FRAMEWORK FOR EXPRESSION
1.1 A long time ago I took improv lessons as part of my design to become an actor. It was one of the things I enjoyed the most while acting. Like living life but knowing that it was all a game at the same time.
1.2 We were given some guidelines for our skits as the do in the show “Whose Line is it Anyway.” In one scenario three of us would do a scene together, and we would come in one at a time. The first person was given a basic setting, the kitchen. He started of tidying up or making breakfast. Then the second person enters with a given agenda, then the third person, me.
1.3 As first one actor and then the other set the scene I wondered what I was going to do. The minute I stepped on stage I knew what to do by seeing what was around me.
1.4 Luigi’s character sarcastically mentioned me and my whole grain bread. I sidestepped and mentioned the girl I’d met last night who given me her phone number. But Doug had thrown it out, and the garbage truck had already been by and picked up the garbage and we carried on from there.
1.5 “Why did you throw it out?”
1.6 “Because I felt like it...”
1.7 Once we were in the scene it carried us. And we expressed it, simply from being given a few simple instructions, frameworks within which to express ourselves. In this case the framework was quite open. A kitchen. It didn’t say what kind of kitchen. And oh, we were housemates, that was the assumption. And I was looking for something, a girl’s phone number. It was enough to give us room to express ourselves.
1.8 Because we were given a setting and a set of relationships we had a framework within which to express ourselves. We were all relating or creating relationships with each other. Each of us an idea connecting to other ideas in different ways, three housemates arguing over a lost phone number and a loaf of whole grain bread. When each of us understood the ideas that we were portraying and the relationships between them, when we understood the limits within which we were working, then we were free to express ourselves within them.
1.9 Frameworks, guiding expression.
Showing posts with label frameworks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label frameworks. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Frameworks for Seeing, Frameworks for Expression,
RATIO, ANOTHER WORD FOR RELATIONSHIP
1.1 Before I joined the army one of my favorite past times was hanging out in bookstores. I normally hung out in the Sci Fi/Fantasy Section but on one occasion I was in the art section.
1.2 I came across a book called “Dynamic Figure Drawing” by a man named Burne Hogarth. It was filled with sketches of human figures drawn without using models. They’d been drawn instead from an understanding of the relationships within the human body. The author used his understanding of these “ratios” (relationships) as a framework for drawing basic human figures.
1.2.1 They served as a framework for drawing non-ideal, real figures.
1.3 The book discussed the ratios that related all the parts of the body to each other using the head as the basic unit of measurement. From the front the torso from the pubic bone to the base of the neck was three heads tall. The legs, from the crests of the pelvis down to the soles of the feet, were four heads tall. From the back view the torso measured from the bottom crease of the buttocks was three and a half heads tall.
1.4 Testing some of the ratios on my own body I noticed that when I was kneeling that my sitting bones did indeed rest on my heels. That meant the distance from my heels to the knees was about the same as the distance from my knees to my sitting bones.
1.5 Hugging my knees I saw that they came up to about the top of my chest, so that meant the distance from my knees to the hips was approximately the same as the distance from my hips to my collarbones. And sure enough my face from my chin to my hairline was just about the length of my hand. That ratio can change with age.
1.6 My parents also had a lot of fun testing these ratios. One in particular was interesting. Our arms when stretched out from finger to finger measure the same as our height. So in Leonardo’s sketch the use of a square is appropriate. With arms outstretched we are as wide as we are tall.
1.7 Buying “Dynamic Anatomy” I started to study and learn the relationships between the different parts of the body so I could see how its parts relate. Dynamic Anatomy taught me a particular “Cannon of Proportion” for relating parts of the body by length.
1.8 A cannon of proportion is a way of noticing the relationships within the human body. It’s a starting point both for seeing the body and being able to portray it. And because it is a starting point it doesn’t really matter which cannon of proportion we use. We can vary from them to suit our needs.
1.9 In dynamic anatomy I learned a cannon of proportion where the basic body was eight and a half heads tall. Other cannons might have slightly different proportions or starting points. Perhaps a body that is seven heads tall. What mattered was that I became aware of the relationships between the parts of the body, whatever those relationships were. Then I could adjust the relative ratios of the legs and body to give a figure either a long legged look or a short-legged look. I could do the same with the arms and the body.
1.10 So that the body could draw be drawn in any position and from any viewing angle Dynamic Anatomy showed how the relationships between parts of the body changed depending on the way we were viewing the body. The head appears wider the more side onwards we view it. The upper body becomes thinner the more we view it from the side, unless we’re drawing or looking at someone with a generous abdomen. The limbs appear relatively longer or shorter depending on how we view them but their width remains the same.
1.11 I learned to see how the parts of the body related to each other and also how they related to the person who was viewing them. I was learning how to draw any figure in any pose from any viewing angle. Dynamic anatomy was teaching me to draw the human figure without needing a model but the same tools enabled me to see people as well.
1.12 Painting or drawing or just plain seeing someone I could look at them and see how all of their parts related. I could look at them and understand that because I was viewing them from a particular angle certain relationships appeared different. I could see how I related to that person.
1.13 Teaching yoga, some of the poses use the leg as a fulcrum but if a person has a long torso and shorter legs then such a pose won’t work very well for them because their legs are too short for their arms to cross their thighs easily. Understanding this if I noticed someone with legs a lot shorter than their torso I could modify the pose to suit the person, using blocks or other means of changing relationships so that the pose did suit them.
1.14 Learning a cannon of proportion I learned how to see freely, I learned how to see why someone may not be able to do a pose or why someone looked different. I began to be able to see how people were different and how they were beautiful.
1.1 Before I joined the army one of my favorite past times was hanging out in bookstores. I normally hung out in the Sci Fi/Fantasy Section but on one occasion I was in the art section.
1.2 I came across a book called “Dynamic Figure Drawing” by a man named Burne Hogarth. It was filled with sketches of human figures drawn without using models. They’d been drawn instead from an understanding of the relationships within the human body. The author used his understanding of these “ratios” (relationships) as a framework for drawing basic human figures.
1.2.1 They served as a framework for drawing non-ideal, real figures.
1.3 The book discussed the ratios that related all the parts of the body to each other using the head as the basic unit of measurement. From the front the torso from the pubic bone to the base of the neck was three heads tall. The legs, from the crests of the pelvis down to the soles of the feet, were four heads tall. From the back view the torso measured from the bottom crease of the buttocks was three and a half heads tall.
1.4 Testing some of the ratios on my own body I noticed that when I was kneeling that my sitting bones did indeed rest on my heels. That meant the distance from my heels to the knees was about the same as the distance from my knees to my sitting bones.
1.5 Hugging my knees I saw that they came up to about the top of my chest, so that meant the distance from my knees to the hips was approximately the same as the distance from my hips to my collarbones. And sure enough my face from my chin to my hairline was just about the length of my hand. That ratio can change with age.
1.6 My parents also had a lot of fun testing these ratios. One in particular was interesting. Our arms when stretched out from finger to finger measure the same as our height. So in Leonardo’s sketch the use of a square is appropriate. With arms outstretched we are as wide as we are tall.
1.7 Buying “Dynamic Anatomy” I started to study and learn the relationships between the different parts of the body so I could see how its parts relate. Dynamic Anatomy taught me a particular “Cannon of Proportion” for relating parts of the body by length.
1.8 A cannon of proportion is a way of noticing the relationships within the human body. It’s a starting point both for seeing the body and being able to portray it. And because it is a starting point it doesn’t really matter which cannon of proportion we use. We can vary from them to suit our needs.
1.9 In dynamic anatomy I learned a cannon of proportion where the basic body was eight and a half heads tall. Other cannons might have slightly different proportions or starting points. Perhaps a body that is seven heads tall. What mattered was that I became aware of the relationships between the parts of the body, whatever those relationships were. Then I could adjust the relative ratios of the legs and body to give a figure either a long legged look or a short-legged look. I could do the same with the arms and the body.
1.10 So that the body could draw be drawn in any position and from any viewing angle Dynamic Anatomy showed how the relationships between parts of the body changed depending on the way we were viewing the body. The head appears wider the more side onwards we view it. The upper body becomes thinner the more we view it from the side, unless we’re drawing or looking at someone with a generous abdomen. The limbs appear relatively longer or shorter depending on how we view them but their width remains the same.
1.11 I learned to see how the parts of the body related to each other and also how they related to the person who was viewing them. I was learning how to draw any figure in any pose from any viewing angle. Dynamic anatomy was teaching me to draw the human figure without needing a model but the same tools enabled me to see people as well.
1.12 Painting or drawing or just plain seeing someone I could look at them and see how all of their parts related. I could look at them and understand that because I was viewing them from a particular angle certain relationships appeared different. I could see how I related to that person.
1.13 Teaching yoga, some of the poses use the leg as a fulcrum but if a person has a long torso and shorter legs then such a pose won’t work very well for them because their legs are too short for their arms to cross their thighs easily. Understanding this if I noticed someone with legs a lot shorter than their torso I could modify the pose to suit the person, using blocks or other means of changing relationships so that the pose did suit them.
1.14 Learning a cannon of proportion I learned how to see freely, I learned how to see why someone may not be able to do a pose or why someone looked different. I began to be able to see how people were different and how they were beautiful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
