As Colin Woodward’s YouTubes have made me think more consciously
about abstraction, I’ve come to realize that some types of abstraction come
more easily to me than others. The textures and shapes of trees and foliage,
for example, are easier to abstract than their hues, which I feel compelled to
make as natural as possible (I talked about this a bit in yesterday’s post,
too).
On the other hand, humanmade shapes likes houses and cars are more challenging to abstract, but it’s easy to use non-realistic (or non-real) colors to depict them.
![]() |
| 5/3/26 Maple Leaf neighborhood (With some difficulty, I tried to abstract the cars as much as possible. The blur of foliage was easier to abstract by simply focusing on values.) |
Strangest of all is that it’s easier to abstract both shapes and colors when I work from photo references (as below) than from life. It should all be the same to my brain, yet whenever I sketch from life, I feel I must be more life-like. (As is often the case, my brain can be annoying.)
![]() |
| 4/15/26 photo reference (Both shapes and colors are easier to abstract when I draw from a photo) |
I’m glad I kept it! The point is finer than a Kuretake medium-size round waterbrush, which is my go-to, and it has come in handy a couple of times for details. More useful, though, is the angled flat edge, which enables activating a large area of foliage, for example, without getting the dreaded dab-dab-dab look that can occur when using a round Kuretake. (In fact, avoiding the dab-dab-dab look was what led me to start using a spritzer to activate foliage years ago.) It might just be a novelty, but I’m keeping it in my bag for now.




No comments:
Post a Comment