How Artists Work Out Their “Process”

If you’re new to making art or are curious about making art, it can sometimes be strange to read about how artists make their work look like their own work. Often, artists will do very specific things, follow their own rules, use very specific types of materials etc… and you might be wondering “how did they work that out?“.

The simple answer is, of course, “trial, error, circumstances and research“.

For example, most of the techniques that I use in my own art were either the product of experimentation, gradual research and/or looking at other works of art. They are also a product of circumstances too. They make my art look a bit like this preview of a digitally-edited painting that I’ve prepared for next month:

This is a reduced-size preview. The full-size painting will be posted here on the 15th June.

For starters, my rule that “30-50% of the total surface area of each painting should be covered with black paint” wasn’t something that I worked out instantly. I mean, if you look at some of my older art (from back when I made pencil drawings rather than paintings), you’ll see that I don’t always follow this rule.

This is a drawing of mine from 2012. As you can see, less than 30% of the total surface area of the drawing is covered with black pencil. (“Attic Lab” By C. A. Brown
[10th June 2012])

No, I learnt this rule through lots of gradual experimentation, through careful observation of anything that I thought was “cool” (eg: computer games, heavy metal album covers, films/TV shows from the 1980s and 1990s etc…), from needing to make paintings in a hurry sometimes and through just making art that I liked (and then realising that it tended to include a lot of black paint).

Once I’d worked out that there was a rule, I was able to use this technique in a much more thorough and conscious way. Like this:

“Death Takes A Holiday” By C. A. Brown

“Coast Road” By C. A. Brown

Likewise, the current 18x18cm size for most of my paintings has a rather long story behind it. When I started making daily art back in 2012, most of my daily drawings were just under a quarter of an A4 page in size. This was a small area that I felt I could comfortably fill with art every day. When I got a bit more confident, I expanded to half an A4 page and then I’d often make A4-sized pieces. I didn’t really go any larger than A4 both for time reasons and because I worried that I wouldn’t be able to fit my art into the scanner that I use to digitise it.

When I switched over to using watercolour pencils in very late 2013/early 2014, also I switched back to only using half (or less) of an A4 page for a while. This was mostly to conserve the limited amount of watercolour paper, waterproof ink pens and watercolour pencils I had at the time. Of course, once I’d amassed a decent amount of low-mid range art supplies, I could make my paintings a bit larger.

After a bit of trial and error, I think that I eventually settled on the 18 x18 cm size for several reasons. It was small enough for me to make daily paintings and it had the advantages of both portrait and landscape formats, not to mention that the square format meant that the picture still looked fairly clear when automatically resized on the internet. After a while, I started adding 1.5cm black “letterboxing” bars to the top and bottom of most of my paintings. Initially, this was to make my art look more “cinematic”, but it also saved a bit of time and helped me to stick to my “30-50% black paint” rule more easily too.

These are the “standard” guidelines that I draw before making most of my paintings. And, yes, that little square in the bottom corner is for the title graphics for these articles too.

Likewise, most of the digital editing techniques that I used on my paintings after I’ve scanned them were things that I learnt from gradual experimentation and research. Initially, the only thing I really knew how to do was to crop pictures to the correct size. Then I learnt how to adjust the brightness/contrast levels in images. Then I went through a phase of using “blur” effects in all of my drawings (since it disguised the pencil lines slightly) etc…

And, gradually, I learnt how to do more and more. Sometimes, I’d learn by just messing around with the programs that I use and, sometimes, I’d learn through reading about what other artists did.

For example, I worked out how to add realistic skin tones to my art digitally after reading this “making of” article by Winston Rowntree. Initially, I selected each area manually, but then I eventually realised that most image editing programs have tools for selecting larger areas quickly.

Likewise, as I’ve mentioned before, my current palette was mostly inspired by the use of colours in these fan-made “Doom II” levels. But, even this followed several months of occasional experimentation with limited complementary colour-based palettes.

So, yes, an artist’s “process” is usually the result of things like trial and error, practical concerns, artistic research and experimentation. This is why, when you read about how an artist makes their art, it can sometimes sound a bit strange. There’s no standard “one size fits all” process for all artists. We usually have to work it out for ourselves.

————-

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

One Constructive Way To Deal With Artistic Jealousy – A Ramble

Although I’ve written about the subject of artistic jealousy before, I found myself in a situation where my usual techniques for dealing with it (eg: remembering that there is always someone better and someone worse at art then you, taking inspiration from better artists etc…) didn’t quite work. So, I shall begin with the woeful tale of how this all began, before I descibe how I was able to return to normal.

Basically, I happened to watch a documentary on TV about a better and more sucessful artist and then, shortly afterwards, I happened to see some amazing photo-based digital paintings online. And, somehow, all of this filled me with pointless artistic jealousy.

Needless to say, my artistic confidence was running low. My unique cartoonish art style seemed primitive and childish in comparison to the art in the documentary that I’d seen on TV. My imagination, of which I am so proud, felt second-rate in comparison to the better artist I’d found who was much more at ease with making art directly based on other things (likewise, the fact that a series of studies of out-of-copyright historical paintings I’ve prepared for some of next month’s art posts look better than my original art also made me feel that my imagination was inferior too).

Eventually, a while later, I prepared my next digitally-edited painting for one of next month’s daily art posts. On an ordinary day, I’d have considered it to be a good painting. But, on that night, I felt like it was a mediocre, second-rate painting that was only less worse than I’d originally feared it would have been. Here’s a preview of it:

This is a reduced-size preview. The full-size painting will be posted here on the 11th May.

Still, the next day, I’d got over all of these emotions. But, how did I do it?

I distracted myself from them, whilst also reminding myself why I’m an artist.

In my situation, this involved listening to Cradle Of Filth’s “From The Cradle To Enslave” EP. Not only is the music on this CD brilliantly intense and cathartic, but it is also a mixture of original and less original work. The first two tracks are new original songs from the band, the middle two tracks are covers of songs from other bands and the final two tracks (on the UK edition at least) are remixes/re-recordings of the band’s older stuff.

This reminded me of the fact that whilst making non-original stuff can be a good way to make things when you aren’t inspired, to show off your unique style and to pay tribute to things you think are cool – it’s also ok to focus on original stuff too. In fact, the two original tracks on the EP are – by far- the best two tracks. These songs open the EP with a passion and energy that the other songs lack slightly. So, it also reminded me that original stuff can be better.

At the same time, I also made a point of watching the notorious uncensored music video for “From The Cradle To Enslave” on Youtube too. This is a music video that shows a lot of creativity and skill. It is a music video that only Cradle Of Filth could have made. It is such a brilliant expression of everything that the band are – such as the gloomy gothic locations, the dark humour, the low budget horror movie-style scenes, the decadent debauchery etc… And it reminded me what art is truly about. It’s about self-expression and making things that both you and other people think are cool.

Ok, you probably aren’t a Cradle Of Filth fan. But, your own equivalent to this can be very useful if you are racked by strong feelings of artistic jealousy. Find an original creative work that you really like and remind yourself that it is so interesting because the people who made it did their own thing. That they took inspiration from the people they admired and produced great things that are also unique.

Or, if that doesn’t work, just distract yourself with the creative work in question until the feelings of artistic inadequacy/jealousy begin to subside. This can work too.

————-

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

Do Artists Have To Have Cool Life Stories? – A Ramble

Well, at the time of writing, I still seem to be going through a phase of making studies of old out-of-copyright paintings (which will be posted here in early May). Here’s a preview of the one I finished a while after completing the first draft of this article, it’s a study of “Saudade” (1899) by José Ferraz de Almeida Júnior:

This is a reduced-size preview, the full-size painting will be posted here on the 5th May.

Anyway, as I mentioned yesterday, part of the process of making these pictures is doing online research to find public domain source material. This, of course, introduces you to lots of artists that you might never have heard of before and also reminds you of lots of artists that you vaguely remember reading about the last time you did this kind of research.

So, for today, I thought that I’d talk about artists’ life stories and whether artists have to have cool life stories. This is mostly because one of the artists that I vaguely remembered was an Art Nouveau artist called Gerda Wegener. From everything I read about her on Wikipedia, she seemed like a really cool person in all sorts of ways (even if, like many famous historical artists, her life had something of a tragic ending).

However, when I thought about making a study of some of her art, I suddenly remembered that virtually all of it was far too risqué to post here. One of the many things that had made her such a cool person was also a reason why I couldn’t make studies of her art. The only Wegener painting I could find that was “safe for work” is a really good “modern art”-style portrait of Lili Elbe which looks cool, but has the kind of bright low-contrast lighting which I don’t really use in my own art these days.

Then there were other cool artists like Austin Osman Spare and Pamela Colman Smith who both have interesting life stories and cool-looking art, but whose works are still in copyright in both the UK and mainland Europe. Then, of course, there’s the one and only Touko Laaksonen – whose art is unfortunately both still copyrighted and far too risqué to post studies of here.

Yet, on the other hand, there are artists with fairly “boring” or “uncool” life stories who have produced some really cool work.

Oskar Zwintscher (whose art I made a study of recently) seems to have a fairly understated life story (by old artist standards) on his Wikipedia page, and he also sounds like he was a grumpy cynic who didn’t like the new-fangled impressionist art of the time. Then again, given my own cynical views about modern conceptual art, I can hardly criticise him too much for not liking “trendy” art.

Then there are artists like Caravaggio – whose 16th/17th century art contains some of the most awesome lighting found in art from that period of history (seriously, some of his paintings are like heavy metal album covers… from before heavy metal was invented!). Yet, his life story seems to be a somewhat disturbing, depressing and tragic one – since he was also a violent criminal who had to spend the later parts of his life on the run from the authorities after stabbing someone. But, even so, his art is amazing!

I guess that what I’m trying to say here is that the only way to judge an artist is by their works. Yes, it can be interesting to read about artists who have had cool, interesting and/or hedonistic lives. But, this certainly isn’t a mandatory part of being an artist!

At the end of the day, being an artist is about making art. Not only that, it is about making art that you feel is cool (whatever that may be). If you make art that you feel is cool, then there are probably other people out there who will also think that it is cool.

So, yes, some great artists have had boring and/or crappy life stories and some have had amazingly cool ones. Nonetheless, they’re all great artists. Yes, an interesting life story can be fascinating to historians. But, at the end of the day, these people were recognised because they were good artists. The emphasis being on the word “artists” (eg: people who make art).

It’s kind of like the old misconception about drugs and creativity. Yes, some great creative people have taken a lot of drugs – but they produced great works despite this, rather than because of it. In other words, if you’re an inexperienced artist, writer, musician etc… then drugs won’t magically give you the skills that can only be gained through practice, research and/or experience. If anything, it will probably distract you from these important things.

The same is true for being obsessed with the silly idea that being a creative person means having a “cool” life story. Good creative people can have boring lives, or they can have cool ones. It doesn’t matter. The important thing is what they create.

Plus, everyone’s life contains a mixture of “cool” and “dull” elements. Biographies of artists inevitably end up emphasising the “cool” parts and downplaying the “dull” parts.

At the end of the day, a “life story” is just that, a simplified story that is told about the complexity of someone’s life.

—————–

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

Is It Worth Knowing What Materials An Artist Uses?

This little picture was made using a rollerball pen, a scanner and several digital effects.

This little picture was made using a rollerball pen, a scanner and several digital effects.

Well, after mentioning two of the old image editing programs I use regularly in a recent article, I thought that I’d look at the whole subject of artists talking about the tools they use. I’ll mostly be looking at this from an artist’s perspective, since if you’re interested in an artist’s materials, then you’re probably interested in making art too.

It’s usually fairly common for artists to mention the tools that they use. This tends to happen for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is directly relevant to explaining how the artist achieved a particular effect, sometimes it’s because the audience are curious (or the artist thinks that they might be) and occasionally, it’s because an artist either has a favourite brand of art supplies or has possibly even been sponsored by the people who make said art supplies.

But, how useful is it for an artist to explain what art supplies that they use?

Generally, not as useful as you might think. In fact, knowing what art supplies your favourite artists use is often only ever useful in two circumstances. Yes, just two.

The first is that it tells you what general type of art supplies to look for if you want to make art that has a vaguely similar appearance to theirs. Notice how I said “type”, rather than “brand”.

If you learn that an artist’s pictures are created using a combination of, say, alcohol-based markers and India ink then, these are the two types of art supplies that you need to look for. Any art supplies of this type, regardless of brand, will do (and, if you’re new to making art, it’s worth going for cheaper art supplies that you feel comfortable experimenting with).

For example, my own daily artwork is usually made using watercolour pencils, a waterbrush, a black waterproof ink rollerball pen, cheap watercolour paper, a scanner and a couple of relatively basic image editing programs. But, if you get those particular things, then you probably won’t be able to make art that looks exactly like mine.

Why? Because knowledge and techniques are more important than tools. This brings me on to the second circumstance where knowing which materials an artist uses can be useful.

If there’s a very specific technique that requires you to use a certain art medium, then knowing what to use is obviously fairly important. For example, if your favourite artist uses “wet in wet” watercolour painting techniques and you want to try this yourself, then it’s probably important to know that you’ll need a slightly thicker/heavier type of watercolour paper (with a decent amount of surface sizing!), that powder/pan-based paints work better than watercolour pencils, that you’ll probably need a selection of different size brushes etc..

Of course, in order to illustrate the actual techniques involved in, say, “wet in wet” painting – the artist obviously has to explain what tools they are using.

After all, if you tried to drench a specific area of a painting with water whilst using very thin, cheap watercolour paper then it’s possibly going to ruin the paper. Likewise, some types of watercolour paper are more absorbent than others due to having less surface sizing (generally, I tend to use very absorbent watercolour paper – which helps to speed up drying times, but it makes “wet in wet” painting next to impossible). So, knowing which type of art supplies to get in order to practice the technique you are trying to learn is important.

But, apart from this, knowing what art supplies other artists use is fairly useless information in practical terms. Merely buying the same art supplies as your favourite artists won’t suddenly allow you to make art that looks like their art. Sure, your art will use the same materials (and look vaguely similar because of this) but the thing that makes a painting, drawing etc… look distinctive is the artist who made it. Their knowledge, their techniques and the many hours of practice that they have put into these things.

So, if you want to make art that looks more like the stuff that your favourite artists make, then it’s often far more useful to study the drawing or painting techniques that they use. It’s more useful to study things like the colour schemes they use in their art. It’s more useful to study how they handle things like composition and perspective etc…

I guess that what I’m trying to say is that getting new art supplies won’t turn you into your favourite artist. Art supplies are just tools. What matters is how you use them.

——————-

Anyway, I hope that this was useful 🙂

Every Artist Constructs Their Artwork In A Slightly Different Way

2016 Artwork The process of making art sketch

One of the things that I really enjoy watching are speeded-up videos of artists making paintings and drawings. As an artist who likes to make art relatively quickly (eg: I usually only spend 30-90 minutes on each of my paintings), it’s really cool to see other artists producing awesome art ridiculously quickly – even if it’s just via clever video editing. Not only that, these videos also contain lots of fascinating insights into the process of making art.

Back in October, I happened to see a really cool example of one of these videos on one of my favourite art-related Youtube channels (called “Mary Doodles“). This video is part of a long-running series where Mary Doodles scribbles randomly on a piece of paper and then uses that scribble as the basis for a proper painting and/or drawing. I haven’t even attempted anything like this myself, but it seems like a brilliant demonstration of artistic skill.

Anyway, this video made me think about how artists construct their paintings and drawings. And, for me, it’s usually more of a construction process than anything else.

Although I occasionally have an idea of what I’m going to paint or draw before I begin, most of my paintings and drawings usually just start with me sitting in front of a blank piece of paper and randomly sketching (and often erasing) things in pencil until I have the beginnings of an interesting painting or drawing.

Usually, I’ll sketch the close foreground and/or any people in the picture first and then I’ll add the background later. Most of the time, I only start thinking of ideas for the background after I’ve already sketched the people in the picture. Sometimes I’ll even sketch out one-point perspective lines as a guide.

But, one of the fascinating things about seeing speeded-up videos of other artists making art is seeing the different ways that they start, construct and/or plan their paintings and drawings.

For example, in the Mary Doodles video I linked to earlier, she starts drawing the picture in the area of the paper that she scribbled on. This is a fairly logical place to start this kind of drawing, but it’s interesting to see the composition that she uses afterwards – first, she adds a zombie in the close foreground on the right-hand side of the painting and then she adds another zombie in the mid-distance on the left-hand side of the picture.

I don’t know how much pre-planning went into this drawing, but – from the video at least- it appears that she’s drawing the entire thing completely spontaneously and without using a visible pencil sketch either. If this is the case, then this is seriously impressive.

Seriously, even though I’ve been making art on a regular basis for almost four years (and on an irregular basis for much longer than that) I can usually only produce vaguely good drawings and paintings if I make a pencil sketch beforehand.

The only real exception to this is the little sketches that I include at the top of these articles and that’s only because I’ve drawn these cartoon pictures of myself so often that I know how to do it without sketching through sheer repetition and muscle memory. But, for anything that involves real creativity, I still usually have to sketch it out in pencil first.

Still, some artists thrive when they make art completely spontaneously and without any prior sketching. So, I guess that it’s safe to say that every artist constructs their paintings and/or drawings in their own slightly unique way. For me, this is one of the cool things about making art – since it’s kind of like computer game designers using different “engines” for making games.

Likewise, when I draw people, I’ll usually sketch a simplified stick figure- like “skeleton” before adding any other details. This is a relatively recent thing and, before this, I used another technique that I learnt from this Shoo Rayner video, which involves drawing a mannequin-like figure in pencil. Before this, I didn’t really do any of this kind of planning before drawing people – which explains the weird proportions and poses in a lot of my older artwork.

Many artists use versions of these techniques, but these are often subtly different. For example, in the instructional video about drawing realistically-proportioned people on Mary Doodles’ channel, she uses the stick figure technique – but her version of it involves drawing triangles and/or diamonds to represent the chest, hips and feet.

So, yes, every artist constructs their artwork in a slightly different and vaguely unique way.

————————-

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Why You Shouldn’t Judge Artists Based On Just One Portrait – A Ramble

2015 Artwork Don't Judge Artists By One Portrait Article sketch

Back in the summer, the internet (or, rather, *ugh* Twitter) erupted with ridicule at a courtroom artist in America, who many thought had drawn a rather poor likeness of a professional sports player.

Although, as I’ll explain later, I think that a lot of this ridicule was completely unjustified – I’ll link to a news article which includes the picture (and several parodies of it) in order to illustrate what I’m talking about.

In the courtroom sketch, the sports player’s cheekbones are perhaps slightly too pronounced, but it isn’t a bad drawing.

For a portrait drawn from life in a relatively short space of time, using a fairly limited colour palette, this courtroom drawing is actually fairly impressive. I mean, even if I had a few more years of drawing practice behind me, I would probably struggle to produce something that realistic under those circumstances. I mean, I’d be extremely surprised if any of the people ridiculing this picture were actually artists themselves.

But, why am I mentioning this ephemeral piece of internet silliness and why am I taking it so seriously ?

The reason that I’m mentioning it is because it illustrates a problem which all artists encounter at some point or another. Some people are just more difficult to draw than others. There’s no real logic to this and it obviously varies from artist to artist, but every artist has probably attempted to draw someone only to find that it’s next to impossible to get their likeness right.

To give you an example from my own work, I can’t draw David Cameron. To me, he’s impossible to draw properly and, believe me, I’ve tried. So, I might as well kiss goodbye to any hopes of becoming a political cartoonist during the next five years.

I’ve also found that some celebrities are next to impossible to draw too. On the other hand, I didn’t have too much trouble making the illustrations for an article I wrote quite a while back about four of my favourite artists on Youtube.

But, although it can be very difficult to predict whether someone will be easy to draw or not, I think that one of the factors that can play a part in it is the art style that you use.

For example, I use a slightly cartoonish art style when drawing people. What this means is that it’s sometimes easier to draw people who have a few very distinctive features (eg: a unique hairstyle, large eyebrows etc…) than it is to draw people who look slightly more “ordinary”.

Then again, my art style has improved slightly over the years – so, my drawings tend to include slightly more detail than they used to a couple of years ago. So, this is less of an issue today than it was in, say, 2013.

Anyway, going back to the widely-ridiculed courtroom sketch that I mentioned at the beginning of this article, I think that the courtroom artist’s art style might have been the thing which led some people to foolishly conclude that the picture was “badly-drawn”.

Although many courtroom sketches look fairly similar because courtroom artists often use similar art materials (eg: pastels, certain types of paper etc..) and because courtroom artists usually also aim for a more “realistic” style, this particular artist’s style seems to place a lot of emphasis on the contours of people’s faces. Since the critics of this drawing just seem to have focused on the artist’s depiction of one person, they don’t seem to have noticed this fact.

If you look at all of the other people in the drawing, you’ll see that many of them tend to have slightly pronounced cheekbones and jawlines. The sketch artist also uses fairly bold shading in order to quickly emphasise the shape of people’s faces. With an art style like this, everyone’s face is going to look very slightly angular. This isn’t a bad thing, but it probably makes realistically depicting some people (like the main subject of the drawing) slightly more difficult.

So, the next time you see a terrible likeness of someone in a drawing or a painting, don’t judge the artist because of this. Some people are just easier to draw than others. Likewise, some art styles are better suited to depicting certain people.

—————

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂

Four Amazing Artists On Youtube (And Cartoon Portraits Of Them)

2014 Artwork Youtube Artists Article Sketch

Well, since I couldn’t think of a good idea for a proper article today, I thought that I’d talk about four of my favourite art-related Youtube channels that you might not have heard of before.

In addition to this, I’ll also include cartoon portraits of each of the four artists who run these channels too, mainly because I was kind of curious what these artists would look like when drawn in my art style (apologies in advance if anyone is badly-drawn) and also to break up my random ramblings about Youtube too.

So, in no particular order, here are four of my favourite artists on Youtube:

1) Mary Doodles:

"Youtube Artists - Mary Doodles" By C. A. Brown

“Youtube Artists – Mary Doodles” By C. A. Brown

I discovered Mary Doodles’ art channel earlier this year, when she appeared in a video on Karen Kavett’s graphic design channel. There was a link to Mary Doodles’ channel in the video and I was absolutely amazed by what I saw there!

She’s mostly works with ink, watercolours and marker pens and she has a really unique art style which is kind of cartoonish, darkly comedic, highly-stylised and slightly horror-themed.

Her main Youtube channel is filled with really cool time-lapse videos of watercolour paintings and/or ink drawings (and the occasional music video too). She also has a really interesting second channel called “More Mary Doodles” where she talks about the process of making art, her opinions about art-related topics and her development as an artist.

2) Elgin “Subwaysurfer” Bolling:

"Youtube Artists - Elgin 'Subwaysurfer' Bolling" By C. A. Brown

“Youtube Artists – Elgin ‘Subwaysurfer’ Bolling” By C. A. Brown

A few months ago, I was interested in making editorial cartoons (I even wrote an article about it at the time) and, whilst researching the subject on Youtube, I happened to find Elgin “Subwayfurfer” Bolling’s Youtube channel and promptly ended up watching it for the next two or three hours.

He’s a caricaturist from New York and his art style is, as you would expect, highly exaggerated and stylised in a very unique way.

In addition to this, his channel is absolutely crammed with videos giving advice about how to work as a caricaturist in a variety of different situations (eg: at parties, in market stalls etc..), his opinions about a variety of topics and great general art advice too.

3) Paige Lavoie:

"Youtube Artists - Paige Lavoie" By C. A. Brown

“Youtube Artists – Paige Lavoie” By C. A. Brown

As regular readers of this site probably know, I used to make webcomics quite often but – for some wierd reason – I pretty much stopped making them this year.

Anyway, a few months ago, I was trying to get back into the mood for making webcomics by watching webcomic-related Youtube videos when I stumbled across Paige Lavoie’s Youtube channel.

She makes a webcomic called “Pumpkin Spiced” (which I still haven’t got round to reading properly at the time of writing this article) and her art style is fairly whimsical, very slightly manga-inspired (whilst still looking unique) and slightly gothic too. There are quite a few videos about making webcomics on her channel, as well as quite a few art videos and the occasional vlog-style video.

One of the cool things about Paige Lavoie’s channel is that, for a while, she posted daily art videos. And, well, as someone who posts art on the internet every day – it’s always great to see other artists doing this too 🙂

4) Shoo Rayner:

"Youtube Artists - Shoo Rayner" By C.A. Brown

“Youtube Artists – Shoo Rayner” By C.A. Brown

I can’t remember exactly when I discovered Shoo Rayner’s Youtube channel, but I discovered it quite a while before I discovered watercolour pencils.

Back then, I only made drawings (using ink, digital effects and coloured pencils – like in the other portraits in this article) and, from all the other art-related stuff I’d seen in the world, it seemed clear that drawing was seen as second-best when compared to painting.

So, imagine my delight when I found a Youtube channel that was almost entirely about drawing as an art form. A Youtube channel which presented drawing as a valid and valuable art medium which was just as good as, if not better than, painting.

In addition to this, his channel was probably the main thing that inspired me to start my “How To Draw” series (you might have to scroll down quite a bit or go back a couple of pages to find the actual drawing guides from 2013) that ran for a few months last year.

Anyway, Shoo Rayner is an illustrator who mostly makes traditional ink drawings and then colours them using watercolour paints. His art style is fairly cartoonish, although it also has a slightly “realistic” and “traditional” look to it too.

Most of the videos on his channel are instructional videos about to draw various things, although he occasionally interviews other artists and talks about art-related topics too.

————

Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂 Hopefully I’ll write a proper article for tomorrow.