Contest Entry: How's this look to you?

[Lovelife090994]

This is a picture in charcoal, Angel of Death. also at deviantart at,
http://fav.me/d5ogsy1 under my devianart at
www.artboy-2.deviantart.com

http://th01.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2012/352/e/3/e35216cdba4efbad7386227292f8e4d7-d5ogsy1.png

[Lost in the Echo]

It looks really cool, it could use some improvement though ( no offense ).
Overall, I think it looks pretty good though.

[Lovelife090994]

It looks really cool, it could use some improvement though ( no offense ).
Overall, I think it looks pretty good though.

I know. I rushed... I had to finish it in 45mins for submission.

[darkwoon]

Ok, I'll be honest with you: wrong pose, wrong tool, wrong anatomy.

Ouch. Darkwoon is such a nasty guy. But hang on and let me briefly explain myself.

Wrong pose: Body language should underline the topic, the mood, the character. A grumpy old witch doesn't stand the same way as a brave young knight. Have a look at this picture of a vampire (http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/1600000/Bela-Lugosi-vampires-1694920-1900-2527.jpg) for example. Ok ok, it is old-fashioned and a bit ridiculous probably, but just by the silhouette, you could guess it was a kind of vampire.
Your picture represents the Angel of Death, so one would expect it to have a menacing, threatening pose. It is not the case here.

Wrong tool: Charcoal *can* be a good choice for such a subject, because it allows playing heavily with dark shades and light/dark oppositions. The problem is that you have used charcoal more like a regular pencil; there is not enough smoothness in your shades, and you aren't taking benefit of the deep dark values it gives you (you only use those for the hair).
Given the way you used values, I'm quite sure pencils would have been a better choice, as they'd have given you a crisper result without giving up the range of values you're using.

Wrong anatomy: There are basic anatomy mistakes in the drawing, both in proportions and shapes. If you want to draw skeletons that look like genuine skeletons, you simply can't ignore how real skeletons are built. This is also true for the Angel of Death herself: even if you draw humanoids that don't quite follow normal human blueprints, you still have to properly represent joints, curves, or bones.

Overall opinion: Even taking into account that your time to finish it was limited, this is still not convincing. I've had a look at your gallery, and I think that one of the main problem is that you aren't comfortable with the usual suspects: volumes, lightning, and the human figure.

My advice: drop imaginary subjects and digital drawing techniques aside for a while, pick a paper notebook and a pencil, and draw from life (people, objects, plants... doesn't matter).

[Lovelife090994]

Ok, I'll be honest with you: wrong pose, wrong tool, wrong anatomy.

Ouch. Darkwoon is such a nasty guy. But hang on and let me briefly explain myself.

Wrong pose: Body language should underline the topic, the mood, the character. A grumpy old witch doesn't stand the same way as a brave young knight. Have a look at this picture of a vampire (http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/1600000/Bela-Lugosi-vampires-1694920-1900-2527.jpg) for example. Ok ok, it is old-fashioned and a bit ridiculous probably, but just by the silhouette, you could guess it was a kind of vampire.
Your picture represents the Angel of Death, so one would expect it to have a menacing, threatening pose. It is not the case here.

Wrong tool: Charcoal *can* be a good choice for such a subject, because it allows playing heavily with dark shades and light/dark oppositions. The problem is that you have used charcoal more like a regular pencil; there is not enough smoothness in your shades, and you aren't taking benefit of the deep dark values it gives you (you only use those for the hair).
Given the way you used values, I'm quite sure pencils would have been a better choice, as they'd have given you a crisper result without giving up the range of values you're using.

Wrong anatomy: There are basic anatomy mistakes in the drawing, both in proportions and shapes. If you want to draw skeletons that look like genuine skeletons, you simply can't ignore how real skeletons are built. This is also true for the Angel of Death herself: even if you draw humanoids that don't quite follow normal human blueprints, you still have to properly represent joints, curves, or bones.

Overall opinion: Even taking into account that your time to finish it was limited, this is still not convincing. I've had a look at your gallery, and I think that one of the main problem is that you aren't comfortable with the usual suspects: volumes, lightning, and the human figure.

My advice: drop imaginary subjects and digital drawing techniques aside for a while, pick a paper notebook and a pencil, and draw from life (people, objects, plants... doesn't matter).

Thank you but I am not a realist. Your tips are critically accurate but n'est pas mon style d'accord?

[darkwoon]

Thank you but I am not a realist. Your tips are critically accurate but n'est pas mon style d'accord?
Well, I never said that you should aim for realism, n'est-ce-pas?

(damn, I think my answer will *again* be long... oh well...)

The point is that regardless of your drawing style, in 99% of the cases, what you want is:

a - to represent your subject in a way that seems right to the viewer;
b - to pass along an overall feeling, tone, sentiment;
c - to tell a visual story of some sort.

Point a) means that the viewer should not be disturbed by technical shortcomings or mistakes. It doesn't matter if the drawing is technically correct, as long as it appears correct to the viewer. That's why a drawing style like Calvin & Hobbes (http://blog.kerioberly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/calvin-and-hobbes-dancing-calvin-and-hobbes-1395521-1623-1200.jpg) works for a lot of readers - it is completely unrealistic and cartoonish, yet it looks "right" and fits the mood perfectly.

Point b) means that if you draw a frightening figure, the viewer should feel fear, or at least understand how fearful the figure is; if you draw a joyful lady, the audience should share that joy or, at least, understand that they are watching joy. This is not limited to living characters: draw a dark, rainy days on grey, empty streets of a polluted city, and I'm ready to bet a lot of viewers will read gloom and despair.

Point c) means that the viewer should understand what's happening, and figure out what the scene represents. Some context may of course be lacking (for example, the character names), but you should have at least a rough idea of what's going on. If I paint a ship captain posing in his map room, then the viewer should quickly understand that (s)he's watching a sailor surrounded by maps, and not a accountant or a detective.

Note that personal style is never touched upon in any of those - it is completely unrelated.

So, according to those points, what was my critique of your work? Shortly summarized:

- The technique used ("charcoal as regular pencil" and unorthodox anatomy) is detrimental to the viewing experience; it is immediately noticeable that "something doesn't work". It doesn't work in harmony with the picture as a whole. That's point (a) above;

- Partly because of technique, and partly because of the body language, the expected mood (gloom, darkness, evilness, etc) is not carried on; the image appears emotionless (good or bad ones). That's point (b);

- Again partly because of technique, partly because of the composition, it is not very obvious of what we're watching. Granted, we can guess it is a female demon, but what about the skeletons and the chains? Is she flying away, standing against us, attacking? We don't know, because the composition is confused and the body language unclear. Point (c) above.

Again, don't take me wrong - I take no pleasure in making what probably sounds very harsh and mean; I wouldn't spend time commenting work if I wasn't convinced the artist couldn't push his/her skills further and attempt improving them. You've got my honest answer to your initial question, that's all. I understand it is tempting to brush it aside saying it is "because of your style". Sure, feel free. My only hope is that before you do that, you ask yourself: "Am I really honest with myself?"

Regardless, never stop drawing! :D

[Skyline]

I really like it!!! Sure there are a few things that could be improved but it is really good overall.

[Lovelife090994]

Well, I never said that you should aim for realism, n'est-ce-pas?

(damn, I think my answer will *again* be long... oh well...)

The point is that regardless of your drawing style, in 99% of the cases, what you want is:

a - to represent your subject in a way that seems right to the viewer;
b - to pass along an overall feeling, tone, sentiment;
c - to tell a visual story of some sort.

Point a) means that the viewer should not be disturbed by technical shortcomings or mistakes. It doesn't matter if the drawing is technically correct, as long as it appears correct to the viewer. That's why a drawing style like Calvin & Hobbes (http://blog.kerioberly.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/calvin-and-hobbes-dancing-calvin-and-hobbes-1395521-1623-1200.jpg) works for a lot of readers - it is completely unrealistic and cartoonish, yet it looks "right" and fits the mood perfectly.

Point b) means that if you draw a frightening figure, the viewer should feel fear, or at least understand how fearful the figure is; if you draw a joyful lady, the audience should share that joy or, at least, understand that they are watching joy. This is not limited to living characters: draw a dark, rainy days on grey, empty streets of a polluted city, and I'm ready to bet a lot of viewers will read gloom and despair.

Point c) means that the viewer should understand what's happening, and figure out what the scene represents. Some context may of course be lacking (for example, the character names), but you should have at least a rough idea of what's going on. If I paint a ship captain posing in his map room, then the viewer should quickly understand that (s)he's watching a sailor surrounded by maps, and not a accountant or a detective.

Note that personal style is never touched upon in any of those - it is completely unrelated.

So, according to those points, what was my critique of your work? Shortly summarized:

- The technique used ("charcoal as regular pencil" and unorthodox anatomy) is detrimental to the viewing experience; it is immediately noticeable that "something doesn't work". It doesn't work in harmony with the picture as a whole. That's point (a) above;

- Partly because of technique, and partly because of the body language, the expected mood (gloom, darkness, evilness, etc) is not carried on; the image appears emotionless (good or bad ones). That's point (b);

- Again partly because of technique, partly because of the composition, it is not very obvious of what we're watching. Granted, we can guess it is a female demon, but what about the skeletons and the chains? Is she flying away, standing against us, attacking? We don't know, because the composition is confused and the body language unclear. Point (c) above.

Again, don't take me wrong - I take no pleasure in making what probably sounds very harsh and mean; I wouldn't spend time commenting work if I wasn't convinced the artist couldn't push his/her skills further and attempt improving them. You've got my honest answer to your initial question, that's all. I understand it is tempting to brush it aside saying it is "because of your style". Sure, feel free. My only hope is that before you do that, you ask yourself: "Am I really honest with myself?"

Regardless, never stop drawing! :D

D'accord Monsieur mais, until I learn what any of this is and how to use these techniques. You're speaking to a deaf ear. Sorry. Just truth.