One reason I draw in graphite or black colour pencil is the result in itself: the pencil is a delicate tool for a private visual experience.
To make the “conversation” between the spectator and the drawing even more intimate, an artist can elaborate on visual details.
The details are those things that make one person different from another. In a detail, unconsciously observed, lies the answer to being attracted to a person’s face. That detail must be rendered in your drawing or else the result will not have the same effect.
Details also make one go look closer to a drawing, linger, walk the eyes on the drawing and feel the work that was put in the making of that drawing. I always go “Ooh!” when I look at the lace in a Dutch painting.
There are very few masters of the non-detail. But that’s a different story, for another post.
Meanwhile, I finally arrive at my question of the day: how much detail should one put in a drawing without actually reproducing a high-resolution photography? How much detail is too much?
Here under the works of a draftsman I find amazing. Unfortunately, I forgot his name. And then I think, was that all necessary? (pictures under, click for larger image)
Mr Billy Pappas decided to make a Marilyn Monroe drawing. It reproduces with great fidelity the photograph itself. So much so that Mr Pappasto some 3 (4 maybe?) years to complete a A2 drawing, making it the most detailed drawing in the world.
It's an interesting type of art - I do love the super detail, but it brings up the question (that you raised): "How much detail is enough?". I think that, if it is drawn, it should have something that makes it a drawing and not a photo. That was easy to say, but then it begs the question of what one can do to bring over that in the piece? Chuck Close is another who focuses on faces and people, but I don't know if it matches the hyper-realism of these!
ReplyDelete