Architecture portfolio

All the work there pretty much demonstrates an excellent representation of volume/space (that's what the use of colour is helping with in the second to last portrait). The cow studies are particularly good as they've obviously been drawn from life and not from photographs and they're very three dimensional despite being pencil sketches.

what do you mean it shows an understanding of volume/pace?

ok, can I send you some of my life drawings and can you tell me if they show the same? thanks

The drawings/paintings don't look flat. There's a sense of depth and volume to them - they look 3d

was that the purpose of them using the blues/greens in the second to last paintings?

Some of it yes

Have a look at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p062pb0w (it's only a short clip but if you can find the full series it's very interesting to see the masterclasses helping people develop their skills). That clip is about using highlights and shadows to show depth and volume.

But the colours wouldn't exist on a person in real life.

Do you want to break that news to Seurat? Or Matisse?

Oh, so it's to do with style?

It's to do with colour perception. If you look at the way different types of light and skin tones interact then you can end up with some very extreme colours for highlights/shadows. Some people are very skilled at picking up on those extremes and expressing them in paintings. It's a skill you can develop or practice. Your life drawings are in green and blue ink as well as fleshtones - I don't think you were drawing green and blue people

I wouldn't say your sketches are flat at all - but where they differ from the cow studies is if you look at your outlines. You've taken a few attempts to get some of those lines right (eg on the shoulders and right arm of the green study) whereas those cow drawings have hardly any lines/shading - they're very spare and yet capture cow-ness really well. That's a sign of confidence and practice so something you can definitely get better at to get your drawing a bit more consistent. The poses also look a little unatural/odd (but that could be the poses!). There's some really good drawing in there - the right hand and right thigh on the green man is excellent (but his chin/neck and left arm don't look quite right (I think the left arm is because it is in ink so it's too well defined?)).

You're very focused on outlines (the shadow under the left foot). I'd definitely suggest working in different media or trying the technique in the master class I linked to of using a rubber/white on dark instead of drawing all the edges in. Maybe play about with different mark making too? Try crosshatching or dots or something different to pen and ink (the watercolour is really good) to work on capturing shadows and highlights.

For architecture you don't have to limit yourself to nudes/people. Just draw anything from real life (not photos) - there's a reason still life is a classic art form, it's what artists are normally trained on (nude models are expensive!). I've seen excellent architecture portfolios with studies of rocks, shells, bones, cutlery, glasses etc etc.

Here is an example of a successful Cambridge architecture portfolio: http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/node/6532

what do you believe are its strong points and why have they used blues/greens in the second to last portrait of the man? I've seen other portraits like that, what's the point?

i did not know architecture students had to draw naked people :| (bit of a warning for those sensitive to that sort of stuff )

Thank you. I intend to draw more buildings and furniture in the future for my personal sketchbook.

Well, because it was with pen (not drawn with pencil first), and they were quick observations, I had to attempt some of the lines more than once.

They were interesting poses but I think because I couldn’t rub out the mistake I made with the pen, the shoulder got a bit out of hand!

I will explore different media and styles for my future life drawings.

I know that feeling! My sketches in university (not an art course) were always criticised for being “too sketchy” and that was with pencil! I think it’s the contrast in overdrawing between the two arms that stands out? The right arm (that’s in light) has a blurred outline and the left arm in shade has a very defined line.

One technique I’ve seen people use successfully is to speed draw the same object over and over again. Ie don’t give up on ink but try starting over afresh if you spot something you want to correct. It will help you develop a more fluid technique. It’s a bit like the “make the most pots v make the best pot” challenge (in reality if you make a lot of pots you’ll get a lot better at pot making!).

https://www.facebook.com/groups/253368118128258/?ref=share On FB is a very good group for getting feedback on your drawing from people with a lot more knowledge and experience than me.

Some of it yes

Have a look at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p062pb0w (it's only a short clip but if you can find the full series it's very interesting to see the masterclasses helping people develop their skills). That clip is about using highlights and shadows to show depth and volume.

It's to do with colour perception. If you look at the way different types of light and skin tones interact then you can end up with some very extreme colours for highlights/shadows. Some people are very skilled at picking up on those extremes and expressing them in paintings. It's a skill you can develop or practice. Your life drawings are in green and blue ink as well as fleshtones - I don't think you were drawing green and blue people

I wouldn't say your sketches are flat at all - but where they differ from the cow studies is if you look at your outlines. You've taken a few attempts to get some of those lines right (eg on the shoulders and right arm of the green study) whereas those cow drawings have hardly any lines/shading - they're very spare and yet capture cow-ness really well. That's a sign of confidence and practice so something you can definitely get better at to get your drawing a bit more consistent. The poses also look a little unatural/odd (but that could be the poses!). There's some really good drawing in there - the right hand and right thigh on the green man is excellent (but his chin/neck and left arm don't look quite right (I think the left arm is because it is in ink so it's too well defined?)).

You're very focused on outlines (the shadow under the left foot). I'd definitely suggest working in different media or trying the technique in the master class I linked to of using a rubber/white on dark instead of drawing all the edges in. Maybe play about with different mark making too? Try crosshatching or dots or something different to pen and ink (the watercolour is really good) to work on capturing shadows and highlights.

For architecture you don't have to limit yourself to nudes/people. Just draw anything from real life (not photos) - there's a reason still life is a classic art form, it's what artists are normally trained on (nude models are expensive!). I've seen excellent architecture portfolios with studies of rocks, shells, bones, cutlery, glasses etc etc.

hey guy, just a quick opinion please: I was wondering how you'd compare these 2 pics? Both by different people? Which is "better" and why?

I personally prefer the portrait to the left as it feels less rigid and more mature. The strokes to me suggest a more confident approach to the media used and the values/tones imo create a more realistic form, this is not to say the other one isn’t good.

Back to the Original post, im a little confused how the blue/green portrait of the man was allowed since its not an original piece but a copy of another artists work (ed haslam). I was always told that all work needs to be original but maybe cambridge is different