revivingKensArt (7 Viewers)

[solitaryVSong]

Thanks all for you comments!

Since I've taken up sketching from life I've generally been the only birder anywhere near, outside of my wife who might also be sketching. But soon enough I'm sure I'll be doing it where everyone else is snapping photos like crazy. I don't believe I've ever seen anyone else sketching in the field. I'm sure that moment will seem very odd. But now I have no doubts at all. It's the right thing to do, at least for me.

I think it was David Sibley in 'Birding Basics' who recommended that all birders sketch and said how common it was on the other side of the pond. Debby Kaspari often recommends in on her blog here in the U.S. and I know people like Van Dusen do it all the time. But as I've said, I've yet to run into someone in the field who's actually sketching! Their loss.

 

[solitaryVSong]

Suffered mightily today as I tested out the Nikon 60 mm scope.... Actually it's not all that much heavier than my old Bushnell Spacemaster, but what I see is drastically different!

First bird I and my wife saw after I got scope together and put on tripod and headed over to wetlands at Morris Arboretum was a small hawk on top of a dead tree. I saw facial markings and expected an American Kestrel. But something looked wrong; it was a Peregrine, probably the closest one we've ever seen. I only got the one quick sketch of him but he did confirm the ID by flying by as we left, powerfully winging after some songbirds, probably newly arrived sparrows.

Also was treated to some more looks at a Belted Kingfisher, this time though with a far better scope than last week. Next step I guess is to be prepared to do a painting on the spot.

We also saw a number of newly arrived sparrows, Savannah, Swamp and possibly Lincoln's, but they just didn't stay visible long enough for any sketches.

And a cooperative turtle, species unknown. I was struck by the way he stuck his feet out behind him, something I've never noticed before.

 

[sfrissell]

Ken: You will also find that you can use the scope to isolate small areas of habitat (leaf groups, unusual branches, distant rock formations, etc.) that you can then sketch and use in a painting. This "scope-sketching" is really helpful and fun. Good luck with your new toy!

Sid

 

[ARTHUR BISHOP]

good to see you enjoying the scope

 

[timwootton]

Splendid results.

 

[solitaryVSong]

Ken: You will also find that you can use the scope to isolate small areas of habitat (leaf groups, unusual branches, distant rock formations, etc.) that you can then sketch and use in a painting. This "scope-sketching" is really helpful and fun. Good luck with your new toy!

Sid

Thanks Sid, Arthur, Tim,

It is a pleasure to be able to see the birds so much better. Will take a few years to put it all to good use I fear. But the sooner you start the sooner you get results.

Speaking of habitat I was reading something by Bateman on painting the other day. I'm not that big a fan of his. I'm really not sure why. But it did strike me when he said something about paying attention to habitat and not trying to fake it.

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand birds live in a habitat and it seems to me that they look more natural in their habitat. I always enjoy seeing a bird in a habitat that looks real in a painting. So verisimilitude can really add to a work, at least for me. On the other hand I don't like to see art become hostage to all the details of what it portrays. So I don't want to have to render every feather or every leaf and I don't enjoy art that does so. The trick is to get a realistic suggestion of both bird and habitat. We'll see if the new scope helps with the habitat portion. I already know it's helping with the birds. The notion of sketching habitat has rolled around in the back of my mind over the last few years but it has stayed there, in the back of my mind. It may need to come forward!!

 

[colleenc]

will be interesting to see what the scope does to your sketching, it took me quite a while to get used to it and drawing through it is still not comfortable to me, but I think its just a matter of practice. It did change the size of my sketches.

 

[solitaryVSong]

will be interesting to see what the scope does to your sketching, it took me quite a while to get used to it and drawing through it is still not comfortable to me, but I think its just a matter of practice. It did change the size of my sketches.

I feel like I already reached the limits of drawing with one eye focused in an optical device of some sort or another when I spent two years drawing insects while viewed under a dissecting microscope! I last did that about ten years ago I think.

But this does seem a bit similar, something between me and my subject. How did I get back in that situation? It is odd because there is something between you and direct observation of what you see. On the other hand, whether with scope or microscope, you do see a whole lot of detail that you never saw before! Only time will tell but I hope for a great adventure. I do think that more than anything else I'll feel more firmly grounded in what I draw. We'll have to compare notes in a month or so

 

[colleenc]

Well funny what comes from the scope, my confused brain finally came up with it's own solution. It thinks what's in the scope IS the thing, the little world in there just has it's own rules and sights, like some sort of kalidescope, and what's out there that the two eyes see is another world, based on different principals.

 

[nickderry]

Glad you're enjoying the scope - and already some nice results. As for making habitat and bird match, I don't think it's necessary to put everything in the picture that was there in life, but if you're going to put something in, make sure you know it well - or at least make it as loose and abstract as possible that if you don't know the subject - it won't show (I'm crap at insects and botanical subjects, so I stylise the picture to the same degree as my lack of knowledge on the subjects involved). Barry Van Dusen advised me a few years back that I should take more time to paint leaves as a recognisable species, rather than just "foliage". I agree entirely with him - but in practise, I'm still as guilty as ever of painting unrecognisable leaves.

 

[sfrissell]

I've spent time in past years painting "realistic" recognizable leaves in bird paintings. I have had a lot of plant identification experience, too. But I decoded it was too boring. I'm much more interested in the vegetation "looking" like vegetation but you can't tell exactly what it is! Guess I've become more of a impressionist!

 

[solitaryVSong]

Well funny what comes from the scope, my confused brain finally came up with it's own solution. It thinks what's in the scope IS the thing, the little world in there just has it's own rules and sights, like some sort of kalidescope, and what's out there that the two eyes see is another world, based on different principals.

I can easily see how that perspective might develop. After a birding vacation my wife and myself often find ourselves reaching for our binoculars, though we're not carrying them, when we see something interesting. We just get used to that OTHER, more closeup world. I suspect the scope will soon create something similar.

 

[solitaryVSong]

As for making habitat and bird match, I don't think it's necessary to put everything in the picture that was there in life, but if you're going to put something in, make sure you know it well - or at least make it as loose and abstract as possible that if you don't know the subject - it won't show (I'm crap at insects and botanical subjects, so I stylise the picture to the same degree as my lack of knowledge on the subjects involved). Barry Van Dusen advised me a few years back that I should take more time to paint leaves as a recognisable species, rather than just "foliage". I agree entirely with him - but in practise, I'm still as guilty as ever of painting unrecognisable leaves.

I think Barry Van Dusen's advice is really good. I always enjoy it when even with impressionistic leaves I can tell what species they are. On the other hand you do a beautiful job in practice of making the design so visually compelling that I don't think anyone is going to complain about not recognizing the species of the vegetation. And of course the artist's prerogative is to completely agree with good advice, and then ignore it.

 

[solitaryVSong]

I've spent time in past years painting "realistic" recognizable leaves in bird paintings. I have had a lot of plant identification experience, too. But I decoded it was too boring. I'm much more interested in the vegetation "looking" like vegetation but you can't tell exactly what it is! Guess I've become more of a impressionist!

I had been thinking in the back of my mind about how you must look at vegetation differently because of your background, being able to identify almost all vegetation that you see. I can see where that could almost be inhibiting rather than helpful. I suppose if you knew enough about the feather tracts of each bird that you saw that could also be inhibiting. Then you might be afraid to take the artistic liberties necessary for a good painting. 'But those priimary coverts are a bit too gray, etc., etc.'

I think impressionistic is the way to go! But your impressionism is based on knowledge of detail and my guess is much more believable for it. I also very much enjoy being able to identify trees and shrubs, even rock formations to some degree. But I still do a bad job of rendering that, impressionistically or not. I think that I'm really more impatient than anything else. I want to render the subject (bird) and finish the painting too quickly. My guess is that for myself I'd be far better off to be willing to spend more time rendering the vegetation, even if it is impressionistically.

Well I've done a lot of writing here recently without doing much visual work. Time to get back to that!

 

[solitaryVSong]

These are some sketches of Sandhill Cranes based on photos I took a few weeks ago in Wisconsin. I also posted the one page of fieldsketches I did of them a week or more ago. In almost all of my bird art so far the work that isn't a fieldsketch is based primarily on photos that I took. I take great liberties with the photos but still much of the finished work comes from them.

So.................I'd like to start constructing some new work, based on sketches from photos, fieldsketches, etc. I hope to do some paintings or drawings that have their subject constructed out of the sketches, not based just on one photo.

Today I began by doing these sketches. One thing I'm concentrating on here is getting the full bird, legs and all. In most cases you just can't see the legs; they're buried in stubble. That was one thing that was appealing about the two gentlemen cranes strolling down the road! I could see all of them.

Sorry for the very bad lighting. I may replace them if the sun ever comes back out and I shoot new photos.

 

[timwootton]

Ah - I recognise thee shapes very well. There are some very lovely shapes here- both drawings on the first sheet are really top class - great stuff.

 

[colleenc]

nice work Ken,
I got this from another artist here, sometimes I take a bunch of shots and put them in "slide show" which gives me 30 seconds to draw, I run the show several times, until I can feel I have a sense of the shapes, usually 3 or 4 times. Then I go to the sketches and do what Sid suggested, I just paint in a little over them. By that time I have some skills with that bird, and can use the photo without being a slave to it.

 

[ARTHUR BISHOP]

Love the Cranes Ken

 

[nickderry]

those that have seen the blighters can confirm the shapes are good - I on the other hand , who hasn't even seen the european version despite hundreds flying over my house every so often can only say that they more than hit the spot aesthetically - and the little group at the bottom of the last page is itching to be turned into a full-blown painting.

 

[solitaryVSong]

Between all the black and white work done here recently, my mortal fear of knowing what to do with all the broken reeds in the foreground here in watercolor, pastel or charcoal, and the desire to just try something new I decided to try a drawing of some of the sandhill cranes with some Pitt artist's pens. The size is 11x14, larger than most of the small sketches I've been doing recently. But I just felt like doing something larger, and hopefully bolder.