A good question came up recently regarding the complexity of my line drawings (cartoons) for my paintings and I thought I would share the answer here:

I have always found far greater success in capturing faithful representations of nature by utilizing methods that echo the manner in which nature communicates the objects visually. One of the ways I often do this is by lessening the emphasis on delineated representations early in my process.

This is not to say that I do not experiment with complex cartoons now and again—I have created quite a few works that have utilized very rigid, complex cartoons—and the experiences have taught me much. However, on average my cartoons remain a somewhat utilitarian series of anchors and guidelines that act as a string of ‘recommendations’ that are not regarded as pictorially or aesthetically sacrosanct.

This does not mean to say that line drawings cannot be successfully experienced as stand-alone accurate representations of nature. In fact, Patrick Cavanagh, a professor at Paris Descartes University stated:

…It turns out that these outlines tap into the same neural processes as the edges of objects that we observe in the real world. The individual cells in the visual system that pick out light-dark edges also happen to respond to lines.”

However, even though we do have the ability to substitute an ‘edge’ for a ‘line’ successfully—from a representational drawing/painting standpoint–I feel that an artist may be more apt to alter the representational or symbolic line so as to compensate for information deficits like value and color (even if they are to be subsequently added).

When approaching a subject that is intended to resolve as an objective representation of nature I make every effort to ‘draw’ with the type of mark(s) that seem most akin to the visual cues that reveal nature to me in the first place. While my earliest marks are indeed linear—my real ‘drawing’ takes place when color or value shows up at the party. 🙂