Oof, it's been a while since I last posted anything! Then again, it's been a good while since I produced anything worth posting. I've been skittish in jumping from project to project, not making much progress in any; focusing on trying to get my life together (emphasis on the word "trying"); and struggling with an inability to push my mental health into motion mode.
However, with the tiny bits of casual artwork I have been able to muster the energy to put together, I've been dabbling more in ink work. I must say that I've never put much stock into ink work, since it largely limits you to committing to the marks you make. That includes being unable to erase underlying draft sketches, and accepting the presence of many more mistakes. My typical style is rather stiff and strict, adhering to form and detail as best I can; and so using pen fills my compulsive tendencies with anxiety. It's been quite the challenge. Not simply is it the polished and refined image that shows: but rather, it's all those little times I've nicked the page with the nib; misjudged perspective; and changed my mind. Using pencil feels much more like presenting the tip of the iceberg in comparison to pen: where the history of the imperfections are as poignant as the deliberate line-work itself. However, that being said, I've noticed something rather entertaining and even exciting about ink: the opportunity born from its limits, and exploring ways of overcoming the clean contrast in the black and white duality. Naturally shading is always going to be easier with graphite, with pressure being determined by the chosen pencil grade. However with ink, there is much less option of a 'grade' as such. Yes, there are varying tones - from light grey to black, and the slight hue differences between a Uni Pin sepia fine-liner and a Derwent one. However, unless planned accordingly, these slight colour changes can appear uncouth and overly-pronounced in their visuals. Rather, I've played with three options that I've found the need to resort to in lieu of 'traditional' shading: something I consider pseudo-shading; stippling & hatching; and layering. Pseudo-shading - or 'wisping', as I like to call it - most likely has a more technical name, but I've yet to come across it. In effect, it's holding a fine-nib pen (a 0.03mm or 0.05mm) to the side as you would when blocking in an area with a pencil, and delicately sweeping side-to-side to shade. I've come to find this leaves a beautiful and rather effective 'wispy' look, that presents itself less as shadow and more as using tone in place of pale colour. I would suppose you could consider it as a fair means of establishing a mid-tone. The more I've used this, the more I've come to appreciate that it works better in small areas, since it otherwise leaves sweeping marks of the nib; that is, unless, that's the desired visuals you're looking for - in which case, wisp away! It should also be noted that unlike with pencil, using this technique doesn't tend to create a convincing gradient as you apply more pressure, since the pen is quick to move from wispy to full ink release. This could be a technical limitation of my current skill, but it's just a point of notice. Stippling, hatching and cross-hatching are as old as things get with regards to shading. They aren't easy skills to master, since there are nuances that separate the novice from the expert - the former of which I most certainly am. There are a plethora of artists that have provided their input over many a year, and there's little to no nutrition that I can add to the conversation. I will, however, include my two pennies, since the spread of any knowledge is invaluable, regardless of whether it be expert advice or fledgling experience. Stippling and hatching have been fun experiments for me, since as an artist that prefers working with small dimensions (most recently my Ryman A6 110gsm sketchpad), it's easy to see how something so 'unrealistic' and 'cartoony' close up can produce such striking results from afar or at a quick glance, as your eye fills in the details between the line work. In regards to representing the subtle yet unmistakable power behind these techniques, three artists in particular have been poignant for me - each of whom you can find on Instagram: Jade Marie Elizabeth (@j.marielizabeth); Niall Grant (@niallcgrant); and Jennifer Court (@jennifercourt_art). Finally, there is layering. Again, as with the former techniques, layering is no newcomer to the world of art. Simply apply more and more lines of the same direction over your former. Ink is a very decisive media, with little need to overlay in order to create a concrete mark. However sometimes you need that darker-than-dark look, or a certain tone, and this is where layering can help - more-so with the grey and sepia than with the black. It can help to 'silently' bridge the gap between tones (creating a 'dark light' or a 'light mid', rather than a simple 'light' and 'mid'). This is most useful for when a sudden jump in tone would be too stark, or for when stippling or hatching would be too distracting. I do certainly hope to practice more ink work, and to begin publishing my pieces again. It might be worth exploring a means of mixing fine-liner with ballpoint pen, since ballpoint has proven to have been successful with more subtle details (such as the textured feel of the Old Postbox in the Still Life section). Regardless, I do have intent on returning...just as soon as things feel more balanced for me. Until then, thank you for reading, and may you forever take care on this crazy journey of life!
0 Comments
I’m a little behind, but recently I’ve been reading about the war in Ukraine from an art perspective. Reading through an article[1], I found one particular choice of words to be somewhat contradictory: “United States National Committee of the International Council of Museums (ICOM) called the intentional destruction of museums [...] “reckless””. This quote may make sense upon first approach. After all, collateral damage happens in every war, and art being destroyed on account of “reckless” military behaviour is expected.
However, the destruction of historic buildings was intentional. ICOM would confirm this by adding that the destruction of museums violates: “reasonable expectations of civil society and the treaty obligations of which the United States, Russia, and Ukraine are all signatories.” Unintended collateral damage is not indicative of a direct breach of treaty obligations. This, dear reader, is why the quote was concerning. By default, an act of war cannot be both intentional and reckless: since “recklessness” denotes a lack of care or expectation of consequence; however “intention” implies a planned expectation of consequence, regardless of what that effect may entail. Therefore, ICOM using “reckless” as its choice of words for what is an evidently planned and typical – even expected – act of war feels ignorant at best. Art always suffers in war. When a society is healthy, the arts regularly get sidelined as a mere leisure activity, and are underfunded as a result. However, when a society is at war, art becomes a prime target for the invading side – either to steal or to destroy – whilst being a protected and promoted commodity by the defending party. This happens not just in war, but also during sudden societal shifts, and is used as a political power-move during mob riots. “But why should it suffer? Why destroy a few pictures or statues? How will that win a war?” It’s a common and fair question, and on the face of it, I agree that it makes little sense. Especially considering that history is so easy to rediscover in today’s digital age. However, a poignant factor to consider is this: whoever owns the narrative, owns history itself. Art is fundamentally the collective voice of its audience – a nation’s narrative; and you can't breed new, when old voices are still so loud. Being one of the key fundamentals to society, art is an important pillar in its identity. The make-up of a society is built through its history, and as covered, art plays an inseparable part of this history. From depicting people, places and events, both important and trivial alike; to environmental art and buildings, marking everyday architectures and landscaping; all the way to reflecting the mindsets and tastes of the society at the time of its creation. Art – regardless of its form – behaves as a window into a culture’s interactions, heart and personality. Moreover, it plays another crucial role. It pivots the balance between reality and hope; between politics and people. Art is an undeniably powerful tool of patriotism and propaganda. Should you destroy or remove a nation’s art, you cripple not just a source of their news outlet; but also their voices of freedom, unity, salvation, memory and optimism – the last bastions of a fading nation. On a subconscious level, we absorb art on a minute-by-minute basis: whether it’s through a finely crafted desk; a painting on a wall; or a piece of graphic design we view on the web. Remove that, and you remove a visual attribute that a nation has – whether they know it or not – come to identify with and love about their society. In the coming days, weeks and months, regardless of how the war itself plays out, we can expect to see Ukrainian art go through an incredibly tumultuous time. I tend to try to avoid politics, but my thoughts are with the Ukrainian people, and my heart goes out to those who have lost loved ones – on both sides – in this unprovoked act of barbarity from the Russian government. Nobody wanted this. Ukrainian art has a different set of techniques and messages to that of Russian art. It balances a quaint delicacy and intricacy in its style, and often comes with a splash of bold, vibrant and exciting colours. Some of it, I dare say, reminds me of a mixture of the gentleness of Chinese art, with the playfulness of that of narrow boats. If it’s one thing I hope for, it’s that regardless of how this unpredictable and saddening time pans out in the end, the Ukrainian people may still find a means to rejoice in their history, their people, and their art. [1]https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/unesco-world-monuments-fund-ukraine-heritage-sites-1234621092/ Please note that the following is descriptive of mental health. Reader discretion is advised. A couple of days back, I posted an image to my Twitter: a recent short strip I'd made. For those of you without access to Twitter, or for those who simply don't want to have to go there and end up entering a mass political debate for saying you like a particular flavour of ice-cream, the image below is that same strip. I'd like to start off by apologising to you if that caused upset. If possible, please try not to take it to heart: it's not a problem I've any intention or desire to make yours. However I'd been "umm-ing" and "ahh-ing" for a good while, having posed the question to myself: "should I share with my audience the fact that I have depression?"...well, that, anxiety and undiagnosed kosmemophobia - that's a fun one to have to explain! But this strip's key focus is the former, so...let's keep it on that track.
The conclusion was a difficult one to settle upon. On one hand, I've always respected the bravery, honesty and openness of creators that share (within reason) the conditions of their health, and relevant matters regarding their personal lives. It's not an easy decision to put yourself into that vulnerable position. From dinosandcomics, to Sarah Andersen, from Pascal Campion to Chibird and beyond, many artists today are sharing their innermost thoughts, feelings, daily struggles & quirks, and motivational messages with the world at large. Art today is at its most shareable peak, and audiences love to read the thoughts of others, and apply them to their own lives. On the other hand, there are so many reasonable points for why it would be beneficial - perhaps even wise - not to share any personal information at all. It takes no more than basic common sense to understand that any information you trust strangers with, could be collected, scrutinised, and/or used against you in any number of ways. However, this allowed me to grasp a larger image of what I was afraid of most: of all the things one could use against me regarding depression, the most one could say in light of an image like this is: "he's attention-seeking!". "And am I?", I thought, "well...no." That's not at all my intent. Understanding is what I seek. To allow others to better understand who I am, and how the structure of my thoughts may travel down a particular road - a road not everybody can associate with. Furthermore, I wish through this strip to be able to connect with those who can, in turn, empathise - perhaps even sympathise and personally relate - to this very strip. For those interested, I've been formally diagnosed, and went through CBT therapy after a particular tumultuous time in my life. My therapist was both an incredibly lovely lady, and wonderfully empathetic and effective at her job. The sessions were not difficult as much as they were hard-hitting. As of recently, I've found myself looking back at my CBT notes with the intent on refreshing some of the techniques learned. Naturally, some days are hard, others easy. But the mountain is never climbed in a single bound, and every rock that almost makes you lose your fall, only serves to steady your next move. I'd like to make the following absolutely clear, for those who may misunderstand or intentionally misinterpret it: through this strip, I have no intention of "normalising" depression in any way at all; it's a most cruel beast that can take your best days and drown them under a thick tar of emotion, or an icy pool of numbness. It can rob you of your rest, energy and health, force you to become someone you aren't and push loved ones away, and puppeteer you into a number of vicious cycles. At its worst...it's not a coin-edge you forget. As a result, I abhor any behaviour that glorifies, underestimates, or attempts to convince others that it's a "normal" state of mind or personality trait to have depression. It's not. And should never be treated with such Hollywood sensationalism. However, mental health, in my humble opinion, should never be hidden away in the shadows, either, like some dirty secret. I commend anyone who has faced that dark at any point, and also those who may continue to battle it; whether it be alone or with help (professional or otherwise). If somehow you're reading this, and that applies to you, please know just one thing: you matter. You may be sceptical, you may not know to whom, or how, or why, but you do. Please remember it, if nothing else. You matter. The creators I mentioned above take on the task of discussing their tribulations and messages in a much more digestible, intelligent and enjoyable manner than my own. That is intentional, given that I have no plans to ever revisit making comics about my health. Or at the very least, not serious ones, whereby the focus is nothing but the gritty truth. This one had to hit hard, not just for the audience: but for my own sake; and for those I personally know who may, understandably, find it difficult to fathom how a single, unsubstantial knock can cause such a colossal plummet in mood. Again, I deeply apologise if any of this content has affected you. Please be sure to do all you can to take good care. Drink a lot of good liquids, give yourself all the rest you need, plenty of sunshine (yes, even if you live in the UK!); and if need be, please know that it is never too late and never a sign of weakness to seek guidance from a trained professional. In conclusion, however, I'd like to say thank you for having read this far. Again, none of this was easy, and I'm not sure whether I've said all that I wanted, or if I've said far more than I intended. Regardless, this was the first time (and likely last time within the foreseeable future) that I've ever made art directly about my mental health - let alone sharing it. I'd also like to thank you with great sincerity if this has left you unaffected in how you enjoy my work and interact with me. It truly means a lot. Thank you all. So a short while back, I heard about NFTs. For those of you who have yet to cross paths with these, 'NFT' stands for 'non-fungible token', and without going into the technicalities, is a digital file you buy the rights for, that claims to be completely unique. The NFT Artwork[1] website describes it as follows: "Imagine walking into a shop and buying a painting. Buying an NFT Artwork is a virtual version of that, with the buyer keeping the digital asset in their digital possession". NFTs are a growing industry[2], and despite being met with controversies, aren't likely to be going anywhere anytime soon.
Disclaimer: I won't pretend to be tech-savvy, so please remain open-minded going into this post, given that I don't claim to be an expert; I'm simply sharing my thoughts. I don't wish to promote misinformation, and so if at all I have something wrong, I invite you to correct me. Quotes are provided for context, and are linked below; I strongly recommend you read the original sites for the full scope of their content. To begin, let's assess the quote above: "Imagine walking into a shop and buying a painting. Buying an NFT Artwork is a virtual version of that, with the buyer keeping the digital asset in their digital possession". It's not quite like that, though, is it? In fairness, it's more along these lines: "imagine walking into a shop and buying the ownership rights to a painting. You take a photo of it, the piece is taken down, and then you leave. The piece itself remains within the shop, but you get to go around town with your photo, and tell people that you own the painting." The photo itself would be 100% original. Even if the shop were to let multiple people buy the rights to the same painting, each taking their own photos for proof of ownership, the photos would remain unique. Each made by different people, with varying photography skills, shot with different cameras, at different times. Their rights of ownership of their photo would be undisputed. However, they still own nothing more than a copy of the piece that they bought under the assumption or agreement that they'd be owning an original. I've heard a lot of the same arguments being repeated in favour for NFTs being concretely authentic, with such claims[3] being made: "NFTs solve [replicability] by adding an indisputable certificate that you nor anyone else can destroy [...] You may scoff at the idea of a digital token being the difference between one .jpeg being authentic over the other, but this concept has existed for centuries. There are many Mona Lisa’s in existence, but only one true Mona Lisa. This is no different from distributing many Nyan Cats, but only one owning the true Nyan Cat"; and "Have you ever created a digital work, only for someone who is not educated about how digital art works to question the authenticity of it simply because you drew it on a computer? [...] NFTs solve that and now you can sell/auction your work as an original." However, arguments like these are made with oversights regarding the honesty of the artist, and the fallacy that digital works should be viewed and sold with the same mindset as physical works. Let's take the Mona Lisa, for example. The original can be copied, of course; but it won't take long for an expert to spot the fake. The true value of the Mona Lisa - and any physical artwork - stems from the knowledge that there truly is only one original in this world; and all anyone aside from its current possessor can do is own a copy or duplicate. On the contrary, you cannot claim to know that there is only one of any digital file in this world. Especially not without doubt that you own or are bidding for the rights to that one original Nyan Cat. There is no guarantee a copy wasn't made at the time of the original. The copy could have been uploaded to be minted, while the original file that we all know and love - with the properties that prove it to be the original over the copy - remains within the storage of the author; therefore nullifying the legitimacy of the client's claim of owning the rights to the true original. I'm not at all insinuating that this is or was the case, but I'm simply using it as an example for why, unlike with physical items, you cannot establish that the minted submission provides the undisputed rights to the original work. This could be even more problematic should the uploader be using burner accounts and suddenly disappear. Furthermore, NFTs do not solve the problem of replicability, and the question of authenticity regarding digital works of all manner is raised for good reason. Allow me to elaborate. A key element of digital work (be it art, databases, word files, etc.) is that it's replicable and transferable by its very nature; and that makes it prone to being locally or remotely copied, altered or sold at any point beyond its creation, up until its complete deletion. While with NFT mints, the client buys the rights to the work, the original file remains with the original creator. Unlike with physical work being passed between owners, the NFT transaction does not remove the artist's ability to alter and replicate their own work. By all means, the same piece could be minted multiple times, with minor changes made such as: different save dates or software registration IDs to the otherwise untampered file; an invisible layer, multiple invisible layers, or unused layers added; file name changes; elements such as text added, minor colour changes, etc. While insignificant and relatively undetectable without thoroughly inspecting the file itself, these are credible changes that alter the fabric of the file, its properties, and ultimately, its claim to being an original. Due to the legal grey cloud surrounding creative works, such changes could hold weight as being 'original' works in and of themselves, due to not being identical to any of the copies on a meta level; and thus arguably not devaluing the rights towards, or claiming to be any other 'original'. A further issue could include hacking, and files being taken remotely without the artist's knowledge. Such files could then be minted, even if the artist currently has their own up for bidding; once again, causing an issue of legitimacy. This is, as many have pointed out, not even touching upon the stealing of others' works via downloading and minting them. There is also the concern of the client of the minted file being the original owner of the rights of the work. There is nothing to stop an artist from selling the rights of the work to a private client, while also selling that same right under an NFT form. Given the scenario that neither client is made aware of this duel transaction, the issue of ownership could go undetected indefinitely. If not a legal issue, all of these scenarios stated are certainly within realistic realms, and are moral issues at the very least, that - as with physical fake works - could cause clients to unknowingly make false claims over ownership of an original, and could lead to otherwise-avoidable court battles. While initially this activity would arguably have been noticeable, with NFTs rapidly growing in number this may soon become an unavoidable issue of fraud. Dodgy sellers and replicators have existed for years in both the physical and digital space, and so this is nothing new. However, should you wish to partake in NFTs, just remember that as with all transactions, remain vigilant: the certifiability of you owning the rights to an original should not be treated with the guaranteed approach that many people seem to be promoting. I wholeheartedly believe that digital work has value, and discourage anyone for judging those wishing to sell their work - be it by prints, downloads, NFTs or straight-up hardware (i.e. selling CDs/memory sticks with files on). However, the main issue here comes with the fact that no matter how many 'originals' you buy, or rights to the 'originals' you buy, the only true original will still be the one that lies within the artist's grasp, up until they delete, discard or otherwise lose that file. In my view, NFTs are not technically owning exclusive rights to an 'original' - no matter what a certification says, unless the raw file itself is no longer available to the artist, you are quite literally co-owning the work; or temporarily owning the sole rights towards it, with the hopes that the artist or third party doesn't delegitimise said rights down the line. [1]https://nftartwork.co.uk/what-is-nft-artwork/ [2]https://www.cloudwards.net/nft-statistics/ [3]https://jisuartist.medium.com/debunking-everything-about-the-technology-ecological-impact-of-nfts-cryptoart-60ee09bd00ed So today I set up a blog! Why, you ask? Well, my inquisitive friend, I just felt like it. I've been making a greater effort to be more productive of late; now that I'm quickly approaching that age where you begin to find yourself grumbling that your generation had better children's TV. You will forever be missed, Playdays...
*Ahem*, anyway, That effort extends to my art. Very recently, I finished my first attempt at Inktober. That is, 2020's Inktober...and it was incomplete. Alas, however, I tried, and that's the important part, or so I tell myself. Due to Copyright, I shan't be posting them on this site, since the works on here are my own original products. However, I did post them to DeviantART! "Hooray!", I hear you cry with the passion of a schoolkid on test day. If you are interested, please click the following link: www.deviantart.com/kecukraftwork. I hadn't drawn much for a while, and I certainly hadn't drawn consistently for a very, very long time. It all began when my friend & colleague mentioned that she was doing Inktober, and asked if I wanted to join in - and so I thought "eh, why not?" From there, I set up a plan of things to draw throughout the month. The inspirations came mostly from talking with that same friend about Nemesis, and how awesome Nemesis is, and how Nemesis never gets a day off. Poor Nemesis. However, the rest spurred from media I enjoyed, such as: Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares; WWE (well, WWF back when I watched it); Breaking Benjamin; Legacy of Kain; Legend of Zelda, and others. It became somewhat more personally-orientated than what I had initially planned to jump in with, but even though I did cross the finish line a few months late, I found it a fun challenge all the same. At the same time that I had been drawing Inktober, I had been reading about the history of graphic design, as well as considering drawing some more realistic character designs for future projects. This got me thinking about stylising the Nemesis face panels more than I ever would have before - both with the typefaces and backgrounds - and also tackling various facial angles. As for using inks, you can absolutely say that I'm not much more than a novice, and so it was fascinating to figure out the versatility behind the Uni Pin fine-liners. Going into the process, I chose and continued with A6 110gsm paper from Ryman's own range, so as to keep it affordable and manageable for practice purposes. I had no notable prior experience with fine-liners, and my initial amazement came with how simple and yet effective they are to use, in order to create strikingly high-contrast and yet detailed work. My favourite to use began with the 0.3 nib, but since has absolutely become the 0.05 nib, due to its ability to scratch in minor shading and draw in solid thin lines with just the change of an angle. Conversely, I found the brush to be almost as fun for all the opposite reasons: nothing says a Bob Ross "bravery test" like a bold "shwoop" of your pen down a straight edge, hoping for the life of you that you won't get a sudden hand spasm. In conclusion, Inktober is an experience that I'd like to repeat, due to how it kicked me up the rear, got me thinking about my work differently, and approaching it with a more casual, comedic mind. However, due to the recent controversy surrounding Inktober, my lukewarm interest in following trends, and my semi-desire to work more with oil paints of late, I may just attempt an Oiltober instead. Who knows? Just a thought. Anyway, thanks for reading this far. I hope it's helped to give you a smile, some inspiration, or just a few quiet moments to yourself. Hope you have a good day, and take care! |
Archives
July 2023
Categories© 2017-2023
Stephen Aitcheson |