telophase: (Mello - megalomania)
telophase ([personal profile] telophase) wrote2005-07-14 07:11 pm
Entry tags:

(no subject)

This is the picture of Sesshoumaru right after I scanned it in (in two parts) and merged the two files. It's at the size I inked it at - although it's still at 72ppi for Web display, so looks a wee bit blocky - but you can see the ink blobs and where I managed to drag my hand and where the French curve I was using to steady my pen on the sword slipped. And how I overdid the lines on the hair, making it into tentacles, and had to erase a lot of that to make it nice and smooth-flowing.

And, oh yeah, where I figured out that his face was wonky and before I fixed it.



Image hosted by Photobucket.com

[identity profile] dragonscholar.livejournal.com 2005-07-15 02:53 am (UTC)(link)
Nice job. I like the animalistic cast to his face - and a great sense of wind.

[identity profile] telophase.livejournal.com 2005-07-15 02:55 am (UTC)(link)
Thank you. :D

[identity profile] rustybitch.livejournal.com 2005-07-15 10:34 am (UTC)(link)
Woah.
Great hair-day!

[identity profile] telophase.livejournal.com 2005-07-15 01:22 pm (UTC)(link)
XD

[identity profile] seiyojin.livejournal.com 2005-07-15 12:13 pm (UTC)(link)
It makes me feel better knowing those that can draw better than me also make mistakes and manage to get ink splotches and things all over stuff :D

It still manages to look good though, but it involves a sword, pointy ears and flowy hair, so that automatically makes things good to me ;)

[identity profile] telophase.livejournal.com 2005-07-15 01:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Heh. Yeah. It takes practice to get used to ink that doesn't dry instantly, and you can tell that I lack that practice. XD. I'm not sure where the blobs came from - the blobs were originally on my hand, but I don't know how they got there - they weren't the smear. Hm.

[identity profile] tygerr.livejournal.com 2005-07-15 03:02 pm (UTC)(link)
Uh...DAY-amn!

*boggles*

(IANA Artist, so cannot provide useful commentary beyond gape-jawed amazement.)

[identity profile] telophase.livejournal.com 2005-07-15 03:04 pm (UTC)(link)
XD Thanks!

[identity profile] thomasyan.livejournal.com 2005-07-15 04:34 pm (UTC)(link)
Total tangent: Have you seen La Belle Noiseuse? They show a fair bit of the artist doing his thing. I have to say, most of it mystifies me. Why'd you put all that water on and mush it around / blot it? What's that white paint for? What are those scratchy lines for? Huh huh huh?

[identity profile] telophase.livejournal.com 2005-07-15 04:40 pm (UTC)(link)
No, I haven't. *googles* Hm, sounds interesting. Yeah, lots of art processes are completely non-intuitive until right near the end; you have to know what you're doing to be able to follow it. An interesting book, from the standpoint of watching a painting evolve step-by-step is How to Paint like the Great Masters, which takes artists through the steps of paintings in the style of several Old Masters. I've used it for creating some digital works.

[identity profile] thomasyan.livejournal.com 2005-07-17 03:35 pm (UTC)(link)
[Note to self: Learn to think and to write what you mean.]

Actually, part of my problem with that movie is that when he is done, I don't get the end product. Perhaps in my defense, sketches are supposed to be evocative rather than finished / accurate depictions, and despite that, I still expect the latter rather than the former, to which I am blind.

[identity profile] telophase.livejournal.com 2005-07-17 03:56 pm (UTC)(link)
Sketches are indeed evocative - great art is supposed to be evocative, rather than merely a description of what is before the artist. While sketches are indeed steps that you take on the path to the finished painting, my drawing teacher would kill me if I dared suggest they weren't finished pieces in and of themselves. XD

You're supposed to be looking at rhythm of line, composition, the play of lights and darks across the figure, the shapes and volumes itneracting, and so on. Much of which is not in the scene or model that the artist is looking on - it comes from the artist's head. It's like you'll rarely find great photographs that are a straight snapshot of a scene - the photographer will either have spent a very long time setting it up, waiting for the right light, or managed to get lucky enough to grab the shot the instant it was seen and recognized (and the latter is the product of experience, to recognize and shoot instantly, and much of the time the results still aren't good).

And if the movie doesn't use real sketches and paintings that are already in existence, the ones in it are most likely not going to be that good, merely acceptable, because for some reason movies never actually do get original works that are any good. It's probably because unless you're a genius, and even much of the time when you're a genius, you can't produce great works on demand, and the true worth of such work is unaffordable even by Hollywood standards. You just have to pretend that the artwork is an actor portraying a great painting. XD