We covered, partially, the psychology behind ‘figures and ground’. That is why the mind can understand what an object is from very few lines of information; or how one thing is separated from another. Such as why you can read this; that is because of the outline of the characters and the colour separation, aswell as the complex inner workings of your eye and brain.
It also relates to the idea that a viewer of an image will see whatever they want to; like seeing the man in the moon. We see something from past experience or knowledge, we piece together bits of the image to make something that isn’t really there.
I decided to try this with some of my drawings; delving deeper into the ‘how i draw’ aspect of the project rather than ‘what i draw’.
My first experiment was known ground; making a grid and pixelating an image of the pigeon by hand, and my decision on which square was to be what shade. It’s a dull drawing and lacking in focus of achievement, nor did I enjoy making it. So I moved back to the outline method I’ve been unconsciously developing.
I made a sketch of the plain side-view of a pigeon and used brown ink, to add a few tones and shades to make it more interesting, which made the outline bleed a little. But I’m rather pleased with the result, even if i don’t know why. Which is what made me try more; I used the same ink, watered down to varying tones, to make other sketches, this time of a flying pigeon. Since there is more obvious variation of tones in the photos.
I decided to stick with the flying pigeon outline, the more interesting and visually appealing form, and used masking tape to layer up the feathers of the bird and chalk over them. I wonder what It would be like if I took the tape off. I had some fun with chalk by layering up each new line, changing the shades, and imprinting some human into it with faded fingerprints on another attempt.
Although I did move back to ink; a new media I appreciate for its versatility, and made some loose, although organised images of mere shadows between feathers of still pigeons. They make for unassuming images, barely more than dots. The second I prefer, due to the visible change of tone, although the idea is likable anyway as a minimalist method of creating light by drawing the darkness.