Wings Over Winecountry, Colleen's place (1 Viewer)

colleenc · Dec 28, 2009

Thanks Ed, I think I'll try that method out, doing parts will help imprint it on my memory and I also think that years of drawing birds would be useful as the accumulated knowledge would help fill in.

I don't expect I have enough years left to do this, still the actual observation really makes a difference even if I do use the photo later, as Ken mentions, the emotional connection helps, and the observation lets one decipher the photo more accurately. I have a feeling that a johnny-come-lately like me will always need some photo support, but even Liljefores used photos sometimes..... the duck flapping in the pond, he did from life and photo, probably this is my best option too, as my eye always sees far more than my hand knows how to put down. Nearly every bird is a "rare" sighting for me right now, ie every one is a first sighting. It still amazes me that not much carries over, and a new bird means starting nearly at the beginning each time.

timwootton · Dec 28, 2009

colleenc said:
thanks Tim,
I've been wondering lately how can I possibly succeed in really seeing the nuances when I have so little time in the field sketch. So I thought it might be interesting to show a field sketch next to what I made from my photo of the same thing. Of course I'm talking about action, not a still bird here, but I just notice that my field sketch line is way more generalized and not as precise as the one where I use my photo to support it. Not to mention that the form and proportion is better when I used the photo.

Would be very interested in what you all think about this. Or comments you may have, maybe this changes with more years of drawing in the field.
So here are both, I took a photo at the same time I sketched. ( used my camera as my bins)

This (and Ed’s and Ken’s posts) throws up one of the most struggled-over aspects of the genre of bird art. There’s always the desire to make representations of the bird as-seen which can often hnder any means of self-expression. I’m firmly in the camp of ‘do them as they appear’ and I’m quite happy to leave less naturalistic interpretations to those who feel that’s where their own version of the truth lies. That’s where I think Ed’s suggestion that all lines drawn (in fieldwork) ought to be drawn from life; any unknowns and un-seens may as well be left out completely.
For example, I have in the past worked on field drawings after the subject has moved or disappeared totally. Now, these drawings may look ok in the sketch book, but the problem arises when they are then used in the next stage of development. As Ken says, it soon becomes apparent where the gaps in knowledge are – and there’s nothing worse than trying to fudge bits of anatomy/colour/whatever in a painted piece.
I think the distinction out to be categorised as such; field-work should be just that – made in the field and be only what you can see in the field. Sketches could maybe incorporate the artist’s own photos of a particular bird, blended with the original observational drawings. I think the basis of these sketches should still be derived in the main from the field drawings.
Of course, another very important reason for working from life is to get the feel of the bird – how it moves, how it lives - how it is. And how they interact with each other, group together (or apart) and compose themselves. Also, as we discussed in other threads, it’s the only real way to get comparisons of scale between individuals of the same and other species.
There is nothing wrong with using photos per se, but I feel they ought to be supplementary to the field work. Read Bateman (http://www.robertbateman.ca/) and he’s of the opinion that photographs are a valid and acceptable starting point for paintings – but he goes on and develops these photographic beginnings into more abstract compositions.
Ultimately it depends on what the artist’s personal goals are. That’s maybe the hardest part to quantify.

colleenc · Dec 28, 2009

Well said Tim.

I went looking for that painting of Lijefores I was remembering if you have the book The Peerless Eye it's on page 54 and 55 along with how he used photo reference ( he said " the gun of the future is the camera")

This important paragraph sums up some of what we've said here.

But photographs do not replace direct observations. To understand the movement that characterize a certain animal, the observer needs to see it many times under different conditions before he can fully comprehend it. Today's animal painters, who use potography at the expesne of field observation, fail to comprehend the full range of a creature's movement and cannot compensate for the distorted view a photograph can give when it freezes the action of an animal in motion"

More important than his rare technical skill and uncanny ability to communicate ideas directly in an unobtrusive style, was the ability of Liljefors to see.......He didn't simply record on canvas what he saw , he also put down what he felt.

So what this means to me is the photo should be a point of departure, not a destination.

This discussion has greatly clarified things for me, and I think from now on I'll be more at peace with myself over how I use my camera references. Especially since I am somewhat handicapped by the loss of years of observation, and I'm already feeling the limitations of where I can go and see, as I face the decline of my physical body, from the times in my 40's and 50's where I was so much stronger. My work has shown me that I can combine the field work and my camera in to a unified expression.

Now that I've come 8 months deep into my study of birds and how to integrate them into my experience as a painter, the next thing on my horizon will be to hope some sort of style emerges from all this, presently things seem pretty generic, and some what static, but at least workmanlike.
For that to happen I will need to let my imagination enter more into the basic grammar I've gotten down. I've got lots of mental images stored up for inspiration...time to start putting some of them down

nickderry · Dec 29, 2009

I always find lots to ponder over in your posts Colleen, I think the best way of going on now is forgetting where you came from and not caring about where you're heading - simply react appropriately to the images you see and make an artistic response. Calling upon experience should never be a conscious thing, it's stifling, you end up comparing what you're currently doing to something you did, you try to recreate something that worked for something else that may not work now, the act of painting is 'in the moment'.

Using photos is often a hot topic - for me, it's only wrong to slavishly copy the photo, it's pointless as the photo exists already, but interpretation of the photo in whatever way you feel is in my view perfectly fine, sometime I sketch things as a few lines and notes on colour, background, movement, light etc, knowing that I'll need to find some photographic references to fill in the gaps.

colleenc · Dec 29, 2009

nickderry said:
I think the best way of going on now is forgetting where you came from and not caring about where you're heading - simply react appropriately to the images you see and make an artistic response. the act of painting is 'in the moment'.

Thanks Nick,
As ever you have precisely lit up the issue.....right now I have a lot of observation, delightful experiences with the birds, a huge backlog of possibilities for paintings ( only in my imagination) and not a single idea of how to get them out on paper and canvas. Only way will be to just do it and see what comes.

colleenc · Dec 30, 2009

Here is the last of the current common mergansers studies.

I went to Schollenberger Park the last 2 days and saw my first northern shovelers, a very pretty duck that flies fast( too fast for me to see the colors in the wing, but there is some blue there somewhere) They are always in pairs, and tho my Sibley guide says they "rarely tip up" Ha! that's almost all I saw as you will see from the field sketches below!

BTW I think I need a new category, these hardly qualify as "field sketches" as I doubt you can tell what the heck they are mostly. So I believe I should really call them field scribbles, which is what I usually get the first time I try to draw a new bird. There are 2 coots, one really bad flying gull and the rest are mostly northern sholveler butts

I tried to put into practice only drawing the instants I could see and stopping when it changed.

nickderry · Dec 30, 2009

some wonderful patterns in the shovelers - just a few abstract marks makes them identifiable, and you're really getting to grips with his and her majesties the mergansers (or goosander as we call them in the UK)

ARTHUR BISHOP · Dec 30, 2009

lovely to see Colleen

solitaryVSong · Dec 30, 2009

Field sketches or field scribbles, they all look good. I'm partial to the coots and the 'badly flying' gull. I'd just keep doing exactly what you're doing. Your own 'style' will come out eventually if it hasn't already. Nick's advice was very good, as usual!

colleenc · Dec 31, 2009

Northern Shovelers

still trying to get watercolor technique a bit more at ease, but here they are, all males, really pretty duck and more so in flight, but they go so fast it's hard to catch that action...I know I've left the women out, but the guys are so perfect to paint. I can't get very close to see how that bill actually fits in, nor can I figure out the black and white part of what is wing and what is scapular feathers so I just let it go on freely as it sort of impressed my eye. I corrected the spelling after I took the photo of the page. Starting to attempt the reflections now but just barely sketching them in, what a mystery!

This is the first attempt, I'll try another page and a study of the bill as best I can find a clear shot, mostly it's been grey and overcast, and so lowlight my camera is not getting much detail I've never seen a bird up close, and not likely too they seem pretty shy. I depended on my field notes, ( the scope is not clear either) and some camera work here. I've not gotten that beautiful cinnamon color patch right either...guess I'll have to go back again, think I'll wait for a bit of sun, drew in the rain last time.

timwootton · Dec 31, 2009

Well they all look pretty darn accurate to my eye, Colleen. A very lovely sheet of exceptional drawings here - beautiful.

Andrew H · Dec 31, 2009

Love the Norther Shovellers Colleen, love the colour sketches.......just as they should be....

jacquot · Dec 31, 2009

I love that sheet, really nice work!

sfrissell · Jan 1, 2010

Colleen:

Would this pic help?

Sid

colleenc · Jan 1, 2010

thanks Sid, nice shot, but still can't see just how the bill fits into the skull, maybe you could blow it up and crop the head down and it would show....
Happy New Year

Strandman · Jan 1, 2010

colleenc said:
thanks Sid, nice shot, but still can't see just how the bill fits into the skull, maybe you could blow it up and crop the head down and it would show....
Happy New Year

here's a Mathios with the light striking the bill to head join, might tempt the man himself to drop onto our pond:

http://www.mathiosstudios.net/Art Paintings/A Painting A Day/Northern Shoveler.jpg

solitaryVSong · Jan 1, 2010

timwootton said:
Well they all look pretty darn accurate to my eye, Colleen. A very lovely sheet of exceptional drawings here - beautiful.

Well said and Happy New Year Colleen!

colleenc · Jan 1, 2010

some Ennion to start a Happy new year

Thanks Ed that helps, but still would like to know how the head flares out from that bit, they are so dark and in shadow most of the time, I think if we ever see sun again here in California, a good shot can be had at the park.

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND NEW DECADE TO ALL

to start off this decade I'd like to share some Ennion. Busby's book "The Living Birds of Eric Ennion" is just the best, but I wanted to see a bit more and went online and got a little paper Pengiun book ( only can find in UK) even with shipping it was only $10. I looked at the list at the end of the Busby book to choose, as it explains how many illustrations are in each book and how much color.

So here are some of them, I marvel at how simply he paints, how unfussy, and how he lets the watercolor nature of the paintflow explain values, and form see the pied wagtail, or the amazing flying nuthatch which is mostly just flows of paint that perfectly describe the exact moment of flight. Enjoy
LOOKS LIKE I'LL HAVE TO TRY SEVERAL UPLOADS, HAVING TROUBLE.

colleenc · Jan 1, 2010

Is anyone else having trouble with uploading attachments lately?

And why doesn't birdforum allow multiple attachments at once, on wet canvas you can choose 5 to upload all at one time, I always have to do each one separately here, ie choose, upload, then 5 min later when it finally goes on choose another, upload... that means multiple photos like this mean almost an hour of time, I have dial up. Any hints welcome. BTW my files are gif, save for web, and usually around 250kb in size, way under the 297 limit.

These all went well and in good time for some reason, but would not go on the other post

colleenc · Jan 1, 2010

here is the last one.....what a sweet book, and very rigorous for planned birdwatching and counting in your own backyards, maps and all

Wings Over Winecountry, Colleen's place (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

C'est pas ma faute, je suis anglais.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

C'est pas ma faute, je suis anglais.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Well-known member

Attachments

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread