Pencil drawing technique question
 

In reading through some threads on this forum, it seems that "smudging" (intentionally) is considered taboo. Is this the case? I haven't had anything that would be considered formal training, so I'm pretty much self-taught, and I smudge like crazy. I've sold some pencil portraits doing this and I like the result I get. I'm curious what the consensus is and the thoughts behind it.

Re: Pencil drawing technique question
 

Matt:

I guess I am not completely sure about what you mean by "smudging". Can you explain more?

I do a lot of charcoal portraiture. I "smudge" - in my definiton - laying some charcoal down and spreading it out with a brush, my finger, a stump, etc.

I would not worry too much about what others think about this technique or another. In my opinion, any technique that helps you to nail your likeness and gives a pleasant look is worth making your own decision about.

Michael,

Thanks for the response. I think we mean the same thing by smudging, I tend to use my pencils like charcoal, building up graphite on the surface and "smudging" with a blending stump, a gum eraser, etc.. I love the results I get doing this, although I sometimes get intimidated by what is considered to be the "right way" to do things. I guess Rembrandt using the handle of his brush to create hair wasn't proper technique, but it sure worked! (no comparison between myself and Rembrandt intended)

I agree with Michael! What matters is the result. The only caution I would mention is in using your fingers to smudge, as the oil from your skin can stain the paper, more noticable when the surface is light and the pencil stroke delicate. Moreover, the stain can worsen over time. Try surgical gloves.

Chris

There will always be some spoilsport who thinks that they represent the art police when they declare that there is "no smudgeing allowed" (even though your work sells like hotcakes).

:cool: If smudging LOOKS good...it IS good!

I say ignore the turkeys and keep on smudgin'... Mark my words, someday publishers will fight over the manuscript "Pencil Smudging Technique for Serious Artists" by Matt Terhune.

There are many ways to smudge pencil, even tools especially made for it. The paper roll (stump - is that what it is called) is an excellent tool to create beautiful realistic half tones. I have seen artists use brushes to apply graphite with stunning results.

Some artists resort to smearing because their line work is weak. In my opinion, (and that is all it is) a drawing is only as good as its lines.

Talk about beautiful smudging....

Have you seen the article by Peggy Baumgaertner about "Sauce" in International Artist's Magazine?

Wow.

Administrator's Note: Some of Peggy's sauce works can be see here: http://www.baumportraits.com/charcoal2.htm

Let me edit that by saying that there are obviously many ways to draw. But if a drawing is made with lines, then I judge it by its lines. Smudging can be a very effective tool.

Today art is too often taught without any structure or method. I was taught to draw in a very strict discipline, copying drawings, their lines, and with a teacher that stood over me and made sure that my lead was properly sanded to a chiselled point, and that my lines were just so. The teacher made a line, we made a line. If you want to learn to draw, copy the masters drawings line for line, smudge for smudge.

I personally am not a fan of pencil drawings that are photographic which take hours and days to draw. I prefer to see a drawing that utilizes powerfully drawn lines that are drawn with flare and sub-conscious abandon. That only comes when you have done a great deal of drawing.

Again, that is only my personal opinion, of which I am the world's foremost expert!

Karin,

Cynthia put a link to my charcoal and sauce "drawings" on your earlier post. (see quote). I am posting a sauce "drawing" by the great Russian portrait artist, Ivan Kramskoi, of his son Marc.

Sauce is a charcoal-like material which become rich and inky when mixed with water, and can be used as an ink wash. It is manipulated by applying to paper with a pounce pad or brush, worked (smudged) with a tortillion, or stump, and reduced with a kneaded eraser. I manipulate my charcoal "drawings" (I think of them as paintings...) in the same way.

Of key consideration in this entire thread is to define the word "drawing" as a way of thinking and manipulation as opposed to the material being used.

If one is thinking primarily in line, one is drawing. If one is thinking in mass and value, one is painting. When I work in graphite, charcoal, or sauce, I am painting with these media, because I am thinking and manipulating the material like a painter. I know many "painters" who are actually drawing with oil paint.

I am a natural "drawer." I think most of us are. Our first implement was a crayon or pencil. We learned to work with line, and fill in the surfaces. A notable few think as painters or sculptors as children. I knew I wanted to be a painter, so I tossed out my linear media, and studied with sculptors and volume/mass oriented teachers. I taught myself to see and think in a different way, as a painter.

Neither method is superior to the other, but a redefinition of the terms can clarify a discussion of this sorts. There have been other examples on this forum of the difference between the line oriented discipline and the mass oriented discipline, the difference between drawing and painting, and I think it would not be a bad idea to embrace these differences as a personal selection, akin to the division between the alla prima painters and the grisaille painters.

Peggy

Well said, Peggy. The above artwork is a beautiful painting. And yes, I have seen oil sticks which are used like big crayolas to make "paintings." I use smudging and stumping methods, as well. When it comes to drawing lines with pencil, it is not unfair to encourage students to make the most of their pencil and to try to be artful in the making of lines. In this world of cross over everythings, maybe we should coin the term cross-drawers, and cross-painters. In the end, it is the results that count.

Matt

The issue of drawing with lines and drawing with tones gets smudgy because we don't have the words to define some of these things. For example, Peggy's sauce drawings? Are they properly called paintings or drawings? They use what we normally consider as drawing media, but the net result is a tonal rendering that obscures much of the evidence of line drawing (in a very pleasant way, I might add). Similarly, standard academic cast or figure drawings seek to eliminate line through massing of tone because they are preparing the student for painting, which is, for the most part, tonal.

Anyway, if your goal is to render in pencil very uniform tones or ones that blend seamlessly without evidence of the lines used to achieve it, then smudging with finger, stomp, tortillon, or brush will not do it perfectly. In the end, one must use a needle-sharp pencil and a kneadable eraser.

Below, I have appended a jpeg showing a three stage process in creating an even tone in pencil. Unfortunately, the scan does not capture the essence of the graphite tones perfectly. In reality, they are somewhat lighter, for instance. If I had lightened the image to the proper value, the final, rendered tones would appear smudgy, which they are not. Just like a camera, the scanner over-emphasizes even the most minute differences in value. That being said, it might still offer some assistance.

The lower tones are just quickly massed-in with a 2B pencil in rough cross-hatch. Smudging will normally make the tone appear darker (and warmer) so the initial lay-in is a bit lighter than your final intention. The second (middle) squares are then stomped. As you can see, they appear uneven and blotchy. Even if you go over it and over it to the point where you burnish the paper, there will be some inevitable uneven-ness. The scan hightens this, but it is definitely there. If it is on skin tone, the person looks sickly. Finally, in the upper squares, it has all been gone over slowly and carefully to fill-in the interstices, or "holes" using a very sharp HB pencil and a kneadable eraser just to pick out areas that get too dark. This stage takes a long time.

A note on pencil and eraser: The pencils are best sharpened by whittling the tips with a utility knife so that there is at least three-quarters of an inch of the lead exposed and the wood is well-tapered. Then, the point is honed with sandpaper so that you have a long, sharp, thin point. This lasts much longer than the points made by a standard sharpener, which are rather broad and short. The best kneadable eraser I have found is made by Staedler. Never buy the ones made by Prang. They are neither kneadable, nor do they erase. Otherwise, I suppose they are fine.

I hope this helps. (I hope the jpeg is visible as it is not in the "preview" option.)

Juan

Sorry Folks

It seems that my Mac does not automatically include the entire pathway to the image, so it didn't load. Are there any Mac-users out there who know the work-around? I also am not able to edit the pathway myself in the "Attach File" text-box. This may be because I am using system 10. I'll go back to system 9 and try it again.

Thanks for the help.

Juan

Thanks for everybody's input (Especially Karen's, my grandchildren will love reading about my technique! :)). I'm going to try to scan in some of my stuff this week to put on here. I enjoy the results, and other people do too (I've sold several pencil portraits and generally get a good response), so I guess that's what's important. I have to work from photos, but I try not to just "photocopy" in pencil. The smudging is an effort to work in creating form with light and volume, without lines as much as possible, and create a more "painterly" effect, (the results can be debated). Maybe we can coin the word "pencilerly"?

Thanks for the link on "sauce". The picture posted is simply beautiful, I can't wait to read the article.

The question on "proper technique" took root after attending the conference in NYC. While it overwhelmed, excited, bewildered and encouraged me, it also raised a lot of questions I'd never been exposed to, the biggest being the question of working from photographs. I'll stop here so I don't get too far off topic and see if I can post my post-NYC thoughts on the right board.

I am a turkey...
 

I use the blending sticks and most often a shami---don't know if thats spelled right. I used to use my hands for pencil but looked messy, so the shami is a good replacement. However, I think once you're used to pencil a finger here or there couldn't do too much damage... Shami is good for getting a tone in charcoal. And it also erases charcoal pretty good too..

On the same topic, to develop tonal washes for preliminary portrait drawings, Richard Sherr says he uses graphite pencil "along with powdered graphite dissolved in alcohol, a mixture that I apply with a brush" (Portrait Highlights From the Pages of American Artist Magazine, May 2002). With just graphite and a toned ground, he acieves a very delicate "painted" tonal head.

Note to Cynthia: Is it legal/ethical to reproduce the magazine illustration I'm referring to as an example in a post on this forum? Just curious.

Joseph,

Do you mean chamois? It's not pronounced at all like it's spelled.

Mari,

I can't give legal advice, though I would think it would be ok since it's for informational purposes only and not for making money.

Juan,

Jim Riley has a Mac and seems to have mastered attachments. Try emailing him.

Turkey?
 

Joseph, you are a very talented artist with a very natural, creative style and a zeal for learning. You have:

T alent
U nderstanding
R esourcefulness
K nowledge
E ndurance
Y outh

:)

Stumpin' with the best...
 

http://www.art.net/~rebecca/OnPrudon7a.html

This is an 1861 eyewitness account of the methods of Pierre-Paul Prud'hon (see example of his work below).

more....

and more...

I gather that this may be an example of Prud'hon's work before he got around to the smudgy stuff...

Karin

Thanks for posting those excellent reproductions of Prud'hon's work. I am quite familiar with many of his pictures, even having seen a few in real life and done a couple of copies. However, that unfinished one you posted is fantastic as a resource. Wherever did you find it? I've seen only some of his that were unfinished, and that was only in parts rather than the whole. Very instructive. Thanks.

Juan

Walk around these pages...someone has done a lot of work on Prud'hon here: http://www.art.net/~rebecca/OnPrudon1a.html

Wow, Karin that was an impressive site you posted. I especially enjoyed the page on portraiture.

http://www.art.net/~rebecca/NewImages/AAarticle1.html

Peggy,

I love your sauce paintings and charcoals too! I really admire your work.

If I were to go to the art store, exactly what would I ask for to create a sauce painting? Do you enjoy doing these vs. charcoal?

So much to paint and so little time!

I am in Mexico at an internet cafe, strange computer, and no spell check, so please humor me...

Sauce is sauce. This is the name of the product. This is made by the Russian company, Yarka, distributed in the US by Jack Richeson and Co., and is available through several of the catalogs. (I think Dick Blick might have it.) Cynthia, maybe you can find the web site of Richeson, or the telephone number or e-mail address. He can help you to find it. On how to use it, I just had published in International Artist Magazine, April/May, 2002, an article on how to use it. Maybe Cynthia or someone could help me out here too as to where to get the magazine. This is all an easy fix for me to get if I were home.

Sauce is different and similar to charcoal. I am using it more than charcoal, and can see where it would be tempting to replace my charcoal studies with it.

Thanks all.

Peggy

Here is the Jack Richeson web site: http://www.richesonart.com

Sorry folks. This is a test. No need to respond.

Hey, my upload worked! This is the jpeg I intended to go with my post on page 2 of this thread. If anyone is still interested, please refer to that post.

It seems that the browser I was using; IE 5.1 for the Mac, does not include file pathways for attachments. This is too bad, because Stroke of Genius loads much more slowly on Netscape than in Internet Explorer.

For other Mac users: I actually used Omniweb rather than IE or Netscape. It works beautifully well in OS X.

Thanks to Jim and Cynthia for the earlier tips.

Juan

I will remember this reference next time I am commissioned to draw some naked guys and their penises! ;)

I respect the stylized renderings of this master. If an artist is working for his own enjoyment, it works. Portrait artists usually work for a customer, not for themselves, as this type of drawing would likely have been. In my pompous opinion, I doubt if this style would work well in most commissioned portraiture, however, since most customers (at least mine) do not want too much stylization and too much impressionism in line work and technique such as in the final post above.

I just want to clarify that the last Prud'hon drawing Karin posted (borrowed from my website) is a drawing abandoned in its early stage, before being refined. It was displayed here to indicate what a "stumped" drawing looked like *before* it gets stumped. Prud'hon made portraits for people in high positions; some were pastel, and quite nice, too. Not "stylized," or "impressionist." Once upon a time, any professional portrait artist spent their early years drawing posing nude models. It was an essential part of their development as artists. I hope that your remark about naked guys and their penises was only in jest. Prud'hon's style, as you see it applied to figure drawing, also served him very well in portrait drawing and for planning important large scale painting projects.

Dear Rebecca,

Of course it was a jest. But only half. I never saw the necessity for drawing nude genetalia, or nudes for that matter. Purely an opinion, as I stated. I rather think it would serve the portrait artist better to study how fabric interacts with the human form, rather than drawing the nude. I have never had the necessity for drawing a nude figure, not to say that it would not be a pleasure.

I am not familiar with his work. I did not read the posts well enough - I was unaware that the drawing was incomplete. My point still can be made: impressionist styles that work well in figures or in works for yourself do not necessarily hone the skills for a commissioned portrait artist. That does not diminish the beauty and quality of his work in the least.

No disrespect intended. I am just a skeptic of the "nude" school of thought.

I think what I get out of drawing/painting nude models is I can more clearly observe the underlying anatomy--bones and muscles are what determine how even the clothing falls on the model...

Although my own painting has a long way to go, I feel studying the nude is essential to my understanding portraiture.

Just a thought,
Mari

I am sure I am in the minority on ths issue! :)

Lon, I think that you might indeed be in the minority on the "nude study" issue.

However, who cares? :) You're a really nice guy. You paint well. And the thoughts and opinions you express on this forum enrich all of us.

Ha ha!

Thanx, Karin! Fact is, I would be too shy to draw anybody in the nude. I always draw with my clothes on! ;)

LOL! :sunnysmil Now why didn't I think of that....

Lon wrote: I teach drawing and painting, and I've seen how students are disinclined to study clothing with full, focused attention, even though it is integral to a finished portrait. They are, however, willing to give lots of attention to the human figure, and this has proven to be an excellent bridge to the study of other subject matter. Figure drawing and painting builds hardiness in artists' ability to focus, enabling them to address the plebeian things that they resisted earlier. Also, without full awareness of (and full respect for) the body beneath, artists will have trouble with the convincing clothed bodies of their sitters.
That said, I found it difficult to pursue my interest in [nude] figure painting between commissions in my publicly accessible portrait studio, for fear that puritanical shoppers might get their sensibilities bruised. It is ironic that this essential practice could scare away customers, but I've seen it happen.

--Rebecca Alzofon

We had figure drawing whan I was a child in art school. Of course, it was not nude. I believe that children can be taught all the basics as I was taught. That requires that you clothe the models. We were very attentive to drawing from life, and I learned great lessons about the figure without the nude.

Figure drawing is essential, of course. Full nudity is not.

:o There is a thread called "Nude or Naked?" at http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=&threadid=679 that you guys might want to check out...