Using tools not intended for ink was challenging, and using them and getting the same mark/value as before in a consistent way, was challenging. Finding ways to get a precise line, and portray depth and shadow was also difficult. Finding tools that had a different amount of surface area interacting with the ink and paper added utility in that it enabled me to have different thickness of the line. It also helped to just give up on being consistent, the nature of ink is one of irreversibility and lack of perfection, you can’t erase it and it immediately will dominate a piece, so it’s best just to go with the flow. Using water also helped with value to get lighter tones, and placing water down before using the actual ink on a spot helped blend the ink into other segments as well, which I initially thought was a risky move since it could’ve made the ink drip or run away in a way I didn’t intend. It was helpful to hear people’s interpretations of what they saw in the piece, and what they thought would’ve worked better to add interest to the piece and depth. I also liked hearing others give background information to their artworks during the critique; after more background knowledge was given it was like you could look at the piece with fresh new eyes. I will take those comments into account and experiment with different forms of mark-making (stippling, hatching) instead of primarily washes in an attempt to increase visual interest and value differentiation.
Thanks for your reflection Isabella! I am glad you found the critique helpful. It is so interesting to hear what other people see in our drawings that we may not have noticed ourselves, or didn’t intend. It is great you decided to use ink in this new iteration as well, because every time you make one drawing, the second one uses the skills gained in the first. I am very interested in the leaves in the background here and feel like they are a cross over between frottage and printmaking too. I would keep experimenting with that!