Students learn basic anatomy and will begin to develop an understanding of the way a figure inhabits space; thus able to successfully reproduce this space in two dimensions. The goal of the course is to learn academic, realistic representation of the figure: Emphasis will be on accurately rendering the figure on the page in proper proportion. Students work up to developing a personal style within the confines of academic figurative art.
The copy is done very well, the study however, feels completely off. The passion and eloquence of the ballerina does not fit in with the cartoonish illustration of the man. it seems as if you did not know what the original artist was going for in terms of style, genre or mark making. Try to read some of the artist's statements about their work in order to gain a better understanding of their aesthetic.
Both are great pieces but I don't think they work together as a set. The copy features a lot of expressive motion but I don't see that replicated in the stiffness of the study.
I don't see the two as a set. With the master copy, you can see the muscle structure with the figure in motion, two of which wasn't in the master study. It would've been a difficult task to have someone to pose like the ballerina, so only a photograph could be used (but wasn't allowed). Your master copy worked extremely well in displaying mark making.
The copy is very nice. Your mark making is good and I think you really captured the movement well. The study doesn't seem to fit the artists expressiveness portrayed in the copy though.
You took on am immense challenge, especially within the scope of this project. By the skill displayed in the copy, it is clear that you would have been able to create a drawing similar to Szymkiewicz' style if you had a still image. Still though, i think you could have added a bit more detail in the fabric and musculature to further your study, even with a model. Overall I like the pieces a lot separately, i think i like the study even more than the copy.
I think this was a really difficult work to try to copy. The master copy is so expressive and slightly distorted, there is a feeling of lightness and the uncanny present in that piece. I think your original work started to capture the sense of movement, but the mark making was less expressive and the detachment from the world, i.e. the lack of feeling of gravity in the copy, sets your original apart and slightly less effective.
The style in the study seems a bit off from the copy as everyone has stated. But, as stand alone pieces I think they both work on their own. The copy is done very well and expresses itself in the same way the original does. The study displays a somewhat similar concept but it has more contours and less definition but that seems to be expected in working from life.
Your master copy is very dynamic and shows a lot of emotion as well as movement. Nonetheless this dynamic concept was not translated into your study. The mark making also seems different between the two. They are both done well however as a series I am missing the connection.
The copy is done very well, the study however, feels completely off. The passion and eloquence of the ballerina does not fit in with the cartoonish illustration of the man. it seems as if you did not know what the original artist was going for in terms of style, genre or mark making. Try to read some of the artist's statements about their work in order to gain a better understanding of their aesthetic.
ReplyDeleteThe mark making is very expressive in this study. The only thing I would change is the outfit of the male model.
ReplyDeleteBoth are great pieces but I don't think they work together as a set. The copy features a lot of expressive motion but I don't see that replicated in the stiffness of the study.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the two as a set. With the master copy, you can see the muscle structure with the figure in motion, two of which wasn't in the master study. It would've been a difficult task to have someone to pose like the ballerina, so only a photograph could be used (but wasn't allowed). Your master copy worked extremely well in displaying mark making.
ReplyDeleteThe copy is very nice. Your mark making is good and I think you really captured the movement well. The study doesn't seem to fit the artists expressiveness portrayed in the copy though.
ReplyDeleteI think you created a very similar image to the master but I think the muscles need more tension in your piece.
ReplyDeleteYou took on am immense challenge, especially within the scope of this project. By the skill displayed in the copy, it is clear that you would have been able to create a drawing similar to Szymkiewicz' style if you had a still image. Still though, i think you could have added a bit more detail in the fabric and musculature to further your study, even with a model. Overall I like the pieces a lot separately, i think i like the study even more than the copy.
ReplyDeleteI think this was a really difficult work to try to copy. The master copy is so expressive and slightly distorted, there is a feeling of lightness and the uncanny present in that piece. I think your original work started to capture the sense of movement, but the mark making was less expressive and the detachment from the world, i.e. the lack of feeling of gravity in the copy, sets your original apart and slightly less effective.
ReplyDeleteThe style in the study seems a bit off from the copy as everyone has stated. But, as stand alone pieces I think they both work on their own. The copy is done very well and expresses itself in the same way the original does. The study displays a somewhat similar concept but it has more contours and less definition but that seems to be expected in working from life.
ReplyDeleteYour master copy is very dynamic and shows a lot of emotion as well as movement. Nonetheless this dynamic concept was not translated into your study. The mark making also seems different between the two. They are both done well however as a series I am missing the connection.
ReplyDelete