Not filling in the shadows

In having spent so much time drawing from life—you are continuously forced to make editing choices due to the time limit of the pose. What to include, what to exclude. Over time, I've come to appreciate that this creates it's own aesthetic. As in life, sometimes the things left unsaid are more beautiful than anything manifestly expressed. 

The forever moving target

A recent exercise in drawing the figure from reference with a bit of experimentation in tools—using one brand of compressed charcoal for the core shadows and another to fill in the shadowed sections. Whereas one of the brands (Cretacolor) is much more loosely bound and softer, and the other (Conté à Paris) is much harder. I used the softer of the two for the core shadows and the harder for the fill shadows and mid-tones.

 The advantage with this approach was that a dark registration of the shadow cores was quick and easy with the softer charcoal, and then I could more easily control the structural reveal of the forms in the half-tones and fill shadows by using a slower application process with the harder charcoal. Using the harder charcoal was particularly useful in taming the level of reflected light bounced into the shadow fills—so that the nuances of the anatomical construction were retained with subtle fidelity.

There's a tendency for many to use the same tool or approach in their work over and over, as it's how they were taught. I did this myself—often. For years in fact. Although as I've learned, and come to enjoy—the application of specific tools and techniques for specific circumstances is so much more effective in terms of speed, control, and/or effect. It just takes some time to work through where, when, and how to go about it. And it seems that this process is never complete nor is there an approach that is 100% applicable to every circumstance or subject. Failure is a constant. Every work it seems, in some manner or another, requires a kind of special consideration—if you're really paying attention. Even a 5-minute drawing.   

Space-Time is Doomed?

Something a little bit different here; I stumbled upon Donald Hoffman's work a few weeks ago via a clip from a World Science Festival event. In it, he gives a brief description of how he believes evolution has shaped our perceptions. Being a visual artist, this intrigued me. As nearly all human pursuits begin with observation—what we perceive, and how we interpret it. 

So I dug into his work a bit, and I have to admit; it's pretty mind-blowing. Space and time are not fundamental to the universe? These are evolutionary constructs? I can't see reality? WTF? What he's in pursuit of is no less than a copernican level shift in science and our understanding of nature. Seriously, if he succeeds* (which isn't guaranteed), it's on that level. I know, it sounds pretty grandiose. Here's some info on his background:  

Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist, popular author and Professor of Cognitive Science at UC Irvine. He studies how our visual perception, guided by millions of years of natural selection, authors every aspect of our everyday reality.

Much of Hoffman's work wrestles with what is called the "hard problem of consciousness" in science, and one of his chief insights is that in our ever-expanding exploration of nature you cannot escape the fact that all the agents of that exploration are caged within a narrow perspective—that of human consciousness and that this knowledge should be at the foundation of our understanding of nature. It is the screen with which all of human understanding about the world has, and will ever pass through, and fundamentally, it is just that—a screen. And just like all screens, they are symbolic representations of reality, not the reality of how the screen is actually working underneath the display. 

 Although I do have some reservations. The first one is more of a minor irritant—he's got a quote on the exterior of his latest book from Deepak Chopra. Which, is a little off-putting to be honest. Nothing against the guy, but that name sets off my bullshit alarm. Although the quote is likely there as a marketing choice by the publisher to sell more books. Another is that if this framework of consciousness as the most fundamental of quanta doesn't make any meaningful predictions—then it is of little operational use to most of our lives other than providing a new way to understand nature and the human experience within it. Profound and more closely allied with the truth as that may ultimately be.

FYI, I recommend the short World Science Fair clip (top) as a primer to the longer lecture (bottom). 

Also, the lecture Q&A can be found here.

*By his own terms, he defines success as rediscovering all the major innovations of science like general relativity, evolution, and quantum mechanics through mathematical modeling of conscious agents from the ground up. In turn, these agents will create a world on their own through evolutionary iteration that looks and behaves akin to how we perceive reality—that they will invent concepts of space, time, and the laws of physics as a means of survival. Although below this level these concepts wouldn't be accurate in defining the parameters in which they exist. Essentially he's attempting to create a model of consciousness from the ground up; as opposed to the thus far failed method of top-down.