The aim of this exercise was to take mark making a step further: using visual sources are inspiration, the goal was to make marks that create interesting surface textures.
I really enjoyed the process of looking for those inspiring pictures that show surface textures, that was definitely the fun and easy part of the exercise. But having found so many photographs to use, the mark making part was not quite as easy as I might have expected.
Looking for Sources of inspiration: Textures vs Patterns?
In addition to textiles, photography is another love of mine, and I have always wanted to link my photography and textile work somehow. As soon as I saw this exercise, I knew that this is a great way to start doing that and so I spent several happy hours going through my photography collection, and looking for pictures with interesting surface textures.
I found several promising pictures (which I wrote about here), but I soon starting wondering whether my chosen pictures were in fact show an interesting pattern, rather than a texture as such. And that got me thinking about the difference between a pattern and a texture, and whether or not that difference makes a difference for this particular exercise.
A texture is typically thought of as a tactile quality, something that one can explore by touching and that has an important 3D element. But in a 2D-format on paper or a screen, the boundary between a texture and a pattern is blurred, since the real-world texture is transformed into a 2D visual pattern. But when you are working in textiles, you gain tools to represent those tactile and 3D qualities again, so you will be able to translate those textural qualities more literally, even if you may still be re-creating visual patterns too. From a logical point of view this might seem fairly self-evident, but when looking at lots of photographs and trying to decide which ones to choose it didn’t seem quite as obvious and unproblematic.
In the end, I decided it’s better not to philosophise about this too much. I chose to treat the concept of texture fairly liberally, after all almost anything has a texture, just like anything can be seen as a pattern.
Dried Rosebay Willowherb seadheads – is it a texture or a pattern or both? And does it really matter?
Another seedhead picture that blurs the line between pattern and texture. (The original photograph is not mine but from http://www.cometobg.com/main.asp?rightframe=gallery.asp)
Copying vs representing a feeling
The instructions to this exercise remind you that the aim is not to try to copy a picture, but interpret its feeling. You are making an analogy, not an exact copy. Although from a logical point of view this makes perfect sense, with my drawings I struggled with this concept.
Perhaps it is because I am so new to drawing: if I try to draw something, I still want it to look like the thing I am drawing. And perhaps naively, if my drawing doesn’t look like the thing I am trying to represent, then I start getting upset and frustrated, almost childishly grumpy: the colours aren’t right, the lines are not accurate at all – I can see that but I can’t make it right – therefore the whole picture is just rubbish…
And that effort doesn’t look like the photograph at all!!! Why can’t I at least get the colours right??
And then, when looking at the results the next day, they don’t seem quite so bad after all. It’s probably because while drawing, you are looking at the object so intensely, and if your hands fail to reproduce the object exactly the way you see it, then you are acutely aware of the difference. It is only afterwards that you see the drawing as an object in its own right, and stop comparing it to the real thing quite so ruthlessly.
Although I rationally speaking understand why it is not necessary or even desirable to copy something exactly, I don’t think I’ve quite yet reached the phase when I am ready to stop trying. It is as if there some sort of inner need to try to represent the object accurately and I haven’t got it out of my system yet. If my drawings aren’t looking like actual copies, then I still think it’s because of my lack of skill, rather than be able to honestly say that I wasn’t even trying to make an exact replica. I still think a good drawing is something that really looks like the object. I think this although I have no problem whatsoever with abstract or non-representational art, so clearly I have different standards when it comes to my own art.
But perhaps this is just a phase beginners go through? As yet I don’t quite understand how to “make an analogy” or “a representation of a feeling”, but perhaps this is something that comes with practise and experience.
I love this picture of tree bark I found in http://www.cometobg.com/main.asp?rightframe=gallery.asp. My drawing, however, ended up looking way too psychedelic….
Tree bark, a classic texture subject. Although at the time I wasn’t very happy with it now I think it’s not too bad really.
My version of the tree bark – I was definitely trying to copy the original picture.
Dried Hydrangea Flower petal, a favourite photographic subject of mine. It was easier to represent the texture with torn bits of tissue paper that I had painted with acrylics. Those torn bits of paper were the closest I could come to “representing a feeling”.
A Textile Student's Diary 