How do you draw something that you can't see directly—such as a Chasmosaurus, a Phoenician, or a bog troll?
Alan North of Alan's Art Log came up with an interesting way to think about this problem.
• One way is to draw observationally from actual models, props, maquettes, and reference.
• The other way is to draw the scene purely out of your visual imagination.
You get better at the first method by learning to sculpt maquettes, improvise costumes, and by building a reference file. When you draw and paint your final picture, you observe those reference elements and composite them together into the picture.
You get better at the second method by developing your visual memory, and by learning to construct figures and forms convincingly.
Alan presents his idea in this video review of my book Imaginative Realism: How to Paint What Doesn't Exist. You can watch the video on YouTube at this link.
I think that in practice an artist needs both skills working together. References, no matter how good, will only take you only 20% beyond what you can draw or paint purely out of your imagination. Having a good sketch that you did out of your head is really important for guiding the interpretation of the references and for keeping the statement unified.
Drawing or painting without any references whatsoever can lead to repetitive or mannered solutions, and to missing out on surprising nuances of lighting or foreshortening that would never have occurred to the imagination alone. Those nuances often carry the force of truth, and make the scene believable.
-----
You can get a signed copy of Imaginative Realism at my website. It's also available on Amazon.
Alan did a blog post version of his video.
Follow Alan on Instagram or support him on Patreon
11 Comments on Gurney Journey: Imaginative drawing—with and without reference
I also like older print photos for their high resolution and because they're not messed with in Photoshop. Modern advertising photography (and increasingly journalistic and nature photography) is totally unusable for reference because it's so fake / Photoshopped-looking. I like the fact that photos from about 1985 and before were shot on film with the images captured in the lens with only the help of filters and analog processing. "
The chart is really an oversimplification. As I said in the video, someday I'd like to be able to draw mostly without ref. I'm self-taught and when I was younger I thought learning to draw realistically (from observation) would allow me to draw from imagination. It helps of course, but I eventually realized that I was getting nowhere. I would fail the moment I tried to deviate from a ref. Even making my own 3d models only helped so much. They were white/untextured so I would get the values right then fail on the color. Something was wrong.
So I thought long and hard and did a little bit of research into other artists, specially concept artists who need to draw mostly without ref. Really the info was there all along but I'd never pieced it together. Many of the artists I admired where drawing mostly from construction. If they used a reference they weren't just copying what the saw like I was, they were analyzing it and breaking it down. They could deviate from it, or study it for a few minutes then put it aside, because they understood it on a 3d level. Likewise they could forgo references to a large extent because they had studied some things like anatomy so many times that it was easy for them to visualize them without reference.
I'm not quite sure how far you can push this, how much can you draw completely without ref, but at least Kim Jung Gi levels of awesomeness seem to be possible with enough years of practice.
Most professional artists though, even really good concept artists, still need reference occasionally. If there's reference available for what you're drawing it's always better to use it. But I realized they were using reference in a completely different way than I was. To them it seems to be about getting information about an object, it's details, it's texture, whereas for me is was about nothing more than copying the value, color, and different shapes in proportion.
I might be wrong about some things, hopefully this theory? will evolve as I practice more, but since I realized this I've approached studies in a completely different manner and have improved a lot. I started to be able to deviate from my reference better and I realized I would get a lot more out of your book now. It had always been on my wishlist but I finally scrounged together the money and got it. And it was so worth it :)"
Maybe another way to break all this down is to divide the skills into Observation, Memory, and Knowledge, and develop all of those in tandem with each other. You mentioned Kim Jung Gi, and I agree, he is totally amazing, but as he has said, one thing he does before he starts drawing one of those epic scenes is to study and commit to memory a lot of reference, so that he has it in mind.
And while it's great to work from life whenever you can, there's nothing at all wrong from working from photos. Naturalistic painting took a big leap forward after photography was invented, and many of the artists we admire from the 19th century used every kind of reference they could get."
Dividing it into Observation, Memory, and Knowledge is another interesting way to look at it. I will keep it in mind.
I only just recently discovered Kim Jung Gi. I've read interviews where he says he draws a lot from life tries to memorize and look at a lot of reference everyday, but he gave the impression that it was not specific to what he was drawing. He said: "I don’t take references while I’m drawing, but I’m always collecting visual resources. I observe them carefully on daily basis, almost habitually. I study images of all sorts and genres." and "The difference between me and most other artist is that other artist try to draw things from looking at reference and copying what they see. I try to look at live objects and study them in front of me. I draw from real life. By doing that I become more capable of remembering them afterwards. ... I use memories as reference". He also places a lot of importance on using boxes in perspective (aka drawing from construction).
I did not know he prepared specifically for shows. Do you have a link to where he said this? There's so little info about his process and I feel a lot gets lost in translation. I'm thinking of collecting a list of useful quotes he's given.
Oh yeah, I have nothing against reference. Everything is a tool. Even tracing can be a tool. It's just up to the individual artist's goals, what they like to do, and how they like to work."
Rembrandt—sometimes? N.C. Wyeth? Early Norman Rockwell I think and you can see the transition, maybe when he's earning enough to afford models ca. early 1920s. Remington sometimes?
How about Picasso post-cubism? David Hockney? "
*not meant in a derogatory way, though. Especially since I count myself among them.
Tom: I've heard the reference file referred to as a 'morgue', firstly by fantasy artist John Howe. His book, 'Fantasy Art Workshop', shows a photo of one fully-occupied wall in his studio. In his words: "The wall behind the computer supports a daunting set of shelves containing well over a hundred drawers, filled with photos, photocopies, and pictures cut out of books and magazines. Here, from top left to bottom right, is the whole list of categories: medieval graphics, postcards, medieval calligraphy, medieval tapestry/embroidery... [continues for half a page]"
Alan: Kim Jung Gi's quote - 'I use memories as reference'. Must be nice to be able to memorise! My memory's shocking. While out sketching animals I can forget a particular pose or movement that I saw just a second before. I'm definitely stuck with references. Although one thing I do remember is an exercise or two suggested by James, some time ago.
Luca: 'make fantastic things look possible'. It's one of my favourite ten-dollar words: verisimilitude. And I can relate to stopping and staring at something 'mundane' in public."