Problem Areas
So, what are the problems with this piece? Mostly, they are in the area of underlying drawing – things that could be taken to another level of refinement either before or during the rendering phase. When doing a style like this, the SHAPES or silhouettes of objects become far more important than they are when you do more detail. The more detail you give an object, the more “hints” the viewer will have to tell what the object is. Include less of these “hints”, and the object becomes defined only by its form. This form then becomes of primary significance.
Thus, as I mentioned previously, the birds succeed because the shapes are very well done. The bird on the right, for instance, has a really nice outline to its head, so we need no details to see what it is. Other items in the picture don’t have the same care. While the birds look “realistic” (due to the careful preliminary drawing), some other things look sort of “cartoon”-like, unrealistic and flat.
Let’s look at the tree roots, for instance. There is a problem with both their unnatural shapes and the perspective of the roots as they enter the water. The perspective is a problem because several of the roots are clearly in front; yet they hit the water parallel to roots behind them, where they should be lower. This creates a sort of Escher-like optical illusion that is distracting. The shapes of the roots, on the other hand, could benefit from using reference. Compared to the realism of the birds, and the atmosphere in general, they just don’t stand up well.
Now, let’s look at the armor. We always need to think about what material an object is made of. If this were metal, it would be thinner and the highlights would be sharper. If it were leather, then it wouldn’t have such a definite shape, and would still be thinner. Also, we must examine the perspective again, especially the shoulder – the elliptical shapes formed by the edges are entirely too oblique for this angle, which unnaturally flattens the arm.
There are several other problems areas that keep the piece from having a consistent feel throughout; things that with a bit more refinement could be strengths rather than drawbacks.
The Grass on the right – is it detailed or not? It’s sort of halfway between the two; I’d be tempted to just lose the individual blades such as under the skull, and make that more blended, like the Birds. The Archer’s hand holding the string is a bit unrefined, too. Also, take a look at the size of Hercules’ head, and then compare it to the skull directly beneath his feet. They should be about the same size, but since the skull is so much smaller, the perspective again seems off.
Summary
As we can see in “Hercules”, a bold composition, interesting storytelling, and unusual, eye-catching technique get a picture a long way. But it still pays to take some time to fine-tune your shapes and perspective. Keep in mind that this amount of fine-tuning is going to change depending on what type of picture you’ve created. By making the birds the most prominent visual focus of the picture, the rest of the painting will have to match their level of drawing; any area that falls short can’t help but detract.
Article by Patrick McEvoy.
