St. Cecilia and an Elevated Chicken

Today is St. Cecilia’s day. She is the patron saint of music and musicians, so it seems an appropriate day for a composer to be born. I already knew that today is Benjamin Britten’s birthday, but Wikipedia informed me that, along with several other composers most of whom I’ve never heard of, it’s also the birthday of Wilhelm Friedemann Bach. Actually, it’s just gone midnight so all my references to “today” are actually yesterday at the time of publication and quite probably even longer ago by the time you read this; 22nd November in any case.

This particular member of the Bach dynasty was the eldest son of the illustrious Johann Sebastian, who as I’ve occasionally mentioned before, is my all time favourite composer (much easier to decide than trying to pick a favourite photographer, as I was discussing yesterday, though Beethoven would be a fairly close second and if my last.fm listening stats are a reasonable indicator, Benjamin Britten is in my top 10 classical composers – he’s currently in joint 13th place with Queen on my overall list of scrobbles per artist, but there are several other non-classical ones high in the list, though Bach and Beethoven are well ahead of the rest of the field). As with most of the other members of the family, Friedemann was apparently generally referred to by his second name even though there were not quite as many Wilhelms as Johanns among them. He was a fine composer (and also organist and improviser) in his own right, though somewhat overshadowed by his father and his younger brother Carl Phillipp Emanuel (who, I gather, was usually known by his second middle name). I’ve got a handful of works by Friedemann (as well as some by quite a few other Bachs and quite a few by Emanuel and especially Sebastian) and this evening I’ve been enjoying listening to one of his cantatas.

As well as learning this factoid about W. F. Bach’s birthday I learned another interesting fact that, while not directly related to St. Cecilia’s day, came about (my learning, that is, not the fact itself, as far as I’m aware) in a tangentially related way.

To follow the tangent from the point where it was connected with St. Cecilia (since, as every mathematician knows, a tangent to a circle – or for that matter any other curve – is a line that touches it at one point; or technically it can for some curves, though not for circles, be more than one point but to further explore that point would itself be to go off on a tangent, so I’ll refrain), I started by looking at the Wikipedia article on St. Cecilia and then found my way onto the related disambiguation page, which contained amongst other things a reference to a band called St. Cecelia (note the variant spelling) who, in 1971, had their only chart success with a song called “Leap Up and Down (Wave Your Knickers in the Air)”

This wasn’t a song I’d ever heard of previously and my curiosity got the better of me so I googled it and soon found a video (not, you may be relieved to know, one containing any footage of anyone actually performing the suggested actions). It didn’t strike me as being a particularly noteworthy song, though it was quite jolly and it vaguely reminded me of another song that I haven’t heard for years, namely the Chicken Song by Spitting Image. In fact, I did briefly wonder if the latter may have been a parody of the former.

Unlike the St Cecilia number, which had presumably already pretty much faded into obscurity by the time I was born a few years after it came out, the Chicken Song was released in my lifetime and at a point when I actually used to watch Top of the Pops at least semi-avidly. I can’t remember when I last listened to it, but it may well not have been in the current millenium. On listening back to it today (again, easy enough to find on YouTube), it didn’t take long to realise that, while sharing some stylistic similarities, the two songs are not particularly closely related and while I couldn’t rule out the possibility that the Chicken Song’s authors were aware of the St Cecilia song from about 15 years previously, it certainly doesn’t seem that they were directly inspired by it or deliberately (or even accidentally) ripping it off.

Speaking of the Chicken Song’s authors, this is the point where I made my exciting (to me, at least) discovery. For it turns out that the lyrics were written by Rob Grant and Doug Naylor, better known to me as the creators of Red Dwarf, which remains one of my favourite TV series (especially the early seasons, which first started to appear a couple of years after the Chicken Song). So now you know 🙂

That last sentence, incidentally, is a catchphrase of Cara Devine, the host of one of my favourite cocktail-related YouTube channels, but that’s not really even a tangent to the rest of my post!

I was right!

If you were to ask me to name my all-time favourite photographer, I would probably struggle to choose one. However, if you asked me for a list of my favourite photographers it wouldn’t need to be a very long list before I could guarantee that Edward Weston would be on there.

I have long admired Weston’s work. He was an American photographer active in the early decades of the 20th century and as far as I know all his work was in monochrome, which suits me fine as I haven’t significantly changed my opinion since I last wrote about my fondness for black & white photography.

One of things I particularly like about a lot of Weston’s work is that he often focuses on relatively mundane objects, such as vegetables, and presents them in a way that makes you look at them with fresh eyes and appreciate their intrinsic beauty. A particularly fine example of this is arguably one of his most famous images, with the gloriously unexciting sounding title of Pepper No. 30 (NB that’s a link to the Wikipedia article on it – yes, it’s a famous enough image to get its own Wikipedia page – which doesn’t actually contain a picture, at least at the time of my writing, but you can easily enough google one for yourself if you want).

As you might expect from the title, this is a photograph of a pepper – more specifically a capsicum pepper (or bell pepper as Weston himself probably would have called it, coming from the USA). The title also suggests that he took quite a few other photos of peppers – in fact, a quote from Weston in the Wikipedia article indicates that there were at least 50 in total, though No. 30 definitely became the most famous of them and is the finest of the handful that I’ve seen (only ever as reproductions in books or on websites).

It is, to be sure, a relatively interesting pepper with a lovely gnarly shape that provides a lot more to work with than any pepper I’ve ever come across in a supermarket. It was also, of course, expertly positioned, lit, photographed, developed and printed by a master of his art (actually, at least some of the prints were done by Edward Weston’s son Cole; he, along with his brother Brett, was also a professional photographer in his own right though neither of them achieved the same level of fame as their father).

Many years ago, between 2001 and 2003, I did a series of drawings and paintings based on Pepper No. 30 (though I don’t think I knew its official number at the time). I think they can all be seen (along with a few other pieces based on Weston’s photos) here on Flickr. I don’t think I did any others, and if I did I certainly don’t seem to have got any photos of them.

Probably my single favourite of my own Weston pepper inspired works is this oil pastel painting from July 2001, which I still have hanging on my wall:

Pepper (oil pastel)

Of course, since Weston’s photo was monochrome I had to make an artistic decision for this and the other colour versions I did as to what colour the pepper should be. In all cases, I went for green. This far down the line I can’t remember if I was working on a hunch or just giving rein to my own preference for green (as a colour, not necessarily as a choice of pepper). I’m certain that I didn’t know what colour the original pepper was and at that time Wikipedia was only a few months old and even if I’d thought to check it (which I’m fairly sure I didn’t) it was still a couple of years away from getting an article about Edward Weston, let alone one specifically about his Pepper No. 30.

In fact, while I’ve definitely looked at the Edward Weston page a handful of times over the years I don’t think I discovered the pepper one until about a month ago. When I did finally read it, I was delighted to read in the very first paragraph that it “depicts a solitary green pepper in rich black-and-white tones, with strong illumination from above”. I just checked the revision history and that sentence was in the very first version of the article, written by Wikipedia user Lexaxis7 (whom some folks call Tim). According to his bio, he is a photo historian specialising in the early 20th century, so although he doesn’t cite a source for that particular information I assume it’s correct that the pepper was green.

Incidentally, while I don’t often delve into the page editing history on Wikipedia, it’s quite handy on occasion to be able to do so. In fact, I appear to have my own somewhat outdated bio page, though sadly it doesn’t provide links to any of the articles I helped edit (most, if not all, of them at least 15 years ago). Amongst others I contributed 3 edits to the banjo page, including this one which was apparently the second ever edit to that page (not counting the initial version of the page), as well as one to the crwth page (at the time, I was a fairly close personal friend of Cass Meurig, who was more or less the only active crwth player in the world, so I felt reasonably confident to edit the article based on conversations I’d had with her about the instrument); there were others too (including at least a handful of maths based ones, those perhaps done largely to assuage my guilty feelings about surfing Wikipedia when I was supposed to be researching my PhD in algebra) but none that I remember very clearly.

Talking of delving back, while I was digging out the photos of my paintings based on Weston’s pepper, I also came across my own (somewhat less successful) attempts at photographing peppers, dating back about 10 years. Like Weston (though I didn’t know it at the time) I used a green capsicum pepper, but I also included a red (and presumably hot) chilli pepper, as well as a few cloves of garlic for some of the photos. And like Weston, I presented these as black & white photos (though I was actually shooting digitally, in colour, and desaturated my images later – in fact I still have the colour versions, albeit not in my public photostream, and I think the monochrome ones work better). My favourite of them, with which I shall leave you for now, is this one:

Peppers

Not too sweet

Tonight I made an apple crumble for tea. I’ve made quite a few of these over the years, certainly dozens though probably not quite yet hundreds. This one was a bit different in two or three respects, one of them accidental.

Usually I make crumbles as a dessert (although it’s actually fairly unusual for me to have a dessert at all, which may come as a surprise to many who know me and my sweet tooth), but this one was made as a standalone meal. Mainly that’s because I was feeling too lazy after my lunch (which, as usual for a Sunday, was my main meal) and also had some yoghurt that needed using up at that point. So today I made it for tea instead, served up with custard (made up from a packet mix – not from first principles, though that would be even nicer). I don’t think it’s the first time I’ve made it deliberately as a standalone meal, but it might be.

The deliberate way in which this was different from previous crumbles I’ve made is that instead of all butter I used a roughly 50:50 mix of butter and lard, as I had a block of the latter that needed using up. In fact, I still have most of it but there’s now about an ounce less to worry about. Incidentally, while I usually tend to prefer metric measurements for cooking and pretty much everything else, I consider myself to be more or less bilingual between the imperial and metric systems (though I usually have to look up the conversion factors if going between the two). I got my crumble recipe from my mum years ago when I went off to university (though I don’t think I actually made one until several years later) and it’s given in imperial units (6oz plain flour; 4oz butter; 2 oz caster sugar – though I usually halve the quantities, use granulated sugar instead of caster and add a handful of oats and some mixed spice). I can’t say that I noticed any particular difference in the flavour or handling properties from my usual version, but it is several months since I last made a crumble and my memory alone is probably not an entirely reliable guide. Really I’d have to do a side-by-side comparison (or better, a blind triangle test) but I only have one crumble dish so that would be a bit of a faff to arrange

The accidental way in which this crumble was different from my usual (though possibly not unique among all the crumbles I’ve ever made) is that I forgot to add any sugar or other sweetening agent to the apples. Sugar (generally granulated, though sometimes caster if I have it to hand, or brown if I’m feeling more adventurous) is my go-to sweetener for crumbles, but I have occasionally used honey instead to good effect. This time I forgot completely, though I did add a bit of lemon zest and juice (the latter mainly to help stop the apple going brown before I added the crumble topping and got it in the oven) and some chopped ginger, as well as a bit of water and some cinnamon. That (apart from the lack of sugar) is pretty much my standard approach to an apple crumble (and similar to how I’d do a rhubarb crumble, which is the only other kind I often cook – for that I’d probably leave out the cinnamon, but otherwise it would be basically the same, and probably suffer more for lack of sugar).

I gave it about half an hour in the oven at gas mark 6, which gave me the kind of result I particularly like with the fruit nice and soft but still having a slight bite to it. Even without the sugar it was quite pleasant to eat, as the crumble topping and custard made up for the lack of sweetness in the fruit. However, I did miss the syrup that usually forms from a combination of the sugar, water and juice from the apple, so I don’t think I’ll be dropping sugar from my regular recipe anytime soon. And I’ll probably be having another apple crumble before too long (not to mention the rest of this one, which I’ll enjoy for dessert, or possibly for lunch, tomorrow) as I still have a few apples that need using up.

Hopefully not lost

A few days ago I was asked to help try and find a translation for a Welsh poem for Remembrance Day. The poem, “Y Pabi Coch” (The Red Poppy), written by Isaac Daniel Hooson in 1924, is apparently quite well-known in Welsh language culture but I was only vaguely familiar with it. Here it is, for those of who can speak Welsh or just like to look at texts in languages you can’t speak (I’m sure I’m not the only one):

‘Roedd gwlith y bore ar dy foch
Yn ddafnau arian, flodyn coch,
A haul Mehefin drwy’r prynhawn
Yn bwrw’i aur i’th gwpan llawn.

Tithau ymhlith dy frodyr fyrdd
Yn dawnsio’n hoyw ar gwrlid gwyrdd
Cynefin fro dy dylwyth glân,
A’th sidan wisg yn fflam o dân.

Ond rhywun â didostur law
A’th gipiodd o’th gynefin draw
I estron fro, a chyn y wawr
Syrthiast, a’th waed yn lliwio’r llawr.

Y Pabi Coch, I. D. Hooson (1924)

I did a bit of Googling but was unable to find any translation. The closest I got was a bibliography which seemed to indicate the existence of a translation by Tony Conran (himself a noted Anglo-Welsh poet who used to be a member of the English department in the University of Wales, Bangor; I met him on a number of occasions when, as a very old man, he used to come and listen to the Welsh folk music sessions I played at in my early years in North Wales, but I digress). I ordered a copy of the anthology it was supposed to appear in (“Welsh Verse: Fourteen Centuries of Poetry” translated by Tony Conran; 3rd Ed., Seren, 2017; ISBN: 978-1781724040) but when that arrived I found that while it did indeed contain a translation of a poem by Hooson and a translation of a poem about poppies, they were different poems (the latter was called “Poppies” and was a translation of a poem, presumably called “Pabïau”, by Nesta Wyn Jones, though I haven’t managed to locate a copy of the original poem).

I therefore had to resort to my backup plan, which was to do my own translation. Initially I intended to just do a prose translation to convey the meaning (or at least the surface meaning) of the words to those who couldn’t read the Welsh (this, incidentally, was for an Act of Rembrance led by the Bangor University Chaplaincy), but once I’d finished that I decided to have a go at doing a verse translation too. This was a task I attempted with some trepidation, bearing in mind Robert Frost’s dictum that poetry is “what gets lost in translation”.

I wanted not only to convey the sense of the original words but also to preserve the original meter (iambic tetrameter, if I remember my terminology correctly) and rhyming scheme (AABB). There’s also at least a bit of cynghanedd (a somewhat complicated scheme of alliteration that’s characteristic of much Welsh poetry) going on, but I figured that was a step too far and decided to ignore that for my translation. To the best of my knowledge, Gerard Manley Hopkins is just about the only poet who’s successfully managed to make much use of cynghanedd in English poetry and he wasn’t working with the extra constraint of trying to translate poems from Welsh (or any other language).

In the end, I think I managed to achieve a reasonable result with only fairly minimal poetic licence employed to make it fit (most notably rendering “flodyn coch” as “red flower meek” rather than simply “red flower”):

The morning dew lay on your cheek,
In silver drops, red flower meek.
The sun throughout the afternoon
Cast gold into your cup that June.

You with your many brothers seen,
Dancing merry on the green,
The place frequented by your ilk,
A flame of fire your garb of silk.

But someone with relentless hand
Plucked you out of that fair land
And far away before the dawn
your blood did stain some foreign lawn.

tr. Magnus Forrester-Barker (November 2021)

I think something has been inevitably been lost in translation but I trust that not too much has been lost and that any loss is balanced by the gain of opening up Hooson’s beautiful, moving poem to a wider audience.

Elephants in Stilletos

I was intending to post this yesterday but my brief intoduction to Inktober ended up taking a lot longer than planned, so I postponed this one…

Yesterday’s prompt word for Inktober was “Pressure”. As usual, I thought about several possible avenues for interpreting this prompt, one of which was the scientific definition of pressure as force over area. This reminded me of a fun fact I learned while I was at school, namely that a woman in stiletto heels will do more damage to a wooden floor than an elephant, because although she weighs a lot less than the elephant (assuming average-sized women and elephants), all her weight is concentrated over a very small area compared to the elephant’s feet.

While thinking about this yesterday, it occurred to me that this was all based on the assumption (to be fair, probably a fairly safe one) that the elephant isn’t also wearing stiletto heels. This set me off on a rare foray into cartoon-style illustration:

Inktober 2021: 9. Pressure

Probably not one of my best sketches ever, but it was quite fun to make. I also took a bit of time to do my own calculations to verify the assertion that a woman in stilettos exerts more force than a barefoot elephant.

To do this, I looked up a few figures and estimated a few others.

According to an article appearing in the Independent in 2017, the average weight for a woman in the UK is 11 stone. That’s slightly higher than I expected, but I decided to go with that figure. Converting to metric units, that’s close enough to 70kg, so we can use that for our woman’s weight.

Except that it’s actually her mass, since weight is a force (gravity) acting on a massive object (i.e. an object that has mass, not necessarily a particularly large one) and is dependent on the strength of the gravitational field it’s in. We actually need the weight for our calculation (as pressure is force/area), but that’s easy enough to calculate from the mass. Newton’s 2nd law says that force is mass times acceleration (F=ma if you like equations, as I do) and in this case the acceleration is that due to gravity. That varies from place to place around the world but it’s roughly 9.81 metres per second squared. For my rough calculations, I decided that a nice round figure of 10m/s2 would do fine. So our average woman weighs about 700 Newtons.

I didn’t make a note of where I found the figures for an elephant but apparently a female African Bush Elephant weighs on average around 3 tons. I’m not sure if that’s supposed to be long tons or short tons, but either way I decided that just calling it 3 metric tonnes (3000kg) would be close enough. Again, that’s actually the elephant’s mass (everyday language tends to be shockingly imprecise when it comes to such things), and her weight would be 30,000N using the same figure of 10m/s2 for the acceleration due to gravity. Incidentally, I decided that since our woman is (by definition) female, I’d go with a female elephant too (they tend to be a bit smaller than the males) and since I tend to think of African savannas before African forests or any part of India when thinking of elephants, I opted for an African Bush Elephant (a species that’s generally somewhat bigger than the the other two varieties).

That bit was relatively easy. Working out the areas was slightly more problematic, especially for the woman in stilettos. You will probably be relieved to hear that I don’t have any stilettos in my own shoe collection, and I was too lazy to go out and find a woman with high heels so I could measure the surface area of her heels and toes together or figure out how much of her weight would be concentrated on each part of her foot. For the initial calculation, at least, I wanted to work on the assumption that both the woman and the elephant would be standing with their weight evenly distributed across all their legs (that sounds a bit weird for the woman – obviously “all” is just “both” in her case!). A bit of online research revealed that stiletto heels usually have a diameter of no more than one centimetre, but I couldn’t find anything out about the area of the front part of the foot that would be in contact with the ground and presumably bear its share of the weight. I settled for a rough estimate of about 1cm2 for the surface area of each heel and 50cm2 for the surface area of the toe/ball of each foot. For convenience I tweaked the latter down to 49cm2, giving a total surface area of 100cm2 for both feet (heels and toes combined).

The elephant’s foot size was actually a bit easier to determine. Apparently a typical African Elephant has feet between 40 and 50cm in diameter. I decided to give the woman a bit of a helping hand by assuming our elephant had relatively small feet (hence providing less area to spread the weight) and therefore a 40cm diameter, or 20cm radius which, if we assume that the feet are circular, gives a surface area of about 1250cm2 per foot or 5000cm2 for all four feet.

To ensure our final units are correctly expressed as Pascals, or Newtons per square metre, it’s handy at this stage to convert those areas into square metres rather than square centimetres. The woman, standing with both feet firmly on the floor is putting all her 700N of weight through 0.01m2 of the floor, while the elephant’s 30,000N is being spread across 0.5m2 with the net result that the woman is exerting 70,000N/m2 or 70kPa of pressure on the floor, while the elephant is exerting only 60,000N/m2 or 60kPa. So our average woman is indeed liable to do a bit more damage to our delicate wooden floor than our average elephant, though the figures are actually quite close.

The difference gets more pronounced if they both put all their weight on a smaller area. I’m not sure how practical it would be to rest all your weight on one heel while wearing stilettos (mind you, I’m not convinced it’s very practical to wear stilettos in the first place) but suppose she’s able to do so, our woman is now channeling 700N through an area of just 1cm2 or 0.0001m2 which makes for 7MPa of pressure (that’s 7 Megapascals, 7 million Pascals or 7×106Pa if you’re not afraid of scientific notation – it’s definitely much more convenient than long trails of zeroes at either end of your numbers). Assuming that it’s enough of a challenge for our elephant to stand on just one foot, without going up on her toes or heels, she would be putting 30kN through 0.125m2, which amounts to 2.4×105Pa, which is 240kPa or 0.24MPa – significantly less than the woman on one heel.

Since my cartoon was based on the idea that an elephant wearing stilettos would do more damage to the floor than a woman in stilettos, I couldn’t leave this set of calculations without considering the pressure exerted by our elephant if she were to don a set of stiletto heels. Presumably these would have to be custom made and I’ve no idea how big they would be, nor whether she’d wear them on all four feet or just two, so let’s assume that the heels themselves culminate in points the same size as the woman’s ones, i.e. 1cm2 each and the elephant has somehow managed to contrive to stand with all her 30kN of weight bearing down on just one of these heels. That would make for a pressure of 3×108Pa, or 300MPa. As we would expect, our elephant in stilettos would do considerably more damage to any floor than our woman. It’s probably just as well that elephants are not, as far as I’m aware, in the habit of wearing stiletto heels.

I should probably add that it’s been a good few years since I last did this sort of calculation, so I hope I haven’t made any major mistakes with my units or figures, or any assumptions that are too crazy (apart from the basic premise itself, perhaps). Still, I’m fairly confident, at least that the claim made by my cartoon is fundamentally correct:

An average-sized woman in stiletto heels exerts more pressure on the floor than an average-sized elephant…

… unless, of course, the elephant is also wearing stilettos!

(Magnus Forrester-Barker, 2021-10-09)

Ink-tastic

Since I last posted, just over a month ago, I’ve been continuing to do more or less regular drawing, with both my iPad and more traditional media. As I’d hoped, my life drawing class restarted about 3 weeks ago and I’ve really enjoyed being back there. I also decided to have another go at Inktober this year.

Inktober is one of those month-long daily challenge things that seem to be all the rage these days. This particular one, as the name suggests, takes place annually in October and is based around doing daily drawing. Officially it’s supposed to be done using ink in a pen or brush (with optional pencil underdrawing), but the real purpose of Inktober according to its creator, Jake Parker, is to encourage creativity and help people to improve their skills and develop positive drawing habits, so other things such as digital art are fair game (it says so in the official Inktober faq, so that’s good enough for me). There is an official prompt list that you can follow or ignore as you see fit, and artists of all skill levels are encouraged to post their results to social media, though that is optional.

I first did Inktober in 2019 and that time I did it with black ink on white paper and mostly (though perhaps not exclusively) using a Pentel brush pen that was recommended by Jake Parker (and, as I recall, a pencil for under-drawing on a few of the days though not all that many). I stuck to the official prompt list for that year, though with loose interpretations of some of the prompts (my favourite one being “legend”, which I chose to read as “leg-end” and therefore I drew a self-portrait of my foot). All my Inktober 2019 drawings can be seen in one album on Flickr.

There is also a thing called Inktober52 which replaces the daily drawings for a month with weekly drawings for a year. I’m not sure if that first started in 2020, but that’s certainly when I first gave it a try (and the first year for which I can find a prompt list online). Unfortunately, as we all know, 2020 pretty quickly became pretty hectic and I didn’t get beyond the first 9 weeks of drawings. Still, the ones I did are available in another Flickr album. This time I again mostly worked with black ink on white paper, but with a range of different pens and occasional brushes. The sketch that ended up being my final one of the series was done in multiple colours (using non-waterproof ink and a wet paintbrush to provide a bit of blending) and I think I was intending to do a bit more work with diferent colours and quite possibly try a few other things as well.

By last October I was completely out of the habit of drawing so I don’t think I even considered doing Inktober, and it was much the same for this year’s Inktober52. However, having restarted with my drawing in the last couple of months I was keen to give Inktober another go this time round. Initially I was planning to use black ink again, but since I’m currently still trying to get to grips with using Procreate on my iPad, I decided that this would be a great opportunity to get in some extra practice and perhaps to push my explorations in directions they wouldn’t otherwise go. So for me, this year’s Inktober is being done with virtual ink. To keep more or less within the spirit of Inktober, and to provide a bit of focus, I’m restricting myself (at least initially) to the brushes within the “Inking” section of Procreate’s default brush library and mostly working in black on white, but mixing it up a little bit when the subject matter, or my personal muse, calls for other approaches.

So far I’ve managed to do one drawing every day (although I think one of them was finished slighlty after midnight) and I’m putting them all in yet another Flickr album, as well as on Instagram (where my previous Inktober/Inktober52 sketches went as well – in fact, I haven’t yet got round to using my Instagram account for anything else, although I originally set it up with the intention of sharing my Figuary 2019 portfolio there; in the end those sketches just went into one more Flickr album). All being well, I’ll reach the end of Inktober 2021 with a full set of 31 drawings (plus a few extras inspired by them) and a much better handle on how to use my current range of digital art tools.

Brushing Up Again (Part Two)

As promised yesterday, here’s a bit more about my recent adventures with digital art on an iPad using the Procreate app.

I have mostly been practising by doing a handful of simple abstract paintings and more-or-less daily life drawings (fairly quick sketches from photo references). Indeed, one of my motivations to actually get on with trying to learn how to use my new digital art platform (having bought the hardware components, if not the software, several months ago) is the hope that my life drawing classes may be able to restart soon and the attendant realisation that my drawing skills have got some what rusty through neglect in the last year or so (I dropped out of the daily sketching habit around last April and have only done a handful of random sketches since then).

Having begun to get a handle on the basics of using Procreate, and beginning to feel some of my (albeit limited) artistic mojo returning and adapting well enough to the new medium, I decided to have a go at some more painting-styled work.

As my first subject, I selected an avocado plant that’s growing (in a pot) on my windowsill. Here’s what the painting looks like at the moment (it’s probably a work in progress, but I may decide just to quit while I’m ahead):

I started with a rough sketch to establish the basic composition. I then dialed back the opacity of that layer and set up several new ones to contain the painted background, the pot and the plant itself, each with a layer of their own. In each of these I used the “acrylic paint” brush at various different sizes.

My process was quite similar to how I’d approach a painting with actual acrylic paints, and the result is definitely quite a similar style too. It was definitely nice not to have to worry about mixing up sufficient quantities of paint or avoid contaminating one lot of paint with another, nor to have to wash my brushes afterwards or wait for one layer to dry before I could start on the next one. It’s also convenient to be able to go in and rework the background without having to worry about accidentally painting over any of the foreground details and it’s great to be able to try out different options without necessarily commiting to them.

For example, looking at the picture now, I wonder if a little bit of “inking” over the top to provide a bit more definition for some of the leaf edges and other structures might help the overall effect. In a traditional painting I’d have to make a decision and either leave it as it is (no pun intended) or commit to putting pen to paper (and I’m not actually sure how well it work to try drawing over acrylics, though I know it can work well with watercolours). With this digital painting, all I’d need to do (I’m not sure if I actually will) would be to add a new layer, do the drawing on there and if I don’t like it I can delete, or even just hide, it. And I’m not just limited to one experiment either – I could try a bunch of different things and then select the one(s), if any, that work best.

I don’t think I’ll be getting rid of my real paints and brushes just yet, but I suspect that I may well be doing the majority of my artwork (or at least the painting) with digital media from now on.

(And in case you’re wondering, I actually wrote this last night hot on the heels of the previous post – I didn’t get up bright and early to write and post it and I may in fact still be in bed!)