There's something really basic that I'm missing.
So of course I feel the need to paint paint paint, trying to get these skin tones right and coming nowhere close. I suspect it would be more useful for me to put down the watercolors and pick up the oils, or the acrylics, where I'm on slightly more familiar territory. Where's this obstinancy coming from?
No picture today, folks, because what I really wanted to post was the actually decent nude that I drew today (upside down, thenkyouvellymuch drawing from the right side of the brain) and how I managed to completely obscure her in the watercolor washes: sepia, ultramarine blue, alizarin crimson, sepia again...
I don't even like most watercolor paintings, even the great ones. So why am I doing this?
I suspect it's Kim's fault. She and Ellis have been conversing about the nature of art, and how (and if) the act of creating in visual and verbal modes correspond or are, perhaps, the same thing. Kim is writing a book, and wrestling out loud with it. She has theories but, since she is a fictional character herself, has no way to test them out unless I do it for her. So there we go. Back to the paintbrush for me. Specifically, we're talking about portraiture, but that's all I'm willing to say about it for fear of having Ellis quoted in someone else's work... I mean, other than Kim's ...
Is this confusing anyone else?
Strangely, the multi-colored nude woman on my paper looks serene. I suspect Kim will claim to have drawn her. Interesting. Is it plagarism if your own character steals your ideas?
It's one a.m. and I should probably head to bed.
Wishing you ultramarine dreams,
moonsownsister