I meant this post for yesterday, but I ended up getting sick over the course of our entire trip. So, while I am feeling better I was exhausted when we got home.
Anyway, I have never done a thorough dissection of quick sketch in handout form. So in honor of this semesters qs class filling up so quickly I am going to do that over the next few weeks. I am starting with a reconstruction of a handout that was initially given to me some 15 years ago by Jeff Watts, and then later by Glen Orbik. Both of the copies given to me are in pretty poor shape so I have recreated it with a few changes in terminology, and using samples of my own drawings.
Starting tomorrow I will be essentially breaking this handout down in to more in-depth explanations. Look it over, and if you have any questions post them in the comments, and I will do my best to answer them in the upcoming posts.
Click the image to download a PDF
9 comments:
Hi Erik,
Wonderful post, wonderful idea for upcoming posts. I do have a question, but it is a rather big question. It has to do with shape (as opposed to form), with what makes a good shape. It is something I've always tried to pin down, but never could -- my explanations to myself have been vague at best. When it comes to form, to volumetric, 3-dimensional shape it is easier for me to pin it down,and tell when it reads convincingly as a form (when it is solid and gives the impression of volume) or when it fails to do so. But shape seems to be more complex, and it always seems to come together with another very complex concept: design. I've often heard people say "look what wonderful design!" "look how wonderfully he/she designs his/her shapes!" "see how such and such artist is not simply copying what is there, but actually designing it etc". Is there any way to speak more palpably about what makes good design, what makes good shape (and the reasons/thought process behind it)? Huge question, I know. But someone had to ask it :)
Thanks! - Brenno
I'm looking forward to what you'll share on the topic. I got this same handout from Hope Railey who posted in on the web (forget where).
I've got tons of questions but will wait til you talk about it more as you'll probably answer most of them.
I find my biggest hangup is getting the initial first couple of lines down while retaining correct proportions. It seems I have to get a lot of the drawing down before I see my mistakes.
I 2nd Brenno question and in relation to that, isn't design of shapes and abstraction the same thing? Which in turn doesn't those shapes come from the pattern of lights and darks?
Sorry to post twice but I've actually been a little obsessed over some of this since beginning to study the Reilly Method a few weeks ago.
Wow, great question guys. This is definitely an advanced question. If you will be patient, I will get to this somewhere around part 3 or 4. It is always a difficult question to answer because there is so much personal opinion/philosophy involved anytime you begin to consciously redesign/interpret what you are seeing.
I'd definitely like to see some discussion on the design question too. It's a term/idea that's thrown around a lot, but I feel I haven't even begun to understand how to do well.
Hi Erik,
Very cool information. Thanks for sharing! Hope all is well?
Thank you so much for doing this, Erik.
Hi Eric,
I just wanted to say thanks so much for doing this. It is something that I have really wanted to get exposed to. This technique has interested me for a while. I have seen it on a few orbrik decended blogs and have tried to get the gist from Hope's wonderful blog. Looking forward to the rest of this series of posts!
Thank you very much, I found this to be very helpful.
Post a Comment