| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 12 2004 : 01:43:07 AM
I'm a pretty good artist, and pondering a quasi-career in doing so. I have a few drawings of Civil War generals that I did in high school, and tonight, to get the ball rolling, I drew one up of Custer. I was going to do a series, 5 each of Union and Confederate commanders at Gettysburg.
What I'm looking for is some opinions from you. Not necessarily on how good it is, but on the marketability. I was thinking a series of drawings, portraits of the major players in the drama that was Little Big Horn. Be honest, as I'm trying to gauge interest here.
Civil War Custer (rather small, the entire drawing is about the size of the other's heads)
James Longstreet (unfinished)
JEB Stuart
Custer in 1876 (completed tonight, and its actually on white paper)
|
| 19 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Smcf |
Posted - November 25 2004 : 11:03:46 AM
If you can use the drawings as sketch and try full colour portraits, set against action scene backgrounds - perhaps impressionist or cubist or ..., then you might be on to something. Something different that is.
I like the older Custer one, but reckon there might be a few wrinkles missing.
Regards. |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 24 2004 : 02:37:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
Crab--
Damn if I didn't take "Tracings of the Renaissance" in graduate school. You're not the first person I met who can't "do" hands (hell, why do you think I ended up in Art History) ... but don't let the Lord of Cloudiness get you down. I see talent in your work. It's up to you to pursue it.
I can draw hands. It was all sarcasm. Its patently ridiculous to think someone capable of drawing a uniform and a face, eyes and hair, etc., couldn't draw hands. Then again, the same person said I was tracing. And did so backhanded, as he is apt to do.
Really, I wasn't looking for much as far as compliments, I hear enough of those. It is nice to hear, but I'm pretty confident in my abilities. I am more looking for feedback on the marketability and appeal, which many of you have presented me with. And some of you have given me ideas, or reinforced existing ones. Thanks, all. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - November 23 2004 : 11:12:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
[quote][i]Oh, and most people won't want to buy traces. Because that's all I can do. Yet, isn't it odd that I can't draw, er, trace hands? Did I say draw in the previous paragraph? Alas, these lies are just becoming too taxing, I should come clean. I trace. I trace all of the time. I can trace everything but those infernal hands.
Crab--
Damn if I didn't take "Tracings of the Renaissance" in graduate school. You're not the first person I met who can't "do" hands (hell, why do you think I ended up in Art History) ... but don't let the Lord of Cloudiness get you down. I see talent in your work. It's up to you to pursue it.
Regards, |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 04:11:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Warlord
Crab: It is obvious even to the untrained eye these are drawings and good ones. Don't mind what the troll has to say. He lives in one of those Black Water caves (maybe with Larsen) where the light isn't good and is jealous of everything and everybody anyway.
Well, I'm sure you sensed the tiny amount of sarcasm in my post... |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 22 2004 : 01:51:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by movingrobewoman
In closing, Crab, you are off to a great start--I am no "connoisseur (in other words, I cannot accurately determine market value or desire)"--but I'd like to see where you go with this project.
Eh, I probably won't bother now. After all, it'll be too much of a pain trying to avoid drawing hands, something which I am incapable of doing. Sure, I can draw eyes and faces and uniforms, do all the shading, etc. But hands? They befuddle me. So I don't bother drawing them, even though the sketches above are all portraits that did not include hands.
Oh, and most people won't want to buy traces. Because that's all I can do. Yet, isn't it odd that I can't draw, er, trace hands? Did I say draw in the previous paragraph? Alas, these lies are just becoming too taxing, I should come clean. I trace. I trace all of the time. I can trace everything but those infernal hands.
I think the most unfortunate thing about this, besides being found out, is how I managed to trace an image that's about 3" inches tall and I ended up with a sketch that's about 5 " tall. Or even more amazing, the paper itself is described as "heavy weight, durable, medium surface". And the cover of said tablet says "Drawing", not "Tracing".
Alas, if I had only spent the time to learn how to draw instead of learning how to trace a small image into a larger one using rather heavy, barely transparent paper. Maybe then I'd have what it takes. And I'd be able to draw hands. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - November 21 2004 : 10:59:57 PM
quote:
Originally posted by El Crab
Plus, we all know Custer's uniforms in the Civil War didn't exactly conform with regulations.
I should have worded the first post better. The Gettysburg thing is KIA. The Custer drawing wasn't going to be a part of that, anyway, as I said above. The Custer drawing I was referring to was last one. Anyway...
I'd say Custer's eyes were hollow-looking because they were rather blue, but that's just me.
You're right, Crab--Custer's uniforms during the ACW didn't follow regulations. But even the infamous black velvet tunic's button pattern DID conform to that of a brigadier general. But as you say, Gettysburg Custer is KIA.
Yeah, the danger of dealing with "living" artists is reading something into the work which may or may not be there, hence my comments about the 1865 eyes. Art history deals with a lot of insinuation and hopefully the researcher has the iconographical sources/references to back it up. Like I said, I am most familiar with mid-Victorian paintings and artistic standards, though I have worked on one 19th Century drawing. But going back to the "eye matter", there is a definite hollowing to those of GAC throughout 1865--the final photos taken of him near the end of the war show an exhausted young man, who has clearly lost a considerable amount of weight during that final chase in Virginia. The iconography of one photo is quite interesting ... but the blue eyes are quite blue.
In closing, Crab, you are off to a great start--I am no "connoisseur (in other words, I cannot accurately determine market value or desire)"--but I'd like to see where you go with this project.
Regards, |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - November 14 2004 : 7:51:03 PM
Marketability (as beauty) is in the eye of the beholder. While photographs of historical figures possess evident merit, interpretative art,too, has great value. You did not take a series of snapshots, you created images imbued with your heart. Your talent is obvious. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - November 14 2004 : 7:05:33 PM
And if you made up a group shot of lakota in there finery,say looking or surveying smothing,I could be your first buyer |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - November 14 2004 : 7:01:16 PM
I would probarbly think,warriors in action,single and in groups would be a better seller,especially for the european end of the market,and you could say prints of certain generals are available.
Making sure you put the Indian name first and a smaller english name in brackets underneath.
Just a thought El Crab |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 14 2004 : 4:25:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Traced-from-photo military art by people who cannot draw hands.
I don't trace. So I'll be leaving that little corner of the market to whomever has it now. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - November 14 2004 : 4:07:35 PM
Traced-from-photo military art by people who cannot draw hands. |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 14 2004 : 3:47:35 PM
Cornered the market on what kind of art? |
| wILD I |
Posted - November 14 2004 : 2:10:23 PM
Nice drawings El Crab but is there not an artist I can't think of his name at the moment but I think it is German,who has cornered the market on this kind of art? |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 14 2004 : 03:18:30 AM
Well, the other drawings were just examples from an aborted high school project. I drew the Civil War Custer for another assignment, took all of 10 minutes. Needed something to fill the corner of a quickly mocked up battlefield map. That drawing, plus Longstreet and JEB Stuart, won't be for sale. Again, just other examples of what I've drawn in the past. The last Custer one is the first of the drawings I'm planning. I'd reword the first post if I could, so it will make more sense. Alas, I cannot edit it.
Plus, we all know Custer's uniforms in the Civil War didn't exactly conform with regulations.
I should have worded the first post better. The Gettysburg thing is KIA. The Custer drawing wasn't going to be a part of that, anyway, as I said above. The Custer drawing I was referring to was last one. Anyway...
I'd say Custer's eyes were hollow-looking because they were rather blue, but that's just me. |
| movingrobewoman |
Posted - November 13 2004 : 11:55:49 PM
If you want an honest opine for Gettysburg (aka GAC), the uniform buttons are not correct--you seem to be portraying him as a Major General. Granted, you do cover this with a 'Civil War Custer' moniker--but many collectors are quite picky as to date and uniform type. I am NOT at all a collector--just a trained art historian--and my knowledge of mid-Victorian Era art revolves mostly about paintings. There is a certain hollowness to Custer's eyes, something I do like--which may or may not reflect the horrors of the war he gained so much notoreity from whilst executing ...
Regards, |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 13 2004 : 10:19:43 PM
Well, we have a problem with Crazy Horse, now don't we? No one knows what he looked like. Though I can always throw out my best guess, of course.
You hit the nail on the head, warlord. Big Remington fan. Those are the types of drawings they'd be, few figures, a hint of background. That'll be the plan with the action shots.
I've always liked drawings that faded into the background. They aren't square, they're just whatever shape they are.
The reason I do the uniforms that way is to accentuate the darker colors. It makes the details like the eyes, hair and other darker items more striking. The uniform fades as you go down. The buttons are how I do buttons. I concentrate more on the shading on the underside than the button itself. Its just my thing. Also, the more tiny little details or color you try to convey, the more "busy" and distracting the drawing can be. I go for the portrait look you see in the 1800s. Plus, when you're drawing with pencil, you have black, white and gray. That's it. Less is more, as far as I'm concerned.
For the record, Custer's eyes are INCREDIBLY difficult to duplicate. Or so I thought. I nailed it the first time, somehow. Especially his left eye.
Definitely, these are the types of pictures that people could display. I disagree on the Custer as a loser thing, for several reasons. He's a mythic hero or villain, and he endures. And you have to remember, my market will be people with an interest in the Little Big Horn battle. Whether or not they view Custer as a loser, he's a major draw.
I can assure you the drawings look better in person, those are just quick snaps I took with a digital camera.
Thanks guys, I really appreciate all the feedback. Keep it coming. |
| El Crab |
Posted - November 13 2004 : 2:18:36 PM
That is an interesting point. And I would be doing some of those things, nothing on a grand scale like a Last Stand scene. More individualized scenes. But you have to be careful with that, as the "cheese" factor comes into play.
We'll see how marketable these are. I think, even though they're based off of photos, they're different enough in their look and presentation that they'd appeal. And a photograph doesn't compare to someone's work from scratch. Plus, there's less exclusivity in a printed photo than a printed art work. So maybe it'll work, maybe not. Only one way to find out.
Thanks for replying, that's the sort of thing I want to hear. Honest opinions. And you have a very valid point.
|
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - November 13 2004 : 1:00:42 PM
You may be asking the wrong people. The drawings look good to me, but I've never collected memorabilia, so I know you're asking the wrong person about marketability when it comes to me. I only buy the books. I do think, though, that if you're trying to sell drawings, you'd create more interest if you had them doing something other than a photo pose. The drawings you have look like they're all closely modeled on photographs; if that's the case, why buy a drawing when you can purchase the real thing?
Based on what I see in magazines, etc., the stuff that really sells are battle scenes, pictures of people in action/motion; i.e., the stuff that couldn't be captured with 19th century photography. In terms of marketability, the need for what you've done here is already well served by the original photographs. Don Troiani is probably the most successful Civil War artist working today, and look at the stuff he does.
R. Larsen
|
| El Crab |
Posted - November 13 2004 : 02:50:19 AM
39 views and nary a reply? |
|
|
