Verbalization/Visualization and Basics Perspective

Find a simple object from your home environment. Place it in front of you. Now look at it with an

analytical eye and imagine that you have to describe it to someone else in such a way that he/she

could draw it without being able to see it himself/herself.

This may sound simple, but it is not at all. You will find that sometimes there is a lack of words to

describe certain circumstances. Then it may help to paraphrase things, to make comparisons.

This exercise is not aimed at writing a poetic essay. It is intended to sharpen your perception and to

make it more concrete. I will give you an example below of what the written implementation might

look like:

My thing is a jug- for coffee or tea. I describe it below as I see it from my position, so the

approximate measurements are not absolute measurements but relative comparative figures.

So: the jug is at arm's length from me. My view of it is from a slightly elevated position, so that I have

a slight oversight, I can see a little into the jug from above. It has a round layout, the top rim is

slightly larger than the bottom, so there is a (slight) conical decrease from top to bottom. From my

viewing position, the upper rim (the opening of the jug) appears as an ellipse. The longest diameter

of this ellipse is a little more than twice as long as the shorter diameter. The total length of the jug is

about 3 times the length of the shorter ellipse diameter. The jug has a spout (left as seen from me)

that resembles a bird's beak. This is attached to the upper rim and open at the top. The upper edge

of the beak is in one plane with the upper opening of the jug. The length of the beak is slightly longer

than half the diameter of the ellipse. A delicately concave (inwardly curved) line extends from the tip

of the beak on the underside to the body of the pitcher, to its center. On the opposite side, the jug

has a handle that extends from the upper edge to the base and describes an arc. The handle looks

like a big "D" whose belly is slightly pressed upwards. The lower rim of the jug is a little curved out -

the reduction from the top to the bottom, which is otherwise quite straight, describes a slight curve

outward in the lowest area, so that the base area is expanded a little. The whole pot is a ceramic,

glazed yellow*. The surface is not smooth but designed so that from top to bottom continuous facets

create a kind of ribbed pattern. It looks as if the designer (it is a man) with a finger from the top edge

straight down to the bottom edge pulled one stripe next to the other. On the side visible to me so

about 9-10 stripes were created. These lines appear only very delicately overall, but they do cause

the outside of the jug to have a certain angularity.

* Yellow" is a bit of a poor description - but the color is so dependent on the screen that I prefer to

be vague here.

Can you imagine the pitcher described above, or could you draw it, step by step according to the

description?

As I said, it's not about great wording here - it's about looking very closely, analytically, finding

descriptions (for myself) and verbalizing comparisons ("three times as long as" ..) To perceive an

object accurately - and as I see it from my position - is the decisive factor in drawing. The objective

and comparative description can prevent our experiential knowledge from interfering in our drawing

process as an uninvited player. An example of what I mean here: our experiential knowledge

immediately grasps the jug described above as an object with a round ground plan. We don't have to

actively think about it, it just happens. When we now draw the jug, this experiential knowledge

interferes and wants to draw the upper edge of the jug as round as possible. In fact, however, as can

be read in the description, we see the upper edge as an ellipse due to the perspective distortion.

Some colleagues find it very easy to do such tasks; it happens quite naturally that they draw what

they actually see. For those who find it more difficult, it can be helpful to verbalize or describe for

themselves as I have done above. If you are not one of those who can transform an object quasi-

instinctively, it simply means that you have a different way of perceiving it and need to adjust your

approach accordingly. The biggest enemy when drawing is usually our own cerebrum, which

constantly wants to show us its stored knowledge, no matter what our eyes actually send to our

visual cortex. This is because our cerebrum is an acquired braggart, constantly believing that it is the

most important in capturing our environment. This may be true in many areas, but definitely not

when drawing an object.

Here's another example: we take a very simple object, a cardboard box with a rectangular floor plan,

and place it on the table in front of us at arm's length distance, slightly tilted so that we can see three

sides of the box. The exact size ratios (LxWxH) do not matter here now. I deliberately use this simple

box because I very often observe in the act room, where our models stand or sit on pedestals that

correspond to this shape, that there are problems here in the implementation. Often the models are

well represented, but the pedestals are wrong in perspective - this is a pity and annoying, because it "

smashes" the work. If this also happens to you sometimes, or (for the newcomers) you suspect

problems here, the cardboard box can be a helpful exercise.

So we have this box in front of us and what does the cerebrum say about it (before we asked it): "this

thing has lots of right angles, clear of course". But which message arrives at the data processing of

the visual cortex? A lot of oblique angles! So in our brain there is information disagreement. But

since the brain as a whole does not like confusion, it often opts for a compromise - i.e. an acute

angle is displayed less acute, a flat angle slightly more acute.

The fight between cerebrum (-knowledge: "all box sides are rectangles!") and perception center

visual cortex ("I see a lot of parallelograms!") is settled half-heartedly as a draw, or something

completely new comes out at all, e.g. a body with trapezoidal surfaces.

On both examples we can read the unconscious attempt to somehow "bend" the angles back in the

direction of right angles

Here is our box - for illustration I have marked the corners in color for you.

We know all the angles of this box are right angles. But in fact we don't see a single right angle here.

We see two box corners (red) with acute angles (smaller than 90°) and two corners (green) with flat

angles (larger than 90°). This may all seem very trivial to you now, but in fact mistakes are made so

often when drawing here that it seems worthwhile to me to discuss this subject in such detail here.

If you still find it difficult to get the thing right with the angles, little tricks can be helpful.

For example, position the box so that from your viewing position one corner is tangent to any

horizontal line. Here in my case it is the back edge of the table. Now you can try to focus on the

angles that form between the table edge and the box edges:

It sometimes makes sense to approach a shape "from the outside" so to speak, so in this case focus

on the box's surrounding, on the dark tabletop. To make it even more vivid - here with increased

contrast:

In real drawing, you will probably have to close one eye to get the box and the table edge "on line".

Try it out.

Incidentally and unintentionally, I have also included an example of an optical illusion here. It looks

like the edge of the table has a slight downward bend, right where the corner of the chess is tangent

to the edge of the table. But that's another (also very fascinating) story.

Here is the box again with the cover colored and the contrast of all other elements reduced.

Now it is even clearer to see: we definitely do

not see a rectangle, although this shape is a

rectangle.

Now comes one of my "favorite exercises": while keeping my angle of view (in this case the camera

lens) constant, I increase the distance to the box in several steps.

What happens - except that the box appears smaller and smaller? Pay attention to what is now

happening to the top side. The acute angles are still becoming more acute, and the shallow angles

are becoming shallower.

Or, to verbalize it in other words - the two longer edges of the deck side increasingly converge, their

distance becomes smaller and smaller. If we were to continue playing the game with the box, at

some point the two edges would merge into one line. Then we would no longer see the cover side at

all. The box would then look like this:

Here again for illustration: View angle to the top of the box

Let us now turn to objects with a round ground plan. Here the jug I described above (which solves

the riddle). Here we see it as it appeared from my viewing

position.

As already mentioned, it has a round ground plan - the upper

opening, as well as the base, is round. However, due to the

perspective from our point of view, we see the upper opening

as an ellipse. The bottom is also an ellipse, even if it is not

completely visible. This is where difficulties often arise in the

implementation. More about this in a moment.

By the way, this jug was designed by Dagobert Peche, who

was famous in his time, and it was made in the Wiener

Werkstätten - almost exactly 100 years ago. A family

heirloom.

The same principles apply to the illustration of such an object as I have described above: we see

something other than what we know and this sometimes causes problems. The upper rim of the jug

is circular, as is the lower rim on which the jug stands. From our point of view, however, both shapes

appear as ellipses.

Not only that, but you can clearly see that the upper ellipse is flatter than the lower one. But after

playing with the box, it should be clear that the issue of viewing angles comes into play here again.

If I were to look into the jug from the very top, I would see the upper edge as a circle (which

corresponds to the actual shape). This would then be the so-called "bird's eye view".

As the name suggests, this viewing position is common in birds, we humans tend to look at things

from above less often.

Especially when we draw objects, things become much

more interesting from an oblique/lateral perspective.

However, it is still quite exciting to consciously put

yourself in this extreme viewing position and look at

individual objects or, for example, your desk from a bird's

eye view.

Back to the jug:

From my perspective, I have a flatter viewing angle to the upper edge of the jug than to the bottom

surface - so the upper ellipse is flatter than the lower one.

This difference is not always so obvious. If the object is not too big and you are not very close to it,

this difference is negligible. In my example with the jug, however, it is definitely easy to see.

Regarding the relevance of the above remarks when drawing: the examples I brought can be applied

in many ways when drawing more complex objects.

Try to "think" the geometric shapes into your object.

Here, for example, with the fauteuil:

Or the way Jonathan Dellago got it totally

right with the round "16-cans":

You can see here what I described above:

Jonathan's angle of view of the cans is a

slightly elevated one, from diagonally

above. But the angle of view on the top

of the cans is slightly flatter than the

angle of view on the base of the cans.

That's why the upper ellipses are flatter

than the lower ones.

(courtesy©Jonathan Dellago)

A common mistake in the implementation of such forms concerns the zone of transition between the

upper edge and the lateral boundary lines:

Pay attention to the areas where the arrows point. The lateral boundary lines of the vessel merge

seamlessly into the curves of the ellipses.

Here, "peaks" are very often drawn incorrectly - as in the drawing on the right.

An example of how the above principles are applied as a matter of course can be seen in the drawing

by Phillip Steinkellner:

(courtesy ©Philipp Steinkellner)

And also with Christian Kaleb's armchair you can see the practical application. The view of the left

armchair is from an elevated position, and that of the right armchair from a lower position.

(courtesy ©Christian Kaleb)

You remember:

You have now received a lot of information. However, it is essential content that should help you in

the implementation of three-dimensional objects.

In order not to complicate the matter unnecessarily, I have left out the spatial perspective with

vanishing points here. This would be a topic for a separate worksheet.

Referring to the verbal description of an object (see first page): since I am convinced of the

usefulness of this exercise, I will let a (comprehensible) verbal description of an object count as a

piece of work in your exam folder.