Friday, June 11, 2010

06.11.10 DHohn

That James Gurney really knows what he's talking about


  1. Yeah, that book is awesome. He really has great ideas in that book.

  2. nice! cheek on the short side should be in half tone, not shadow though. It would be a value or two lighter

  3. Good eye! But that's what you get when you work in a medium that doesn't allow for a lot of push and pull. It is definitely worth doing a purely technical exercise like this so that the successes (and errors) are at the top of your mind when doing a real project.

  4. hmmm, i see what you mean, but I'm not sure I agree with it.

    Could doing a purely technical exercise lead to over modeling (or overdrawing) an image that doesn't need it due to fact that technique in your brain at the time (and the fact that you do it well). It seems the more technique that's involved (more information shown in the image) the less mystery the image has. What do you think?

    How bout' an exercise that tests how little (in terms of mark making) you need to communicate an idea effectively? does that sound crazy? not even sure what I'm talking about : )

  5. wait, just thought of a better way of saying it:

    The exercise shouldn't be about how to draw better technically, but should be how to interpret more interestingly.

  6. Sure, whatever phrasing allows you to "get it".

    I think we're probably saying the same thing -- or at least dedicated to the same result. The decision to include or omit information (in this case the way light casts over form) should be a result of mastery of information rather than ignorance of it.