|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jun 12, 2011 16:53:01 GMT
Dromaeosaurs are easy to characterise without over-exaggeration because of their large eyes and neat proportions. Others usually need many more liberties taken with them. I'm wondering whether I should just push that further with these silly ones to really 'animate' them, rather than the slightly cautious way I'm doing it now. I think the Allosaurus being hugged by Chris K is just the right balance. I liked it.. ;D Seriously that Allosaurus looked realistic but still had plenty of " character ". |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jun 12, 2011 16:53:43 GMT
I don´t think you should go much further in the anthropomorphization, if that´s what you meant. One of the things that make your pieces so unique is how they work both as an accurate and naturalistic depiction of the animal and as a humorous portrait which oozes life and human emotion. Not sure if sacrificing accuracy for more human expressiveness would worth it....and I believe you don´t need it, you´re talented enough to make your dinos show any possible emotion without twisting significatively their anatomy.  |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jun 12, 2011 17:11:35 GMT
I understand you. I don't mean anthropomisation, but heightened characteristics. For instance, enlarged eyes or any other 'exaggeration' (term used advisedly) of their own natural features. Which is why I think the Allosaurus strikes just the right balance; those brow horns are wonderful for helping to heighten its eyes. Other examples might be the enhancement or diminishing of ceratopsian frills (again, within reason) to help establish character, or the domes and spikes of pachycephalosaurs; you get the idea... Animators employ these techniques all the time in creating their characters. Of course, they are usually even more exaggerated, but that is perfectly legitimate within their context. My approach is of course far, far less caricatured, and as you say, it is hopefully that union of convincing-looking animals with expressiveness and character. I'm glad you think most of it works so far; thank you. And of course, it goes without saying that I'm only thinking of these things in terms of these fun pieces, and not for the more serious illustrations. |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jun 12, 2011 17:35:41 GMT
You´re welcome!
I suspected anthropomorphization wasn´t the right word, but got close, lol. ;D
A slight enhancement of some features is ok . Note that even "serious" artists like Luis Rey do it often, maybe unconsciously, not always using perspective angles and with a different purpose, I guess. And you do it brilliantly, without get lost in the shape of the animal. So.. go for it! going a bit far with that wouldn´t hurt, and could help to improve your style, if that´s even possible..
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jun 12, 2011 18:05:00 GMT
Thank you so much, everyone. Just to be mean! ;D Very nice picture, will make a fine memento. Sorry, was it mean of me to have omitted the Diet part? ^_^ ; It wasn't intentional, honest. You will each have a print of it. If you'd care for the thing, that is... Nah, my point (joking!) was that the picture is inaccurate as the label on the bottle is red, clearly denoting regular Coca-Cola rather than Diet Coke. (But obviously, I don't really care.) I would love a print of it! |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jun 12, 2011 22:12:12 GMT
Aha, I see! I'm clearly not au fait enough with the various manifestations of Coca-Cola. I thought I did rather well in getting the bottle shape right, darn... Oh, well. ;D Arioch; yes, you're right, judicial use of 'exaggeration' or emphasis work very well in serious pieces too. And I have miles and miles (and miles) to evolve artistically... |
|
|
|
Post by Griffin on Jun 13, 2011 20:14:27 GMT
I would love a print of it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jun 14, 2011 0:14:53 GMT
Hurrah!
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jun 14, 2011 20:30:26 GMT
This is a gift for Radman in return for sending me these treasures. My highly, highly speculative (or almost entirely imaginary, depending on your point of view!) depiction of Kinnareemimus khonkaenensis. The resizing has done a few things to it again, as usual...  Painted at Radman's own suggestion (quite a purposeful one, I'm sure, considering everything about it  ). I'm afraid it simply looks like a generic ornithomimosaur, given the extremely fragmentary remains we have of it. Its head is a vague approximation of something between Garudimimus, Harpymimus and generic ornithomimid. Its plumage is inspired by a number of monals and other pheasants. It's a very small piece at 11.5 x 8.5cm, so this view is some four times the size of the original. I swear I shall ruin my eyes before I am fifty. But let us hope I shan't live so long.Darkish picture with penny for scale. Rana said he wanted to be in the scale picture too... ¬_¬ And if you were wondering what the actual mythological kinnaree looks like... |
|
|
|
Post by stoneage on Jun 14, 2011 20:36:58 GMT
This is a gift for Radman in return for sending me these treasures. My highly, highly speculative (or almost entirely imaginary, depending on your point of view!) depiction of Kinnareemimus khonkaenensis. The resizing has done a few things to it again, as usual... Painted at Radman's own suggestion (quite a purposeful one, I'm sure, considering everything about it ). I'm afraid it simply looks like a generic ornithomimosaur, given the extremely fragmentary remains we have of it. Its head is a vague approximation of something between Garudimimus, Harpymimus and generic ornithomimid. Its plumage is inspired by a number of monals and other pheasants. It's a very small piece at 11.5 x 8.5cm, so this view is some four times the size of the original. I swear I shall ruin my eyes before I am fifty. But let us hope I shan't live so long.Darkish picture with penny for scale. Rana said he wanted to be in the scale picture too... ¬_¬ And if you were wondering what the actual mythological kinnaree looks like... Your art work is amazing, and that Pop up incredible! You will probably end up being the world's greatest blind artist. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by arioch on Jun 14, 2011 20:48:14 GMT
Its really brilliant, a great piece of art. I like the plumage a lot.
And if you keep forcing yourself to such level of awesome detail in such a small scale, yes, sooner or later you will turn blind! So please, don´t do it again, we need your eyes, hands and talent intact. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jun 14, 2011 20:52:03 GMT
It's awesome, obviously. I WOULD point out that ornithomimosaurs are probably too basal to have complex, vaned feathers as seen protruding from the head here...but how could I do that, when it looks so lovely?
*is banned forever, again*
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jun 14, 2011 22:18:02 GMT
Thank you folks! It's awesome, obviously. I WOULD point out that ornithomimosaurs are probably too basal to have complex, vaned feathers as seen protruding from the head here...but how could I do that, when it looks so lovely? *is banned forever, again* Ah, yes; thank you... Do you know, I really did debate with myself whether to add those crown feathers or not. Blast. Oh, well, none next time. |
|
|
|
Post by hkhollinstone on Jun 15, 2011 17:05:21 GMT
It's beautiful Niroot, as is all your work, incredible detail for a painting of that size.
|
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jun 15, 2011 17:16:43 GMT
I just noticed this... But let us hope I shan't live so long. ...WHAT!?! You'd d**n well better live at least that long, the better we can continue to appreciate your work! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jun 15, 2011 20:10:14 GMT
Aw, shucks... ;D And thank you so much, Harriet. |
|
|
|
Post by totoro on Jun 16, 2011 3:27:58 GMT
Wow, that's amazing Himmapaan. Your art is so beautiful. I'd actually love to just watch you draw sometime. I love watching artists at work. My wife is very artistic, and I love to watch her silk paint and do other things.
I enjoyed seeing your treasures too. The sand dollars reminded me of a small collection of sand dollar fossils I have somewhere that I collected while working as a biologist for Audubon along the Gulf Coast managing an island used by breeding colonial waterbirds. I managed several, but this one in particular had a large colony of breeding brown pelicans, which made it special, as that species was almost decimated by DDT effects. Anyway, the island was made by the US Army Corps of Engineers, which created a number of these "spoil islands" as they dredged and maintained the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, a shipping channel that was created originally to protect ships from perceived threats from German UBoats, I believe. The shoreline was just covered with marine fossils, especially sand dollars. Wish I'd collected more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jun 16, 2011 14:38:22 GMT
Thank you, Curt! I have long wanted to try painting on silk myself, though I don't mean in the same way the craft is now usually practised (although it would be wonderful to be able to do that too!). I mean in the traditional way the historic far eastern artists did: paintings in ink and pigments on sized raw silk, like these, for instance. It's just difficult to find sized silk for the purpose in Europe, and I don't know how to size it myself; I don't even know what one needs in order to do that to begin with, besides alum and possibly gelatine. I'm also wondering if there is some alternative I can use for the latter, though I rather doubt it... That's fascinating about your work with Audubon! For a split second, I actually thought of the John James Audubon and internally exclaimed 'but he died a century and a half ago!' ;D Then it clicked that of course you meant the National Audubon Society.  |
|
|
|
Post by baryonyxraptor on Jun 16, 2011 17:51:55 GMT
Wow Niroot, you have a gift.
I've just browsed your deviantart link, there's some REALLY beautiful work on there. There is so much life in your drawings
PS: The Red Fairy Book you illustrate, would you recommend it?.....Royalties aside!
|
|
|
|
Post by Himmapaan on Jun 16, 2011 20:54:31 GMT
Thank you so much, Baryonyxraptor! I'm afraid I don't receive any royalties for that particular book (or any title published by Folio), so I won't be recommending it on that strength, don't worry. ;D It's one of a series from the Rainbow Fairy Books first collected by Andrew Lang in the late 19th century. These Folio editions are reprints of the books with newly commisioned illustrations, and I got to do the Red. I think they've published seven titles in the series so far (there are more than seven 'colours' in the whole, in spite of the 'Rainbow' in the name). I would say they are worth getting. There are more literary fairy tales in the collections than ones collected from folk tradition (such as those of the brothers Grimm, say), but there are some very good authors among them, like Charles Perrault and Wilhelm Hauff, for instance. Incidentally, there isn't a Hauff story in the Red book, which was rather a pity. I would have loved to illustrate Hauff. ;D I can very confidently assert that all the illustrations of the others in the series are a hundred times superior to mine, so if you decide against the Red, you will surely be pleased with the others. |
|
). I'm afraid it simply looks like a generic ornithomimosaur, given the extremely fragmentary remains we have of it. Its head is a vague approximation of something between Garudimimus, Harpymimus and generic ornithomimid. Its plumage is inspired by a number of monals and other pheasants.
