Worth pointing out I stood a couple of feet away from the model so my field of view changed fairly dramatically as I scanned up and down from the top of his head to the ball of his heel (try this yourself - stand close to something tall and look it up and down - note the change in angles).
This should have translated to distortion in the drawing, almost like a fish-eye lense (but not as extreme) - but it's hard to fight the tendency to "fix" the proportions with preconceived notion of what they "should" be. For example at the time I was probably thinking "his torso isn't shorter than his thigh" failing to recognise there was more truth in the optical distortion informing my vision than my idea of what it should/must be.
As you can see above, the angles have been evened out in an effort to get proportions "right", ironically leading to a disconnected set of proportions that don't represent the physical presence of the figure very well or convey a sense of the view I had. My preconceptions stood in the way of my true perception.
Thinking about it, the only thing I should be doing is drawing what I see, the way I see it from where I am in relation to it. In other words the subject is: the model, me and my view - distortion and all.
The second pose fared a but better, it's just too bad I didn't commit to the larger calf and feet there.
The final pose (below) is not without it's fare share of problems, but compared to the other two suggests I learned something by the end. I won't nitpick, I'll let it be.
No comments:
Post a Comment