Monday, October 17, 2011

Failed Drawing #3

Here is my next "failed drawing." Once again I was copying a Charles Gibson illustration. I do not think you need me to clarify, but the top drawing is my attempted copy of Gibson's drawing on the bottom. If you are new to my failed drawings, you can read my explanation here.

You will once again immediately notice my proportion inaccuracies. I am considering the possibility of sketching out the drawing first in pencil, but since my primary intent is to try and improve my pen and ink technique I am not sure if I want to labor over the initial drawing. I have to think about it.

Aside from this, I have recently discovered that Gibson's original drawings are much larger than I assumed. This is actually quite comforting, because I was beginning to wonder just how he was able to manage such minute lines and cross-hatching. It would seem most of his drawings are approximately 18 x 22 inches, whereas I have been attempting my drawings at about 8 x 10 inches. I am not trying to excuse myself, or to imply if I were to copy the drawings larger mine would be perfect; far from it.

All I am saying is I think I will need to try increasing my drawings because I am beginning to realize that I can not really learn Gibson's techniques when I am having to translate his cross-hatching into what amounts as short-hand. I can mimic value in a smaller drawing, but not the proper texture and complexity. This is a valuable lesson for me, though, as I work on my own illustration projects: draw bigger. By doing a larger drawing, it will look more masterful as it is scaled down.

Something I absolutely love about the Gibson drawing above is how he manages to give so much life and variety in the background wallpaper. While you can not really make out a pattern, Gibson is able to imply one and give depth to the drawing the would be otherwise absent.

I will be soon attempting some more failed drawings copying other artist's besides Gibson. Stay tuned.

1 comment:

  1. Interesting observation on the size of the originals.

    Looking at your other drawings, it almost looks like Gibson's lines are of differing weights in different areas of the drawing, perhaps drawn with different nibs or did he even thin the ink just a little bit to make thinner lines?

    Did he ever write anything about his technique?