HOME | DD
ziinyu — ABSTRACTION Basics - :Figure:
[NSFW]
Published: 2010-09-11 20:30:16 +0000 UTC; Views: 1771; Favourites: 18; Downloads: 18
Redirect to original
Description
ABSTRACTION : BasicsSubmitted to #contribution-box : 9/11-10
Used in [001 Figure - Technical Study]
The reference image used for the demonstrations is graciously provided by Marcus Ranum.
Photographer : `mjranum-stock (ranum.com )
Model : Amber Gangi
This tutorial shows three introductory abstraction techniques (with more to be added as suggested), as well as provides the foundations of the philosophy of abstraction.
1A : Philosophy
There is a definite division between the figure as seen and the figure as perceived. When we view a subject, we have to be able to interpret it so as to quickly understand, analyze, and react to it. This behavior is automatic, it has been learned over time so as to engage in the environment around us. In terms of communication it serves us well, but in terms of artistic representation, it harms us greatly.
For every element with which we come in contact (the human figure being the most common, and therefore most internally simplified) to supplement our sight we have an interpretation developed for it. We "know" what an eye or hand or a leg looks like, and this "knowledge" prevents us from really seeing it. We generalize elements, we have an understanding of the eye in a full view and a profile view, but nothing in between (even in those the form is greatly compromised). As a result, we allow ourself to interpret what we see (as initially, we have no reason not to) and instead of drawing an actuality, we draw a perception, we draw what we think the figure looks like. This form of drawing is most often referred to as "symbol drawing"
How do we get around this sight - interpretation - perception path, to make our work more accurate? There are a number of ways, some involve training the interpretation to recognize more than the basic symbols, while some work after perception to develop an observation relative to sight. Abstraction is a particularly strong method, as it actually uses interpretation (but of a different form) to remove symbols from the final perception.
Abstraction involves not looking at the forms by their function or identity (an "eye") but as a series of connected abstract shapes (a "ball, tapered at the edges, with the upper edge slightly more horizontal than the lower, curving gently around an internal spherical form and pushing outwards on the thickness of the surrounding material"). This does not mean simplification, it really means the discovery of shape as a representation of form. Instead of interpreting a "leg", find the shapes that compose it, find their lengths and relationships.
One of the most simple ways of abstracting the figure is just to look at the relationships between small pieces of it. Each element of the figure relates to the things around it, as well as to the figure as a whole. By using distinct lines, measurements, and angles, we can place the pieces of the figure correctly relative to each other, thus creating a framework for the final form.
1B : Practice
We will discuss three simple methods of abstraction, the first two using relationships to get the overall proportions of the figure correct, and the third teaching a new method of discovering relationships that isn't based on the figure itself, but on its relationship to the space around it.
Abstraction Techniques :
- Envelope
The envelope describes the most simple shape that could completely contain the figure, a geometric outline that surrounds the body or a grouped part of the body. Usually the least lines possible are used, defining the shape with three if possible, at most six (this is refined later, most commonly through some form of the "Block-In".
To start out, find the basic shape of the figure, imagine they are enshrouded in a tight cloth, what are the edges of this fabric? - How are they defined by the parts of the body, which forms jut out to hold in place the turns of the fabric? Think about this in a two dimensional sense, look at the projected figure, not the form with depth (at least initially). If the figure had no depth, was simply or a shape or silhouette, what would the most simple form of that silhouette be? Once the initial envelope is established, find interior envelopes, grouping parts of the body that stand out as being related in their spacial relationships. Do NOT group elements by their function, do not always envelope the legs separately from the arms and torso, group shapes based on what you see, on their visual locations.
For each envelope that you draw on the page, you should be able to picture it surrounding your figure, as well as the figure existing within it. Compare the physical lines as imagined on the model with the lines you have drawn. Do the shapes match? - Is your envelope to wide? - Does it have the correct rotation? Does it have the same balance? - If you found the center of your shape, would it be the same as the center of the shape on the figure?
Continuing and refining these envelopes on smaller and smaller forms is a method of "Blocking-In" the figure. - Point
The point method is very similar to the envelope method, but rather than being concerned with line, it is concerned with points. Each point that is drawn must physically exist somewhere on the figure, and with the placement of each point, it must be related to all surrounding points (usually this is simplified to a relation between two or three close points and one or two distant points, so that localization does not occur).
First place the four points that define the uppermost, lowermost, leftmost, and rightmost points of the figure. If you were to encase it in a rectangle aligned to the frame or your perspective, where would it intersect? (Notice that these are often the same points that define the outermost envelope.) This sets you up with the bounds of your figure, and allows you to position it on the page in a way that suits your desired composition. You have established the space in which your figure will occupy, and all further points will relate to this space. Next look for prominent points on the figure and position those.
To place each point find its relationship to surrounding points (also on the figure), then find those supporting points in your drawing, develop the same relationship. This will allow each point to be placed accurately. The following are a series of relationships to note :- Closest Points
How does the new point relate to the points nearest to it? - What angles does it form when connected to these points? - Existing Lines
Does your point lie on any lines connecting points you have already placed? - If so, how far along the line? - Halfway? - Twice the current distance? - Does it exist at the intersection of two lines? - Plumblines and Horizontals
If you were to drop a line straight down or across from your new point, how does it relate to existing points? - Is it to the left or right of their plumbline; above or below their horizontal? (This is especially useful to relate distant points on the figure.) - Midpoints
If you were to draw the vertical line between the horizontals of two points (say the highest and lowest point), what level would the midpoint be? - What would be above the midpoint and what would be below it? (The same goes for horizontal midpoints.)
- Closest Points
- Negative Space
Instead of drawing the positive space of the figure, draw the negative space around it. This makes abstraction much easier, as we cannot recognize the form of negative space, only its shape. Often the negative space is also more compressed (such as the space between extended elements, such as the appendages of the figure), allowing easier relationships to be made.
Usually this mentality cannot be applied on its own without an underlying structure, it is often connected with an envelope or a point foundation.
---
Still to come on this are some quotes from Betty Edwards and Anthony Ryder, as well as some alternate methods, a little more philosophy, and guidance for extended abstraction.
Related content
Comments: 7
Oh, Edwards, Ryder, atelier point system... I must say, this all is not very exciting to me. I disagree with the statement of "just draw what you see", since that will never ever make an artist. Look at the example drawings in the Betty Edwards book, they never go past a certain point... real knowledge beats illusion tricks. Look at Ryder's work - overtly soft, and very limited in expression... Yes, I suppose a lot of people find that very beautiful to look at, but even they will be able to tell a Ryder from a Michelangelo, and most likely appreciate the latter more. And not just because of the reputation of the latter, but becaus he makes a statement with every of his figures. His drawings show the artist's knowledge and wisdom and aesthetic eye... they feed our souls with so much more content than Ryder's works.
Yes, these techniques are valid as exercise, but they are more curiosities, to refreshen up your eyes, than something you would implement to your work. Why do I say this? Because, in fact, they take a whole lot of effort, even if presented as quick fixes to seeing better. You will be able to get contours right, but getting widths... nearly always fails. I spent a year studying at an atelier, where they pretty much use the point (or more advanced students an advanced envelope technique, but always block in from the contour in) and ALWAYS did we struggle getting the inside wights of the contour right. The human eye is quite poor at judging distances, so the smaller you make them, the easier it is to draw correctly (center line drawing vs contour). So in fact, the envelope method is extremely difficult. And your tutorial example only proves my point, I am afraid. Distances will easily go wrong, when starting from the biggest possible ones. And once you have something wrong, it will be extremely hard to get it fixed, as our eye wants to believe the mark we made on the paper is the right one.
Not saying that one should start from the toes and draw to bigger masses from there, I am just surprised how the fantastic thought of the center line is dropped so fast. You pressed it with the critiques on the gestures, why is it now gone? It is a more efficient tool imo for getting general things right, as you can easily express placement and motion with it, and also - the distances you will have to measure are much smaller. A person is more likely to get the distance from the center line to the left side and then the right side of the torso correct more easily than the width of the torso alone.
OK, would say these work as extreme problem solvers, but not as foundations... Envelopes will be good for deciding composition, comparing points is good when checking that everything lines up as it is supposed to, checking negative shapes when something looks off but you cant quite get what... But as a starting point to drawing, just seems lifeless and stiff.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
(My oh my, unintentional anaphora, I suppose that happens when you write something a few pieces at a time, please forgive the repeated "Right now".)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Right now my goal is to immerse people in as many techniques as possible, and then further discuss merits of each (which we've started, so well done on that note 
To each his own with techniques, there is no right or wrong, and each individually can only take you so far. The direction of this class is not focused on finding the "correct" way to draw the figure, it is rather focused on developing a repertoire of techniques so that each participant can determine what works and what doesn't for them. I love finding new techniques, combining them, developing them, and testing their limits, and I'm trying to get people engaged enough in the philosophy and methodology of creating art to think before creating.
My personal thoughts on these methods? Abstraction works wonders, and as a designer I am irreparably drawn to it. Thinking of the figure as a series of shapes and their relationships is beautiful, it allows the artist to use their own interpretation against itself. That being said, abstraction alone, will always create a projected figure, it is ingrained within the method. It starts out looking at the figure on a projected plane, and never leaves that point, despite any added value or form. Anatomical knowledge, and drawing from life are the only ways to grow an understanding of the figure divine enough to get the structure and depth in a figure. Even with vastly superior anatomical knowledge however, there is always a simple foundation to a drawing, everything starts basic, before it goes detailed, and abstraction provides an efficient means of creating that foundation.
I use the point system as a foundation, and framework (and I'm horribly disappointed that the contour in this one turned out so terrible - I keep relating the primary points to the edges more readily than to the figure, but I'm working on it), after which I lay on the gesture, and lastly go into contour. The envelope method I strongly dislike, it creates an immediate rigidity to form, as for it to work all lines must be straight. This is why I choose the point method, the lines implied can follow any curvature, not the distinct geometric structure developed in the envelope. It does say a lot for developing visual hierarchies if taken beyond its initial stages. The negative space drawing can never hold on its own, but as a method of comparing overall shapes it does wonders (the same as a silhouette would, but with more focus on abstraction).
As far as widths, I have to disagree. One of the only ways of checking widths correctly is relative to each other, a method of abstract measurement. Getting the widths correct is getting the shape correct, it is not an outline, it is the entire essence of the internal elements of a form. It sounds like you are equating shape and the outline of the shape as representing the same thing and being understood in the same way by the mind. They are DISTINCTLY different entities.
In this class we will be throwing ourselves from one extreme to another, going from pure gestural drawing to pure abstraction, and then jumping into only contour (not even hidden contour, staying on the surface), with some derivations into simple structural shapes, and skeletal structures. We are trying to see as much of the spectrum of technique as possible, and to that end we are reaching to the bounds of it, not the tertiaries (color theory vocabulary, why now? -_-), not yet at least. The last week or two will be free exploration for the participants. They take the techniques they liked best or were most interested in and develop their own methods of using them. Whether this is a focus on something not present in class, application of technique to a different structure or mentality, combination of multiple techniques, or some other derivation, this will be the time for individual exploration. This is what the class is building up towards, but we need to develop the vocabulary of technique first.
(We won't even talk about Betty Edwards. I was so disappointed after reading her introduction - which has some great philosophy - to go into her technique. In her first chapter she is already dividing the face into thirds, the hypocrisy!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think in my heavy allergy towards this sort of mathematical approach, I have forgotten that this is supposed to be an introductory course to figure - following that everything has to be separated for the sake of clarity, even if the intention is not to make them appear as separate techniques. 
I guess the allergy reaction is also partially to just how early these things are represented, and how that gives them so much emphasis. It feels as if there are more basic approaches that could have been taken first. These are very abstract concepts, especially when used as the very starting point of a drawing.
Furthermore, to me it actually feels that opposed to variety there is a lot of emphasis on the contour, or outside in ways of starting, but that might not be true, as I dont know the contents of the future assignments.
I think there is a misunderstanding as to the widths comment (either that or I just simply can't understand what you are saying... as I agree with this statement "One of the only ways of checking widths correctly is relative to each other", but then kid of lose the thought)... I merely meant that judging a longer distance is harder than judging a smaller distance. When you consider the center line early on (which is a form of the inside out approach), due to the symmetry of the human body, you can check, not only if the waist is as wide as it should be compared to the size of the head, but also can readily compare whether the right half of the torso is symmetrical to the left side. When relying more on the outside contour and only getting to inside contours very late (as is in the envelope method and in what is most often called a block-in method too*) it is harder to see relationships as they are so big and so abstract.
Maybe this is a matter of us using the same words differently, I am not sure. Bahh, thinking more abstract thoughts in a foreign language is so difficult!
*the Reilly method or the Russian approach to block-in, for example, are of course wastly different from the atelier one and not much to do with outside contours, but I think that the latter one is the one that is most closely associated with the word "block-in".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm trying hard to keep a balance, but of course I am swayed based on the teachings I have received. The goal was to get people involved enough to start the development of lesson plans on an open ended format. Since that seems to be happening a bit earlier than expected, I'd like to get your input on the matter.
Right now, we are looking at going into the block-in primarily in taking simplified external forms closer to their final forms (an extended envelope) as a form of working outside in. Going from the inside out, we are working through gesture and then anatomical forms (physically from the inside out). I'm exploring a few versions of simplification, the first being a spine supplemented with boxy shapes for the primary forms, the second being more fluid rounded masses (based on the actual internal structure), the third being a very mechanical structuring focusing on first simplifying the skeletal structure and then placing triangular shapes as muscles and forms. If you are comfortable with Reilly, I think that would fit well as a form of simplification, I like how it has effects of centerlines being drawn through the entire body (with an unfortunate disconnect from the arms), and I might ask you to develop some structure for teaching it. We might spend two weeks on simplifications, so that we can get into some of the designed exaggerations, and more dynamic ways of interpreting reference.
Aside from those we will be doing some of the basic contour exercises (parallel contours, directional contours, a deconstruction of the outline, and if I can convince myself of their validity, some blind-contours). We will do some exercises in the use of tonality as well, some pure tone studies, some hatching technique exercises, development of a palette (from two tone to a full rendering) - to get a feel for using rates of gradation to indicate form (too frequently people either only render soft edges or hard lines, but never use both selectively).
The only techniques I am openly omitting from these studies are those focusing on idealism. We will not be doing anything standardizing the proportions of the figure, none of Loomis' technique, none of Edwards' simplifications, and nothing of that form. For the sake of time we won't be going any further than negative space into figure ground relationships. We won't be doing compositional studies, or color, style, texture, or moving figure studies, just because I want to keep the focus on the figure itself.
So, this is mostly based on what I've been gathering from the figure instructors in the area, various texts that have been suggested, and my own personal methods.
If you have the time, I'd like you to take a look at the course outline (for the rest of the weeks), and suggest some alternates for each as well as maybe one or two weeks of distinctly different techniques you would add. Once we get a curriculum outline worked out, we can debate a bit and talk about demonstrations and philosophies. For gesture I didn't want to cause too much confusion (beyond throwing people out of their comfort zone), so we stuck to standard action gestures, and didn't do any of the alternates. I'd like to get a week in somewhere to really explore the options provided by the gestural approach. The mentality I have for future lesson plans involves grouping a few like techniques under a heading (as I have done with these for abstraction), and I'd love your help developing these selections.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry for taking so long with replying, school has been keeping me very busy lately...
Working through gesture sounds good. Especially since it continues the thinking of the gesture, that in my opinion a lot people could go crazier with (myself included, of course 
(Getting the freedom BACK is mighty mighty hard, I can tell that much...)
With anatomy, I think the placement of the topic is a bit dangerous. Anatomical understanding is often considered to be something fancy, something extra to deepen your knowledge... To tell you what those humps and bumbs that you see are. But rather, it IS the figure. The skeletal structure dictates the shape of everything, not just pops out at certain points. It is about big shapes (what kind of shape the rib cage gives the chest, how the direction of the bones in the limbs make them look the way they are and so on and so on), and I guess having it last makes it seem... something extra. Something less necessary.
I think I will go and support the third method to approach anatomy the most, as the tricky about having either boxy or more fluid shapes is that the body is not exclusively either. It is a combinaton of both more boxy features and then more round ones... Harsh boxes dont really represent much anything, the rib cage is more of a (slightly cut) egg and the understanding of the real form of the hip bone is important because you can see certain points of it so readily on the figure. Boxes are good for understanding which way things are faced, basic relationships of the skeletal structure, and in very simple terms trying to understand that there is form on the body, but... not venturing a bit further than just very crude forms, seems a bit... hmm, I guess... not effective? But at the same time keeping it simple, even to the point of being very methodical, or mechanical about it.
Not really getting the triangular forms as muscles and forms bit tho. Triangular? How does that work?
Sorry, not that familiar with Reilly. It just was an example that came to my mind of a block-in that uses inside forms and relating thing on the inside. My obsession with form comes from having been priviledged enough to study a bit with some Russian teachers. If I ever win in the lottery tho, I will be heading for the Watts atelier (where, as far is my understanding, they teach in the spirit of Reilly) in a heartbeat!
The tricky part is, that there is still quite little, it feels, thinking about the form. Of course that is very hard to do when working from a photo as there is none to be seen... but since you stress the importance of working from a life model, it seems odd that there seems to be very little importance given to the one feature the real model so well represents - form! Only one week where it seems to be of importance, and even then a view on it that tends to be a bit imaginative. Feeling form is more related to understanding the understructure than making up vague (as for example the ever famous wooden mannequin) shapes to represent it. I am at loss to exactly how to explain how to... explain it, I guess. I willmake Kevin Chen's anatomical sketches an example as using my fav, Bammes, is too difficult... I don't know if you are familiar with Chen or, not, but here are some of his demos on figure drawing [link] (warning, veary heavy image load)... Very good in form. This is of course due to very thorough understanding of anatomy and the form itself, but the some of the ways to exaggerate it are quite simple. Leaving the shadow side to have less information, exaggerating the shade where ever the form turns (this will make one think of where exactly a form turns and also it represents reflections that also help with the form), shadow being darker where it is closer to the light source... so on and so on. Doing things like this you really have to think about what is where and what shape things are. Form is naturally more difficult to understand than the 2d shape, but it is very important for studying to at least try to think and understand, especially for a person who wants to draw figures from memory.
(doing fine art pieces is of course a completely different matter..)
Tone souds great. Lol, I am gonna need that so bad, especially the hatching... thanks again atelier training and bargue copies, now I struggle to get away from that style of rendering, even tho I have always hated it. Guh!
Sorry, I ramble a bit... I have never had to really think about this stuff and my current opinions of approaching figure drawing... tricky tricky.
A bit short on time right now, and probably in the coming weeks too (ehh, travelling to New York all of a sudden, we shall see if I can keep up with the assignments... especially since the deadline is midnight Saturday, that is sooo mean! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0