There may be a tendency for artists to preserve the material on which they’re drawing for various reasons. The first might be economic. For example, I recently saw 10-packs of crinkly art-fag paper on sale in an eminent modern art establishment for prices in excess of £7. A quick bit of arithmetic would tell the prospective buyer that that worked out as 70p per sheet, or, to look at it another way, 70p per mistake. Is this not consumerism pushing its ever more wide-ranging tentacles into another area of an artist’s life? I’m not suggesting that we should boycott these kinds of materials, far from it. An alternative would be to buy cheap-as-chips bumper value packs from somewhere like Smith’s. However, this option is just as bad in my view due to the obvious, yet unseen, repercussions for the environment. Attaching the phrase ‘cheap and cheerful’ to these items would be a horrific lie. A much wiser alternative would be to source drawing materials from where others have been wasteful. Namely, your letterbox. The backs, or even fronts, of junk mail and pizza leaflets provides a veritable bio-fuel for an artist’s creativity, although using a free piece of paper is not a cure-all when it comes to the ‘neat to rough’ phenomenon. Having used this, what seems to be, limitless supply of free drawing material myself, I’ve begun to select what I think are the handouts with the most potential – i.e. those that feature slogans or images that can be altered or juxtaposed to create some kind of alternate message. Compared to just using the blank side of a leaflet, using the printed sides for art makes you consider what you’re going to create much more, not wanting to spoil the one-off raw material, leading to outbreaks of the ‘neat to rough’ syndrome.
A second cause for the phenomenon is probably the more obvious – the desire to create something aesthetic or with an intended design. Attempting realism or trying to produce a good likeness through neat impressionism would undoubtedly lead to the artist taking greater care to begin with so as to make the foundation of the work essentially correct so that come the time for filling out the piece with colour, shading etc. more liberties can be taken.
A third causative agent may be how art is taught to the majority of people. It’s probably the case that most children are introduced to drawing with pencils or crayons and move onto using paint, ink etc at an older age. This might foster a subconscious principle that when producing art one starts with pencil, then ‘lines it in’ with something more permanent.
A fourth and final diagnosis could be how art is referred to and thought about by the general public. From a young age children have examples of ‘good artwork’ pointed out to them by others because the work contains a good likeness to something they are unfamiliar with. Also, the ‘down with modern art brigade’ profess to know what constitutes praise-worthy work – a realist illustration or painting - not one that was created with original ideas and artistic approach that doesn’t directly resemble the real world.
Having considered the various reasons why some artists take the ‘neat to rough’ approach we should also look at whether this tactic is a help or a hindrance to their creativity. On the pro- side might be the fact that building up an outline, then adding progressively more confident marks allows artists to change their mind mid-way as to the direction of the piece. Previously unconsidered elements can be added without much inconvenience and corrections can be made along the way. Motives against using the ‘neat to rough’ idea might include originality of style, spontaneity, efficiency and improved flow to the work.
Looking further afield to the realms of digital artwork, computer-aided illustration etc. we could ask, does the ‘neat to rough’ direction really apply? With the ability to eradicate mistakes quickly, easily, without trace and without the financial deficit of loosing materials if the idea is scrapped, computers make drawing constantly ‘neat’ in my opinion. Some would say that the marks you put on a work should never be removed and to do so rids the piece of its character and hides the story that the piece holds in its many additions and adjustments, but as computers and their capacity for creative assistance develops we may find that equally candid pieces of work can be produced.
It’s only right that every artist should be free to conduct him/herself in whichever way suits. I only advise that if you’re someone that uses the ‘neat to rough’ style exclusively you should give the reverse a try as it might yield some pleasing results.
Here’s a recent work I produced using a ‘rough to neat’ agenda, starting with an imprecise background of thickly applied acrylic and topping it with the sharp parallel lines of barcodes:
‘Barcode City’
acrylic and barcodes on cardboard
Posted by Stu
