I loved doing this!!
I’d done three-quarters of Painting 1 a few years ago so remembered this… but for some reason had it in my head that the Vanishing Point was always the horizon not the height of your eyes. But obviously things look different whether you’re standing up or sitting down. It’s very clear in the door illustration in the text-book.
So that’s a big difference and very useful point to note… though I guess sometimes they’re the same thing?
Doing the sketch then adding in the perspective lines was brilliant.
The biggest shock was that I got the mat in front of me very close. In fact everything in my ‘field of vision’ was fairly accurate. Having said that adding the lines to the mat made the pattern on the mat much more realistic.
The second shock was just how nice the composition looked – so simple… you could almost paint it. Though I did cheat by simplifying the garden and changing the French windows to an arch. The perspective takes the eye through the arch into the garden and you get that wonderful feeling just before you walk out of a building into space.
However, the structures out of my field of vision – where I have to turn my head were way out.
I had a think about this and maybe it’s because if I’m looking at something on an angle, I turn my head to the right to look at the garage wall, it’s no longer parallel perspective??? (because I’m now looking at the building corner on and my parallel. If parallel is straight in front of me it moves as I turn my head so the garage is now two point perspective from my new point of view?!
So, I might accurately be drawing what I see… but it’s another drawing (getting in Cubist territory rather than single point perspective). And it looks wrong because it’s from a different point of wiew than the rug. Two fairly radical points of view (a 45 degree head turn) in one drawing. When I add the lines (for parallel perspective) it looks ‘right’ because it pulls it back to a single perspective. A bit like taking a photograph on an iPhone which has a single perspective but a much wider field of vision than our eyes.
This makes me think about our eye as a piece of visual machinery!!!!!
And how any drawing that includes more than our field of vision and which we have to ‘correct’ is artificial… something we could never see in real life?!!!!!!! Maybe we ‘accept’ it because our brain is used to single point perspective and happily applies that to the whole picture?
Which then raises the whole question of how much manipulation our brain (like photoshopping software?) does to the image we actually see?!! And how much is the visual reality – if there is such a thing – of the original optical information?
My tutor is trying to speed me on and I have a deadline for the end of July… and it’s the 26th already!
Better crack on with two point perspective.