HOME | DD

Description
In trying to figure out what I'm doing differently from previous methodical approaches (e.g., what I'm doing that's un-methodical), I became aware that I'm now making "illogical" connections. For example, instead of following out the line of a limb from proximal to distal part with reference to the trunk, I may instead draw just part of the body part, and with no regard to which way the line flows. I mention this because once I became aware of it I found it jarring, because it seems to interfere with a basic "felt sense" of the pose. This new way of drawing the pose seems also to include a new way of "not feeling" the pose, a way that substitutes visual design for the felt sense, or, if not entirely substituting it, then temporarily switching it off in order to work in the abstract relations. The best way I can explain it is with reference to how I once saw Joe Kubert execute a drawing, which he did without any evidence of using a "felt sence." He put his pencil to the paper and ripped out a pose of Hawkman that started from an unlikely place, like a fingertip, and progressed straight across the page to, say a heel. I don't recall exactly, but the impression made me think of how a printer works, not by following the logic of the anatomy, but by relating abstract lines. The sense I have is that I can "jump" the tracks, as it were, so that when drawing an arm that passes close to a leg position, I can jump from the arm line to draw the leg, and so on, jumping from one position to another without much conceptual or perceptual confusion. This seems to be a development from the method of drawing abstract shapes, as one uses for addressing foreshortening. It seems to be a synthesis of the felt sense/kinesthetic method of the Florentine School, with the purely visual measuring method of assessing relationships in two dimensions. It's as if one is able to hold a strong concept of the pose as a whole so that he can "see" the parts virtually projected in imagination, such that he can lift his pencil from one place and touch any part at any other place, and do it accurately. The experience is reminiscent of drawing by holding an afterimage. No afterimage is involved, however, so it's strange how one can "jump the tracks" like this and not mess up badly.

Description
In trying to figure out what I'm doing differently from previous methodical approaches (e.g., what I'm doing that's un-methodical), I became aware that I'm now making "illogical" connections. For example, instead of following out the line of a limb from proximal to distal part with reference to the trunk, I may instead draw just part of the body part, and with no regard to which way the line flows. I mention this because once I became aware of it I found it jarring, because it seems to interfere with a basic "felt sense" of the pose. This new way of drawing the pose seems also to include a new way of "not feeling" the pose, a way that substitutes visual design for the felt sense, or, if not entirely substituting it, then temporarily switching it off in order to work in the abstract relations. The best way I can explain it is with reference to how I once saw Joe Kubert execute a drawing, which he did without any evidence of using a "felt sence." He put his pencil to the paper and ripped out a pose of Hawkman that started from an unlikely place, like a fingertip, and progressed straight across the page to, say a heel. I don't recall exactly, but the impression made me think of how a printer works, not by following the logic of the anatomy, but by relating abstract lines. The sense I have is that I can "jump" the tracks, as it were, so that when drawing an arm that passes close to a leg position, I can jump from the arm line to draw the leg, and so on, jumping from one position to another without much conceptual or perceptual confusion. This seems to be a development from the method of drawing abstract shapes, as one uses for addressing foreshortening. It seems to be a synthesis of the felt sense/kinesthetic method of the Florentine School, with the purely visual measuring method of assessing relationships in two dimensions. It's as if one is able to hold a strong concept of the pose as a whole so that he can "see" the parts virtually projected in imagination, such that he can lift his pencil from one place and touch any part at any other place, and do it accurately. The experience is reminiscent of drawing by holding an afterimage. No afterimage is involved, however, so it's strange how one can "jump the tracks" like this and not mess up badly.