The Book

I have been thinking some more about the content for a: How to Make Pictures book. My old ambition was to make the best How to Draw Book available, now I have changed that to making a book that comprehensively explains the major systems used in picture making.

I think they will be:
1. Space, with the sub-category of Form
2. Color
3. Composition

I am sick, and my body is achy, so that is all I am writing tonight. Just wanted to keep you in the know on my book project.

You can get a copy of my book that is filled with the drawings from my journals in Afghanistan, click here.

Form

Can Form be described as a sub-group of Space?

It is a difficult problem, because I associate different things with the two words: Form and Space.

Form is a representation of light hitting an object.

Pictorial Space is the illusion of three dimensions on a two dimensional surface.

Different techniques are used by artists to articulate the two concepts. More importantly they are thought of in different systems. When I write I am thinking in words, when I think in light I am drawing/painting Form, when I think in the context of spacial systems (linear and aerial perspective, depth of field, overlapping shapes, relative scale) I am drawing/painting Pictorial Space.

But I sense that the two ideas are reconcilable, and that if I can get my mind around the idea that Form is a sub-group of Space I will have a more organized visual self-dialogue.

By synthesizing the ideas they will probably gain from each other, and may be able to borrow from each others systems, making some convincing illusions with more economy, and probably making more compelling work overall.

Space, some points in Space

Back to the four points I made earlier about pictorial Space.

1. There is Space independent of humans.

2. There is the human perception of Space.

3. There is the representation of the human perception of Space.

4. And finally, there is the human perception of the representation of the human perception of Space.

I went on a walk today, and I am going to try an flesh this out a little. I will be thinking as I write, so I do not think this will be my final take but instead the seed that is going to germinate into something marvelous.

1. Space independent of human beings.

We see Space when our sense of sight perceives the phenomena of anything around us. Light has to be present for this to work.

Of course we see in three dimensions but contemporary physicists who study string theory (like Brian Greene at Columbia) are telling us that there may be twelve dimensions.

Space exists without us seeing it. Train tracks do not converge to a point as they get farther away, but that is what humans see when we stand on the tracks and look down them. The color of mountains in the distance does not desaturate and turn gray blue as they get further away, but that is what humans see. These things exist is a way that has nothing to do with human beings perceiving them, but our pictures our only about our perceptions.


2. The human perception of space.

A picture is all about human beings. It is about our vision, our bodies, our height from the ground, our familiarity with what we look at, the systems we use to understand what we are seeing.

The systems we use to make pictorial Space are rudimentary tools that mimic our vision.

3. The representation of the human perception of Space.

Linear perspective is a system where lines converge as they recede to the viewers viewpoint stretched into infinity into the illusory depth of the picture, it is imperfect because it assumes we have one viewpoint but we actually look with two eyes.

Aerial perspective is a system where colors desaturate (lose their brilliance and turn gray) as they get further away. This of course mimics something, again, that only happens inside our mind when we interpret vision. It has no bearing on the actual world.

Depth of field is a similar proposition to both forms of perspective, just once removed by the media of a lens. It is a system that says the further something is from the viewer the softer the distinction between its edges and the edges of the objects around it become.

Color can indicate space, but to be honest I am not completely sure how it works.

4. The human perception of the representation of the human perception of Space.

This is the most interesting and trickiest section of the four. If thoughtfully articulated I think this can explain:

a. Optical illusions

b. How we see deep Space on flat sheet of paper or a canvas.

c. How we see amazingly convincing shallow Space, like a Trompe-l'œil painting.

d. Why some images seem to filled with open Space, and some feel claustrophobic.

e. Why some Space feels so real, while others are more notational

f. Probably a bunch of interesting things that have not occurred to me yet.

Space Space Space

I have been thinking more about space.

Pictorial space, that is space depicted on a flat surface like a piece of paper or a canvas.

Basically it is a trick, an illusion achieved by mimicking phenomena.

phe·nom·e·non (fĭ-nŏm'ə-nŏn', -nən) n. pl. phe·nom·e·na (-nə)
An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

Essentially all the methods of creating space in a picture boil down to recreating a scene from the view point of a human, and carefully crafting it to mimic their sense of sight. That is it.

Some ways to depict space seem amazing, because they mimic space in a way that would be amazing if it were real. So there is a subtle disconnect between space, the representation of space, the perception of space, and the perception of the representation of space. If you confuse any of these four things you will not think clearly enough to understand what you are up to when making pictorial space.

Something like a phenomenon, baby, something like a phenomenon...

There are a ton of amazing illusions on this site, click here.

Space

Some painters get seduced by light, or images, or non-referential abstraction, but I think what most seduces me in a painting is space.

Space comes in so many varieties, and it is what makes a painting special for me. Because space is the magical thing that makes something which is completely flat look like a window into another place. The artist has control over the depth the space, the quickness that the eye moves through space, the overwhelming or surprising qualities of space.

I have been thinking about the ways to create pictorial space:

1. perspective
a. linear, renaissance technique of using converging lines
b. aerial, colors desaturate as they recede from your viewpoint
c. observed or intuitive, using the above techniques by letting them inform your recording of phenomena

2. overlapping forms, if something is in front of something it is in front of it

3. depth of field, hard and sharp edges, like hard focus and soft focus in a photograph

4. size comparisons, space can be suggested by the scale of different images in a painting

5. Space that does something unexpected, like a Tiebetan Mandala

6. Shallow space indicated only by a form and the space it takes up, or the shadow thrown by a form against a illusary wall.

What gets really exciting is when you can get two or more of these systems for creating space working in the same image, and maybe with the same marks, collage, or paint.

Can anyone think of any other systems used to create pictorial space?

Gerhard Richter was my introduction to depth of field painting when I was learning how to paint at the University of Massachusetts.

Josh Podoll uses space well.

I have always had a soft spot for the paintings of Gregory Gillespie. Space can be shallow too.

Tintoretto is a good old one for perspectival deep space, and enormous canvases too.

Giorgione makes very synthetic images, which feel like the space is act of creation. I have always liked the way he rendered form too.

Titian renders space in a way that makes it look like a backdrop.

Dan Attoe uses all kinds of space, hard to pin him down on one type of illusion.

I am looking for suggestions on how to broaden my understanding and come at this problem of pictorial space from as complete an understanding as I can. So, please, if you have any ideas, let me in on what you are thinking.

Images in post are from the Hubble telescope.

Idea Part Duex

So the idea I started to write about earlier, a manuscript that details the major concepts in image making rather than the two current main points of emphasis I find taught in most universities and colleges: narrative and you would think its polar opposite (but they are really unrelated) technique.

Neither narrative or technique focus on the main point of learning to be an image maker. They are tangential, and besides that they are confusing, and besides being confusing are often taught by ideologues! They exist in art too, not just politics!



But if you can teach someone how to create space, render form, and think in color without being didactic and resorting to recreating your techniques for them to learn then you have started someone on the path to being an image maker. Being an artist is up to them in my opinion, you have to lead the horse to water so to speak!

Idea

Teaching has given me an idea. What about a book that describes how a picture works. I have read a lot of how to draw books that talk about drawing in terms of techniques, but have not read any that discuss the abstract devices image makers use to construct illusions. If you understand the parts of the illusion like pictorial space, form, and color, technique becomes secondary. I think this may get more to the heart of the idea of learning how to draw and paint.

I will probably start writing it sometime this week. If you want an advance manuscript email me at donovan.bill@gmail.com