How quick and rough can a maquette be and still provide useful lighting information?
You can see those two sources reflected in the eyeball, both in the maquette and the final painting.
I was looking for how the two sources would interact with the form. I didn't choose to follow the reference exactly -- I didn't bring the edge light as far into the form.
A maquette like this is not a keeper. The clay goes back into the primordial mud for next time.
------
More on maquettes in Imaginative Realism. (Amazon
) (signed from my store)The painting is from Dinotopia: Journey to Chandara (Amazon
) or (signed from my store)
5 comments:
I've stared at this painting in your book. Did you use emus as reference for the feathers? The oviraptors even have emu eyelashes and it makes them SO cute.
James,
I'd have been so entranced by the warm under the chin coloring and reflective quality I probably would have insisted on incorporating it - your image is much better without it.
Maquettes make so much sense. I just wish I'd been told about building them when I was working on my BFA. I'd make a bunch of sketches about that I thought the lighting would do but it's not a substitute solution. An hour with clay would have been much faster and more accurate, plus allowing one to explore different angles and lighting options.
I keep telling my students that this approach is time well spent. The few that actually do it are always surprised how easy it is and how great the results are. I am not.
How much clay did it take to make the model?
Post a Comment