She complied, and naturally put her hand between her legs as she closed her eyes and smiled.......
And that was the pose I drew :)
But, somehow it didn't work. I think it was because I'd decided to work in natural light and it faded as I drew, so the lighting wasn't definite, but too defused. The picture was...................ok. Not good, but ...........ok.
This time when I saw her, I knew exactly what I wanted to do with her. I wanted her flat on her back with her legs in the air.
And I'd try it again. But this time with better fixed artificial lighting. And I'd get it right this time.
So, that is what we did. And I was perfectly happy with that idea. Until I walked past her to get to the power socket to plug the light in.
As I turned, and saw her lying there, with the light on her. I knew I'd made a huge mistake. HUGE!
The pose was far far far better from the other side!!!!!!
So, I set up my easel on the other side of her, and drew her from there.
And here's the picture. Far far better than the
.jpg)
first (which I've now ripped up and thrown away!). The picture is simple, and yet effective. Its got some lovely lines in it, and just the basic light catching her womanly body, lighting her breasts, stomach, face and limbs. Its called "Beautiful dreams" and as you look at it, you think its of a woman lying sleeping. Until you find her right hand. And then you smile as you realise what she's doing! LOL
15 comments:
Bloody el' Jackie she's f***ing gorgeous! I like your pulling line... or is your pulling line?, if not then I may use it with my next female encounter... 'I want you on your back with your legs in the air..' bound to get me a woman with THAT line!!!
Indigo - Hey, thankyou!!!!!! Gorgeous is she!!!! LOL
Well, it worked for me - hope it works for you too!!!!! :)
Hope she was worth it?!!
Indigo - Absolutely!!!! :)
Excellent !! ;-)
Another lovely drawing Jackie!
It really does go to show just how much thought your have to put into the way you pose your models, and even when you think you have it sorted out you are still looking for something better.
PREHISTORIC - EROTIC ART: - http://www.arterupestre-c.com As we can see through different images, they had sexual intercourse with animals, homosexual relations and more than two people at the same time. http://www.arterupestre-c.com/1000.htm Venus - Venuses http://www.arterupestre-c.com/1000ven.htm There is o ne sculpture that is emblematic, found in 1908, after lots of research and different epochs being affirmed as the real o nes about this sculpture, now they believe it was done around 24,000-22,000 BC. It shows a woman with a large stomach that overhangs but does not hide her pubic area. A roll of fat extends around her middle, joining with large but rather flat buttocks, there's no face and seems that at this place there is a hat or even hair rolled up o n the head. Her genital area would appear to have been deliberately emphasized with the labia of the vulva carefully detailed and made clearly visible, perhaps unnaturally so, and as if she had no pubic hair. This, combined with her large breasts and the roundness of her stomach, suggests that the "subject" of the sculpture is female procreativity and nurture and the piece has long been identified as some sort of fertility idol. The fact that numerous examples like that of a female figure. All generally exhibiting the same essential characteristics - large stomachs and breasts, featureless faces, minuscule or missing feet - have been found over a broad geographical area ranging from France to Siberia. That suggests that some system of shared understanding and perception of a particular type of woman existed during the Paleolithic.
That's really lovely.
Ruf and I were talking about you recently during a discussion about art. A friend has a sort of abstract piece composed by another friend as the main focus of his dining room. It uses nice colours and shapes and is pleasant to look at but, somehow, I dont consider it 'art' in the same way as I view one of your pieces which allow me to see something real that I might not otherwise have seen. I guess it's a discussion that has been had many times before in the light of the work of Tracey Emin and the bloke with the animals in formaldehyde.
As what I suppose is a 'still life' artist, how do you feel about these other types of 'art'?
Fitzy - Oh, I'm always looking at ways of improving! And thankyou, I'm glad you like it.
Erotic art prehistroy - Glad to know that erotic art isn't a new concept.
Joanna - Thankyou for letting me know you were discussing art and me recently, that's good to hear!!! :)
And I'm even more delighted that you find my art to be something that shows you something that you may not have seen before, that is (in part) what I aim for!
As for "the bloke with the animals in formaldehyde" - its interesting that you can't remember his name, but you can remember what he did, that says a lot!!!! LOL That sort of art is what I think of as "Emperors new clothes art" - in that it HAS TO BE EXPLAINED before you "get it". On its own you just look at it and wonder what the fuck it is. I believe that art can be viewed on its own and be thought of as appealing (or at least invoke an emotion, even if its a negative one) and although it will still need some more explanation for you to understand it better, it is attractive and life enhancing in its own right (unlike dead animals in formaldehyde!).
LOL... Damien Hirst... I could remember Hirst but not the first name - senior moment :P I certainly wouldnt want a pickled lamb above my mantlepiece but I guess it's horses for courses isnt it?
Joanna - That's him! LOL
Personally, I wouldn't want a pickled lamb above my fireplace....no! But a nice bright vibrant Queynte, yes!!!!! LOL
Jackie, this picture is so deliciously voyeuristic! We've stumbled upon her at a private moment but can't look away. Beautiful!
Nitebyrd - Mmm... it is deliciously voyeuristic, isn't it! :)
Post a Comment