Figure Drawing

As I look back on what I have done in drawing and watercolor painting since I began in the late 1970s, I can distinguish several “periods” that have actually blended into one another. The earliest work tended to be what I would call pictorially representational — not the ultra-realistic kind of painting that Devoe does but definitely realistic. Some of thee I have framed and are on the walls of our home here. Two, based on old photographs of logging locomotives, hang on the stairway to the downstairs. Jean thinks that these are as good watercolors as I have ever done, even though they were done quite some time ago.

But I really prefer a painting of the large Caterpillar-type tractor hanging downstairs. This was painted from a picture in one of the books of tractors and agricultural equipment that I have acquired, and is probably the largest tractor ever built. I doubt that a specimen still exists — there is a museum in Stockton which we have never visited which could conceivably have one. Perhaps we shall try to visit it next summer when we go south for a week when Palma and Dave come out for their stay.

Somewhere along the line I had acquired a sheet of 300 lb. Arches paper and I saved it until such time as I thought I could use it to good avail. I used it for this picture and I think I really like it best of my representational pictures. It is in a place where I can see it all the time; perhaps seeing it so frequently strengthens my liking for it.

After the figure drawing class at Elderhostel in Eastern Oregon State College and the figure drawing and painting classes at the [Southern Oregon State] college and the Rogue Gallery, I have done considerable work in this area. Mostly this has been of the female figure, though there have been infrequent inclusions of the male. For whatever reason, erotic, sensual or otherwise I have been strongly attracted to the subject of the female figure, partly or wholly nude. Initially I think there was more of an emotional factor, but this has gradually abated with time and at present the interest lies in the technique and rendering to produce the maximum visual effect.

Basically the female figure is rather simple in shape and proportions and it is primarily in the nuances of underlying bone structure and musculature that a really effective visual effect is obtained. Two other factors also enter — one is the setting or background. This is what the instructor at the college called negative space and the importance of the handling of this factor can hardly be over-emphasized. The background can be a considerable range of material — realistic flowers, room setting etc.; an amorphous design as to color, shapes, light and dark areas, patterns; or a structured background as to design such as a quilt pattern. The objective is to provide a negative space that enhances the visual impact of the naked figure. Thus it cannot be dominating, but on the other hand it must be colorful and pleasing in effect. Coming into play here are the practices of introducing contrast (not necessarily continuous, or even desirably so) between the background and the figure itself. Typically more time is spent on this background than on the figure itself.

The second important factor is the face and head of the figure. In my opinion this is what really is the dividing line between a successful picture and one that is an “also ran.” And of the face, the eyes are the single most important factor, also usually the most difficult. Oftentimes the most effective treatment of the eyes is to have them apparently looking at the viewer, though a side-wise look can often be very effective.

From my observation of students in drawing classes etc., I think that facility in depiction of faces is an aspect of drawing that tends to be slighted, perhaps because it is more difficult. As I mentioned above this often detracts from the drawing or painting to the point that it is mediocre at best. In visiting art galleries etc., particularly the commercial variety in and around southern Oregon, I find that most art is not of people; generally the subject is scenery, or flowers, or buildings, or still life or perhaps abstraction. I’m not sure what the reason for this is. Possibly it is just that the subject material is more difficult, or it can be that figure art does not have the commercial sales potential that other subjects do.

Recently we heard a talk at the brown-bag luncheon (a SOSC-sponsored function at which a speaker on a topic of general interest appears) by an artist who specializes in paintings of aircraft. A telling comment was to the effect that the interest of a gallery is strongly influenced by the monetary factor.

The contemporary art as the the nude female figure in local galleries, what little there is of it, tends to be rather distorted and non-representational. Thought the specific sexual features such as breasts and genital hair are not totally avoided, they tend to be minimized. I speculate that these non-representational tendencies and avoidance of certain anatomical features are the result of the low sales potential or the desire to avoid the impression of the art as being the Playboy type of depiction.

There seems to be a reluctance on the part of considerable segments of the general public to view material which certainly is an integral and significant aspect of the human figure, even though I suspect there is almost universal interest, even fascination with these aspects. In pictorial art in general, there does not seem to be particular aversion to depiction, either as to style or substance, of any feature of the subject save of the breasts of women or the genitalia of both of the sexes. Certainly these are actual features of nude subjects, and of overt interest in many cases or inhibited attraction in others. Why then should they be excluded or looked upon with disapprobation escapes my understanding.

Accordingly I have concluded that in the drawings or paintings I do of the female figure I shall not preclude depiction of the specific anatomical features of females in any way. Perhaps, to go further, since these features increase the visual impact of the painting or drawing, whether for disapproval or liking, they will be emphasized so far as conceivable. This decision I suppose relegates what I do along this line to a kind of “soft” pornography. However, it is nonetheless a more honest expression than a more inhibited or restricted representation. In a way pornography is a more honest form of art than are more limited expressions of the human form; it has a higher kind of integrity and bowdlerized representations.

In the foregoing paragraph I indicated that I would emphasize the sexual aspects of the female figure. This emphasis can be achieved by placement of arms and legs, and orientation of the figure not only to avoid the features, but also to disclose and emphasize them. One area that certainly lends itself to this goal is the use of the figure in action, rather than in a static pose. The kind of pose used in drawing and painting classes is by necessity a static one, and is thus limited as to the degree and kind of display of musculature and bone structure possible in the figure in action. Thus, this kind of pose presently loses novelty.

Before the advent of photography, capturing the details of the figure in action was a matter of continued observation and capability on the part of the artist. Photography of course changed all this, making possible “freezing” people and objects in motion. Nowadays there is a good supply of pictures in newspapers, magazines etc. providing such photographs, and indeed of most of the body features as to muscular conformation etc. Such pictures can readily be translated into the nude form in action. Such action poses also offer possibilities for the display of female genitalia that do not present themselves in more static poses.