Home › Forums › Explore Subjects › Portraiture › What comes first when drawing a portrait?
- This topic has 29 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 5 months ago by gigih.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 22, 2004 at 3:59 am #984209
Ever since i was very young, i have been taught to draw the shape of the head first, then put the eye’s, nose ect…. I personally always start with drawing the eyes first, then the eye brow, the nose, lips, then i put in the shape of the head in relation to what i have down. i don’t ever have a problem with making the face too small or too big anymore. This system works for me now. Just wondering if anyone else went about the process similar to me, or the more traditional way.
-JPMay 22, 2004 at 8:39 am #1031379Hi: I usually get in the size and shape of the head as well as the angle. I do a loose drawing with the center line indicated then I angle the level lines of the eyes first, nose then mouth. After that, I begin on the eye on my right.
Don’t know what strict rules there may be, but this is how I’ve done it for 22 years.
JocelynMay 22, 2004 at 1:03 pm #1031386You have an interesting and unusual way of working, JP! But if it works for you, that’s all that matters. I always do a head outline first. After that, anything’s game: eyes, nose, mouth, in no special order.
I hope you will post some of your work here soon, I’d love to see it!
Eileen
If you hear a voice within you say "you cannot paint," then by all means paint, and that voice will be silenced.
~Vincent Van GoghMay 22, 2004 at 5:35 pm #1031381good one! I don’t really know what I do first……LOL…….ehhr……just a general outline of the head first and then start blocking in shapes and the location of the eyes, nose, mouth…….it is usually all wrong to begin with, but while I block in, draw, hatch, paint and overpaint it sort-of ‘finds’ its place……I suppose………err…….
May 22, 2004 at 5:38 pm #1031380Strange you should ask this question. For the past three weeks I have been taking a portrait drawing class. I spent most of each three-hour class starting with the head shape and then filling in the features.
However towards the end of last week’s class I decided to begin with the eye I usually ahve the most difficulty placing, and work fron there outwards. Surprise surprise, I ended up with my best drawing yet – the instructor came and also remarked that I had done much better with proportions and placement than I had before!
So… perhaps your method is not so unusual – I fully intend to try this again. In fact I have been applying the ‘start-from-the-centre-and-work-out’ technique to my paintings of flowers this week and they have all come out really well.
Any resemblance between my portraits and anyone living or dead is a miracle.
-------------------------------------------------
Critiques of my work are ALWAYS welcome.May 22, 2004 at 7:07 pm #1031399the reason why i alwasy start with the eyes is because, way back when when i started to do portraits, the relationships were always a little off. someone can always tell when the eyse are crooked or unproportional. Whenever i started with the shape of the head, i built the proportions accurately to the head, and the eyes would sometimes be a bit off form each other. the way i do it helps me because i get the eyes proportionate to eachother without any other distractions or things to worry about. but now that i think about it, i don’t use this method when i draw the figure. i would draw the shape of the head first before the eyes. why am i so crazy? ha….oh yeah, i’m an artist.
-JPMay 22, 2004 at 9:49 pm #1031387This could threaten an age old debate, IMO the egg comes first. At least a light outline of the head indicating a general size and placement -no details. I also loosely indicate substructuring and will go so far as to indicate eyeballs. The most glaring fault in portraiture is incorrect placement of the eyes in the sockets. Uusually one eye is the wrong size or too high but what seems overlooked is placing the eyeball at the wrong depth -more often too shallow. Unconsciously we know there is something wrong and it feels uncomfortable even if we cannot pin point the problem. There is an arc that they must fall on. The same holds true for all facial features, and body parts for that matter. Getting the skeletal structure right is more important than a likeness. A well-drawn figure or head shot is better than an unmistakable likeness drawn disproportionately and cockeyed. Eventually some artists need only imagine the substructuring and do not need to indicate it on paper but that takes years and even then you can be fooled. It is best to measure and remeasure until you have competed the work. You can still develop the eyes and work your way outward but most people need to think of the underlying structure in order to properly place each feature thereafter.
May 23, 2004 at 4:23 pm #1031382I havent stabilised on this one, yet, in that I seem to be moving from ‘eyes first’ to ‘draft first’ and back. The danger of ‘eyes first’ is to compromise proportions, while the danger of ‘draft first’, i.e. roughly putting everything in place and then woriking out the details, is to compromise likeness. I’ve been experimenting with ‘gesture first’, which seems to allow me to work on likeness early, but I’ve yet to conclude what works for me…
May 23, 2004 at 8:58 pm #1031388eezacque,
It is interesting that a substructured rough would prevent one from capturing a likeness. The substructure exists whether it is merely imagined or indicated with paint or pencil on the canvas. Knowing where to place features is in itself honoring the substructure. IOW, people commonly render the eyes as flat almond shapes. The eyes are actually spheres with folds of skin draping across as the lids. Knowledge of form, proportion and position are part of capturing a likeness.
A teacher demonstrated how easy it is to get a likeness once you have the basic form. She did a self-portrait, blindly, without looking in a mirror. She only relied on descriptive words and drew in generic versions of corresponding features. The result was a striking resemblance. What was also particularly appealing was the volumous form of the head. This wasn’t a typically flat faced awkward rendering. It was symetrically balanced and felt right with all of the features in the proper space.
I realize she was a skilled artist and we have some daily reinforcement as to what we look like if we spend any amount of time in front of a mirror. But she was using generic versions that were not directly duplicated by comparing them to her reflection, a model or photo. Even generic resemblances can produce a strong likeness and anatomical knowledge is more important to drawing.
Carl
May 24, 2004 at 3:51 am #1031383A teacher demonstrated how easy it is to get a likeness once you have the basic form.
I think this sounds easier than it actually is, as this ‘basic form’ relies on careful observation. I’m able to do self-portraits with relative ease, getting a relatively good likeness, indicating roughly this basic form with a few suggestive lines, because I know my own face so well. Doing other portraits is quite a struggle, where it is far from easy to pinpoint what went wrong, be it the shape of the head, the eyes, whatever…
May 24, 2004 at 6:21 am #1031389I think this sounds easier than it actually is, as this ‘basic form’ relies on careful observation….
I am not certain what you are saying here. The “basic form” I am referring to is a generic substructure comprised of ovals, rings and spherical line representations. That is standard and can eventually come entirely from repetition/memory. Customizing this basic form requires observation. An artist is miles ahead in the game when they realize the underlying structure of a head is elipsical and spherical with features located on certain planes. These are basic geometric shapes. A likeness can be achieved with a little adjusting of features once you have the form. A perfect likeness would require the greatest time and effort.
The demonstration could have utilized anyone’s characteristics, seen or unseen, described in words. She used herself to show that you do not need to see something to get a likeness. If she had used a student in the room it would have seemed like she had looked at the person in order to do the drawing. The ideal would have been to describe someone she had not seen then have that person come to the class after to compare with the drawing. That would have been too much trouble to arrange.
May 24, 2004 at 7:07 am #1031384I am not certain what you are saying here. The “basic form” I am referring to is a generic substructure comprised of ovals, rings and spherical line representations. That is standard and can eventually come entirely from repetition/memory. Customizing this basic form requires observation. An artist is miles ahead in the game when they realize the underlying structure of a head is elipsical and spherical with features located on certain planes. These are basic geometric shapes. A likeness can be achieved with a little adjusting of features once you have the form. A perfect likeness would require the greatest time and effort.
Let’s talk about generic basic form, my teacher calls it the canon, and specific basic form, i.e. the basic form tailored for a model. What I meant by ‘basic form’ earlier was the specific basic form. I agree that a likeness can be achieved by little adjustments, but the required adjustments are fragile and not easy to be found.
When I joined a course in portrait and model drawing/painting, I had real trouble in creating something ‘correctly human’, i.e. conforming to the generic basic form, Currently, I have enough experience in drawing and painting to create something human, and I get compliments for my paintings. However, I have big trouble in achieving a fine likeness, the best achievements so far show something vaguely familiar. Typically, my teacher comments ‘Nice portrait, but it’s not her’. I usually try to get away with ‘well, nowadays no one remembers how Vermeer’s girl with the pearl earring really looked like’, but it bugs me more and more that I still don’t get it.
One the other hand, I see a gradual improvement, I can only hope it is a matter of practice…
May 25, 2004 at 4:13 am #1031390Vermeer’s heads were not anatomically correct and were essentially eggs with an elongated pyramid for a nose.
There are rare moments when I feel electrified and suspended in a balanced state when what comes off the tool (pencil, charcoal, brush) almost draws itself. In this state of mind, I am able to see an overview with just the right attention to different details. It is delicate and I can jar myself out of it by concentrating too much. I must think of the underlying structure in order to render the 3-dimensional form. I am able to apply unique characteristics in the subject to the basic geometric structure I lightly indicate. These times are as good as creating gets as far as I experience. This is my best.
I spend a lot more time in a lesser state of mind producing results par for that course. I know I have those better experiences because I work through the lesser ones. There is a certain freedom and release after a struggle involved that contributes to the electricity. I think it is possible to go beyond that exhilaration and to achieve the heightened states of mind, more frequently, with less hoopla and with more of a sustained zen-like quality. I hope to get that good. It seems to be more of a matter of disciplined temperament than pure artistic skill. Lately I have had so many troubling distractions around me that my artwork has been fragmented and stunted. It is safe to say I am a better artist than an individual of disciplined temperament.
This is my interpretation. That said, I think there are points when we break through barriers. The wins open doors allowing growth and insight to flood in. These events are intermittent and vary in intensity. But they come. The rest of the time it is slow, steady and sometimes stalled growth. Sometimes just moving on to a different hurdle frees you up to finally understand what has been holding you back.
I started out describing what it is like when things are best so I could say what I do as I attempt to capture a likeness. I think of the underlying 3-dimensional forms. The unique features only take up maybe 25% of my energy. This is difficult to qualify of course. I constantly relate each feature to 3-dimensional forms so I can get acurate arcs and angles.
May 25, 2004 at 1:23 pm #1031398JP,
Looks like you started a very interesting thread here. I think everyone has made very valid points in their methods.
I couldn’t do it the way you do JP. If I don’t lightly and quickly lay in the overall head and basic features, I can’t seem to get my proportions correct nor do I wind up getting my portrait set up in an interesting fashion upon my drawing or painting surface.
Once I’ve quickly layed out the basics and adjusted to get the design right, I start working in the details, always adjusting and comparing to the subject to make sure I have relationships between features correct. Usually, I do work on the eyes in detail at this point once I’m satisfied I have the eyes correctly placed. I can make the minor adjustments needed as I work outward but usualy don’t have to do too much correcting because I’ve worked around the portrait lightly to solve problems beforehand.
Even then its important to me to step back and look at the overall portrait from a distance because its then you see subtleties that need to be addressed that are not apparent when you’re working up close.
I’m always adjusting and readjusting throughout the whole process until I think its finished. I usually get very positive results from those I’ve drawn or painted and usually they are very satisfied I’ve captured their likeness. This is due to all of the constant assessment I do of the relationships between features. When I get those correct, in any drawing or painting, the likeness seems to evolve.
I’ve had many a ruined drawing or painting because I tried different methods, only to have a head too close to an edge, or a hand I wanted in the painting run off the bottom. But if working from the eyes out works for you, I’m certainly not knocking it! Its diversity that makes things interesting.
Randy
May 25, 2004 at 1:39 pm #1031395It’s really interesting that you draw the eyes first because until recently that’s how I did it. I got frustrated with the likenesses when I would start with the head shape first so I would start with the features and build around them. I started realizing that not all heads are shaped exactly like that oval we’re taught to start with. Some people have wider faces, etc. Since I’ve been paying more attention to this I’m getting a better likeness when I start with the head but I don’t think the process is as important as the end result.
Kathy
Instagram
Facebook
www.kathyjurek.com
Awww, Honey, I've always liked your art. Your paintings look like the things they look like. ~ Homer Simpson -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Register For This Site
A password will be e-mailed to you.
Search