Originally Posted by kimilseung

You would have to ask him, I cant speak for his intentions.
For me it gets movement of time and place, change of light, change of perspective. Plus that we dont see the details, we see the structure, but only see, the gargoyles, or whatever it is on the walls, if we look, go out of our way. We can remember the structure of a cathedral years alter seeing it, but don't remember the details. If I think of Koln cathedral, Its structure if welded to the back of my eyes, but I have no idea of the details, we dont really see details.. Its why directors have to zoom in on details or draw our eyes to them in other ways. We are actually pretty crap at seeing things, other than what we are concentrating on.

Originally Posted by kimilseung

You would have to ask him, I cant speak for his intentions.
For me it gets movement of time and place, change of light, change of perspective. Plus that we dont see the details, we see the structure, but only see, the gargoyles, or whatever it is on the walls, if we look, go out of our way. We can remember the structure of a cathedral years alter seeing it, but don't remember the details. If I think of Koln cathedral, Its structure if welded to the back of my eyes, but I have no idea of the details, we dont really see details.. Its why directors have to zoom in on details or draw our eyes to them in other ways. We are actually pretty crap at seeing things, other than what we are concentrating on.

Originally Posted by Shard

Well yes, but there are various ways to achieve that, and wanton smudging of a geometric sketch strikes me as ill judged.

Originally Posted by kimilseung

What non-ill judged ways should he have selected in your opinion?

Originally Posted by Bipat

Off topic----but just seen your posts. I am a great admirer of the work of Grayson Perry-- (If I had money would buy a tapestry or 'vase' of his.)
He runs an ''Art Club' programme on TV and and exhibition of the work received is being exhibited at Manchester Art Gallery. (I received a gift book, related to the programme, on mothers day) . It shows some of the amazing the amount of work produced during Lock Down and including some by well known TV performers.

Originally Posted by Shard

Well yes, but there are various ways to achieve that, and wanton smudging of a geometric sketch strikes me as ill judged.

Originally Posted by Shard

Dispense with the smudging. If he wanted to invoke rain or mist, perhaps some light strokes or soft dots, although that may necessitate drawing the Cathedral lines in lighter chalk. IMO.

Originally Posted by kimilseung

Originally Posted by Shard

You're suggesting that he achived that with your bolded bit, and I don't think he has. Far from it. Perhaps he could have warped the lines as if it were seen through a glass with paralax, that would have had a more understandable effect. He could have drawn a completely different part of the Cathedral in that place. Or if he wanted to go full Magritte, an apple. As someone who likes these drawings (for quite some time) have you not come accross any criticism of the smudge technique ?

Originally Posted by kimilseung

It was your bold type, btw.
Saying what people haven't done or achieved is not that common. Meaning for an image is created by the observer, so it is more common to talk about what was achieved. You are, as you are disagreeing with my perspective. Most critics or observers are talking about their own observations, rather than discussing other peoples observations, if you know what I mean.