas will get noticeably lighter or darker. If lighter, then let the contour lines around those shapes lighten out too (that's our connection to line). If darker, blend the value area into the value of the contour line.

Too long already, so I'll pick this up later if the opportunity presents itself.

Cheers

[Steven Sweeney]

P.S. There are two catchlights in the eye on our right. That's not form-defining, it's just reflection of a source light. Wipe out the right side of the catchlight in the (our) right eye, to match the catchlight in the other.