tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post8473456450815747061..comments2024-03-18T07:23:32.809-04:00Comments on Gurney Journey: Discussion: Convex lines and the figureJames Gurneyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01870848001990898499noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-48794496821521993532013-02-13T20:58:57.600-05:002013-02-13T20:58:57.600-05:00In my hobbies of tabletop wargaming, and miniature...In my hobbies of tabletop wargaming, and miniature figure sculpting for the same, I often see new hobby sculptors pick up the wax carvers and epoxy putty and sculpt figures of almost all convex contours. They Do Not Look Good.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-52339020839865836722013-01-29T22:47:01.180-05:002013-01-29T22:47:01.180-05:00I just got back from a life drawing session in whi...I just got back from a life drawing session in which I tried to keep the convex outline idea in mind. It did allow me to see certain situations in which a line, at first glance concave, turned out to be composed of little convexities riding on it like signals on a carrier wave. By the same token, I saw ostensibly bulgy contours whose underlying armature was clearly concave. It seemed to me that my job as an artist was to emphasize one or the other in service of expressing the spirit of the overall pose.mdmattinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18215455490958117703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-79126457455410343922013-01-29T15:25:22.997-05:002013-01-29T15:25:22.997-05:00What an interesting discussion here! I loved readi...What an interesting discussion here! I loved reading all the points, pro and con.<br /><br />However, the idea that the figure should be represented with only convex forms seems absurd to me.<br /><br />Some of the loveliest curves on the human body are concave. To use only convex forms, one would need to draw the small of the back, those little valleys on either side of the nose next to the eyes, the palm of the hand, a slender waist, the neckline running to the shoulders, the curve of the armpit (and many other valleys of the human form too numerous to mention) as straight lines.<br /><br />Craig Banholzer mentions the "sack of walnuts", which made me chuckle. Marvelous description.<br /><br />Tom Hart, BTW, that little indentation on the upper lip you mentioned is the philtrum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philtrum<br /><br />Carlson is obviously a great teacher more knowledgeable than I, but I see concave forms in the landscape too, although convex shapes and flat planes are much more abundant. For example, there are a number of mountains in our area with natural bowl features. And our pond sits in a small valley and fills up only part of that natural concave form.Diana Moses Botkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06254521493118166524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-13485131004425771192013-01-29T10:08:28.734-05:002013-01-29T10:08:28.734-05:00Seems to me that what you are discussing is the fi...Seems to me that what you are discussing is the figure as a positive form, in islolation.The figure (or anything else) will not exist entirely on its own, it will be part of a context. I'm thinking that the convex curve of the negative space definitely has its reason for existing. What is convex one one side is concave on the other side of the (implied) line. The rhythm or flow of curves is part of what makes the 'music' of the visual arts.<br /><br />The inside of the cupped hand made with convex curves definitely works, but then thogether they are a series of shorter curves which together form sort of a 'meta curve' which is concave. Vexing thought. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-52318298461691483812013-01-28T19:35:48.976-05:002013-01-28T19:35:48.976-05:00It's largely a psychologically conditioned aes...It's largely a psychologically conditioned aesthetic response (of course a great deal of aesthetics is in fact conditioned). If you accept it on authority and internalize it, then concavities will seem wrong when you encounter examples. Just like the compositional rule, "a line should never lead into the corner of a canvas", of which there are thousands of examples by the old masters that "break" the "rule".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-13750816555226729312013-01-28T18:38:20.717-05:002013-01-28T18:38:20.717-05:00Information theory is not aesthetics, or anatomy, ...Information theory is not aesthetics, or anatomy, and I would argue that Rubens or Pontormo's contours convey more information than Cornwell's<br /><br />"Sometimes the convex forms need a little extra emphasis to create the illusion of three dimensional form on a 2-D page."<br /><br />Couldn't agree more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-24865040128264517322013-01-28T17:10:30.995-05:002013-01-28T17:10:30.995-05:00Mr Fowkes,
1) Huge admirer.
2) I couldn't ag...Mr Fowkes,<br /><br />1) Huge admirer.<br /><br />2) I couldn't agree more. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01669844146094732135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-76312919952601713102013-01-28T16:32:18.359-05:002013-01-28T16:32:18.359-05:00Yes, it would be really bad to have a rule that it...Yes, it would be really bad to have a rule that it should be either way but I find that beginning students frequently use 1 concave line for a form that is really made up of overlapping convex shapes. The result badly hurts the sense of form.<br /><br /><br />Sometimes the convex forms need a little extra emphasis to create the illusion of three dimensional form on a 2-D page. Nathan Fowkeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07655333943075965232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-34440384130731393242013-01-28T16:10:13.779-05:002013-01-28T16:10:13.779-05:00I hope I am not being out of line by posting a lin...I hope I am not being out of line by posting a link to an image on another blog. If so please let me know.<br /><br />Here is another example by the great Cornwell. Mostly convexities, but where thrust and action are needed (stretched side of the abdomen or foreshortened forearm holding the handle) a concavity is used.<br /><br />links below<br /><br />http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M0OdHLEQPTM/Tf0I26ANlpI/AAAAAAAAAtY/S43EfgwRrkQ/s1600/Cornwall+drawings+002.jpg<br /><br />http://www.artvalue.com/photos/auction/0/47/47894/cornwell-dean-1892-1960-usa-boy-with-a-jug-mural-study-2568314.jpgAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01669844146094732135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-2389449747889664912013-01-28T16:03:28.672-05:002013-01-28T16:03:28.672-05:00Sorry about that. Didn't mean to delete. Her...Sorry about that. Didn't mean to delete. Here's my post again...<br /><br />Tony Ryder discussed this in his figure drawing book and I have also heard this as well from others. In the end I believe that it is a great tool\rule for perception but not maybe the best tool for interpretation (although helpful). When I think of concavities on the human form I think of death and sickness, for example bedsores. It is ultimately this effect that we should want to avoid, unless of course this is our intention. If the artist\viewer is aware that a concavity consists of multiple convexities at a junction point (e.g. thinking of the depression over the top of the greater trochanter or the jugular notch) then the decision to interpret it as a concavity versus a series of convexities becomes an issue of beauty and intention. One would assume that a knowledgeable and trained artist would choose the best mark to indicate the turning of the form, regardless of rules.<br /><br />All in all I like the rule if only to help train our perception of form across the surface of the human body. But like all rules in art it should be held to a far greater rule and that is "if it looks wrong or ugly then another better and\or more beautiful solution should be found."<br /><br />Edit...<br />Raphael's ink drawing of David is (I believe) a fun example of this rule at work. the exterior consists mostly convexities with a lovely sweeping concavity on the lower leg. And what about those interior marks indicating both form and value? Are they convexities or concavities? I could make an argument either way.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01669844146094732135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-16748452974166071502013-01-28T15:59:15.731-05:002013-01-28T15:59:15.731-05:00I just started taking life-drawing classes last we...I just started taking life-drawing classes last week and in my first class my teacher instructed me to draw only convex lines. I believe he also said there are no concave lines in the human form and concave forms are created only by the joining of two convex lines. I thought about this for about a half a second and immediately incorporated it into my drawing. First, it simplified my thinking and in my first life drawing class simplification was a blessing. Second, it made me think about the forms underneath the skin, the bones and muscles, pushing themselves out to define the form. For now I’ll be using this idea as I draw; in six months things could be different.New Kidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13497508517039129236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-1321809163235663612013-01-28T15:50:22.053-05:002013-01-28T15:50:22.053-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01669844146094732135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-57405816835107685182013-01-28T13:07:39.957-05:002013-01-28T13:07:39.957-05:00From the point of view of information theory, this...From the point of view of information theory, this idea is directly contradicted: concavity conveys more information about underlying structure than convexity:<br /><br />Feldman J, Singh M. Information Along Contours and Object Boundaries. Psychological Review, Vol 112(1), Jan 2005, 243-252. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.243<br /><br />(this is a math and information-theory heavy proof of the notion that for arbitrary enclosed forms, concavity carries more information about the enclosed shape than convexity.)<br /><br />More practically: on the face of it, its seems absurd to argue about it, since both are clearly necessary; apart from a perfect circle, convexity requires adjoining concavity to even be distinguished.Nick Woolridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03444692746249047662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-88826116723821480122013-01-28T13:02:34.071-05:002013-01-28T13:02:34.071-05:00I find concave and straight contours on the figure...I find concave and straight contours on the figure unsightly and don't well represent organic, three dimensional form. There is no contour -even the examples cited in these comments- on the body that can't be represented with a degree of convexity or series of convexities, with the added benefit of fullness and supple strength.<br /><br />Even in animation, I associate the superior work of folks like Bob Clampett, Chuck Jones, John Kricfalusi, early Disney, with convex, organic forms, although straight and concave lines were used liberally. I would go as far to say that the quality of draftsmanship at Disney, and animation in general, suffered a drop off when the balance shifted towards straight and concave contour lines. How many times since have seen features that sit flat on the face, instead of wrapping around the larger form of the head, in films like Treasure Planet and Pocahontas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-6000609397245780522013-01-28T13:00:49.718-05:002013-01-28T13:00:49.718-05:00Chris, great point, to which I would add: Bill Tyt...Chris, great point, to which I would add: Bill Tytla.<br /><br />Everybody, I just want you to know how much I'm appreciating ALL your comments, and they're coming from some awesome talents and great teachers. Excuse me for not responding to each point. I realize I sort of manufactured the argument for the sake of discussion, but I'm coming away with a lot of fresh thoughts that hadn't occurred to me before. Also, I appreciate all the links, which have led me to some new artists and new understandings.James Gurneyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01870848001990898499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-32042351201698634772013-01-28T12:51:42.010-05:002013-01-28T12:51:42.010-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-87943552388010561482013-01-28T11:21:51.376-05:002013-01-28T11:21:51.376-05:00James -
Absolutely. On a drawing level, I definite...James -<br />Absolutely. On a drawing level, I definitely agree that most shapes we see on the body are convex. But that doesn`t mean that we should totally discount concave[and definitely straight] lines as well.<br /><br />Certain areas can best be abbreviated with concave lines, and sometimes by using concave lines, we inadvertantly emphasis the convex nature of other lines!zishenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13700489779539934756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-56186631544833269742013-01-28T11:00:40.228-05:002013-01-28T11:00:40.228-05:00An example of what happens when you follow the &qu...An example of what happens when you follow the "convex rule" to its limit is the kind of drawing you saw in Italy in the late 16th Century, which gave us the famous "sack of walnuts" look. Although these drawings are beautiful and distinctive, they are not as lifelike as drawings that account for the real variety of human form, which definitely does, sometimes, include concave lines. Craig Banholzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16958933400558297331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-91460171081749926222013-01-28T05:27:13.655-05:002013-01-28T05:27:13.655-05:00While I agree with the general consensus of this d...While I agree with the general consensus of this discussion, i.e. that the use of convex or concave curves depends on artistic intent, and that rules in art can be nothing more than guidelines, my pedantic nature compels me to illustrate the core of this rule, since I think a few people here might have misunderstood it.<br /><br />The sentence "the only right way to draw a figure is using only convex lines" is obviously false. A better thing to say would be "the human figure is generally made up of convex forms" and then leave the representation of those forms in line up to the individual artist.<br />Let me <a href="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/real_Serpian/concave4_zpsf9e83f92.jpg" rel="nofollow">illustrate.</a>David Stillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06788583610600014354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-445959094708505382013-01-27T23:03:03.951-05:002013-01-27T23:03:03.951-05:00You gotta love these hard and fast rules. It's...You gotta love these hard and fast rules. It's like the one about how no highlight value in a painting should also appear in the shadow set of values - oh, except in snowscapes, or seascapes or various other situations including shadows on pale very objects with highlights on very dark objects.<br /><br />Nice guideline but no need to be fundamentalist about it. (I use the straight line method, these days, by the way)Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08026511553591079915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-73129581843237578372013-01-27T19:15:20.213-05:002013-01-27T19:15:20.213-05:00I notice many, many concave edges or contours - ma...I notice many, many concave edges or contours - mainly in areas of transition. Larger masses tend to be convex but connected by short concave "bridges". Forearm to hand transition and the hand itself is full of concave contour. Holding up my right hand I notice the outer edge of my thumb is dominated by three long concave contours, as is its gesture. I've also noticed over the years that exterior concave contour tends to overlap into interior concave transition - much the way cast shadow transitions to form shadow. Jeff Fennel https://www.blogger.com/profile/11030735191483940332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-75448772319221305812013-01-27T17:17:51.211-05:002013-01-27T17:17:51.211-05:00Generally, I think art rules are a bad thing - bec...Generally, I think art rules are a bad thing - because there are almost always exceptions. Maybe I'm not understanding the convex and concave thing, but there seem to be concave lines in the neck and in the waist. And in the line going from calf, through the ankle to the heel. <br /><br />The biggest problem with rules, however, is that they keep artists from actually observing. <br /><br />That being said, I think that the biggest problem that I see when looking at beginning artist's paintings and drawings of the figure, is that there are far too many straight lines. When I taught an online figure class a few years ago, I tried to stress that almost all the lines in a figure are curved. I had a few photo references and highlighted the curves in some places - they almost looked wrong they were curved so much! (I'm not talking about the obvious female curves, either!) So, rather than stress convex, I would just stress curves and roundness. Same with the head. In my experience (not that I have ever done a survey), very few people have planes on the head, either. Heads are much more rounded and egg shaped, in my opinion. Creating planes, especially in the forehead, temple, side of the head area might be a good teaching tool to emphasize that these areas are receiving differing amounts of light, but if they retain the harder edges of planes coming together it always looks a bit amateurish to me. That's just my opinion, obviously, but again I would stress curves rather than planes or straight lines when it comes to the human form.Don Ketchekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17292878945237514865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-62880065063874666662013-01-27T16:19:26.602-05:002013-01-27T16:19:26.602-05:00Convex forms sometimes present concave outlines de...Convex forms sometimes present concave outlines depending upon the viewing plane. It is usually desirable to indicate the convexity of the third dimension in such situations in drawing. mphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07926885394879793881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-58223080979298599362013-01-27T16:00:22.974-05:002013-01-27T16:00:22.974-05:00Too many counterexamples spring to mind for me to ...Too many counterexamples spring to mind for me to accept this. Obvious examples are the concave curve of the bridge of the nose to the brow, the concave line to the throat from an upwardly turned chin. More subtle, but equally important examples arise, particularly with dynamic poses--for instance, the concavity formed from iliac crest to ribcage during lateral flexion of the spine. Auguste Rodin's "Danaide" illustrates this beautifully:<br /><br />http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/Auguste-Rodin/Danaid-%5Bdetail%3A-1%5D.html<br /><br />I posit that the above cannot be captured with anything but a concave curve. Concavity gives us grace and reach.<br /><br />If we allow the scope of the discussion to extend beyond physical form to gesture, then concave line becomes indispensable. The work of Mike Mattesi comes to mind. He is all about rhythm in gesture (or "force" as he calls it), a large part of which involves the natural flow from convex to concave, straight to curve, etc.<br />alarichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00156956136877129173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2999230124118604245.post-44741056272528801952013-01-27T15:59:27.179-05:002013-01-27T15:59:27.179-05:00The convex lines rule applies to landscape as well...The convex lines rule applies to landscape as well, according to John F. Carlson. In his book, Carlson's Guide to Landscape Painting, he says:<br /><b> "Try to feel that almost all natural, growing forms are convex lines rather than concave. Many a mountain outline has been spoiled by being made concave. All earth-forms bulge up, as it were. The mountain rises, the ground swells, trees tower. Concavity creates a "hanging" line, and unless it is imperatively needed for artistic reasons, beware of its use. Note the heroic forms of Delacroix and Michelangelo, and you will see little concavity present."</b><br /><br />I tend to agree with the convex lines rule. Creating the illusion of 3d form on a 2d surface would seem to require bumping the lines more toward convexity, for the most part.mphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07926885394879793881noreply@blogger.com