When you're doing a 2 or 3 hour sketch, would you take several breaks during that time, or do you find the whole process relaxing to start with?
I used to race formula cars; when I was a novice my lap times would start to fade after only 2 or 3 laps, but with practice and improved skill I got to where I could nearly concentrate for a full race (about 20 laps). So perhaps I just need more practice sketching (both to decrease my effort-per-minute and increase my total effort "budget").
Part of it must also be that I feel a bit rushed doing prominences. I did about an hour and a half of deep sky sketching the other night, and didn't feel worn out at all. But there I'm only sketching about 40% of the time, and the other 60% is finding, viewing, switching eyepieces, etc.
Yes and no and I am glad that [you] asked.
It is difficult for me to imagine comparing driving a race car with the art of sketching as I can take days, sometimes weeks to decide and plan an artwork. Imagine a race car driver going to a Maharishi meditation for a week in India before his next lap; the wind, temperature and the weather, the last glass of wine I had, the extra cup of coffee, the headline news today, etc. Thatâ€™s me. I cannot really see the relationship, (although I do enjoy driving a manual shift sports car for 30 years as I have been relegated to my fatherâ€™s automatic for the past few years) but that race car analogy might work for you and some others. I do not know that I really have a set process or time limit. It can vary greatly for different celestial objects. And I have taken breaks to run into the house for a cup of tea, but once I start I am on a role and do not stop until finished. *See the movie Pollock in which Ed Harris plays the painter. Life magazine is sent out to interview him; a woman asks, How do you know when you are done with a painting? . . . I won't answer here in this forum; you'll have to see the movie. I have the same answer.
When I used to do the sun I started with a rough pencil sketch that I then referred to in the house later to render the colored pastel from. I know that is now frowned on by the sketching moderators. Since turning to the moon, some nights I look at it for a few minutes to decide of I see anything interesting. Then I go out to sit there in the cold and dampness for a few hours till I can tolerate no more. I will admit this, if I have not already; I plan to do some entirely new approach every time I decide to sketch. I do not want to compile a technical log of similar formats and images as if I am being assigned to document a coronersâ€™ report. I want to see the object, then comply with the rules here to an agreed degree in the forum, then turn it into astounding and aesthetic art. That is my story and Iâ€™m sticking to it. Iâ€™ve been doing that since I was a child and it seems to work.
You have just got me to realize what a small niche I am in with my art. I am not really sure how to categorize what I do. I guess it can become quite personal for some people. I have been doing serious graphic art since I was in the third grade of elementary school. I have always been categorized as a special art style like none of my class mates. An early example is in my www.markseibold.com
that was produced in the sixth grade for reference. I probably spent several hours on this piece over several days at my school desk. It is compared to MC Escherâ€™s works, yet I did not know who Escher was then as I learned all the art history much later after high school.
It just occurred to me why we must work so fast with prominences; due to the sun being so dynamic, hence it changes fast. I guess that makes solar sketchers good race car drivers? Or have I got that backwards? Good race car drivers make great solar sketchers?
I just saw your entry for this months contest. The Leo triplet you have submitted is superb. I need to get to the formality of using the eyepiece circle template with more detailed text, like the rest of you do. I feel that the moderators are allowing me some special exception here as I boarder on only aesthetic art of the moon too often. I guess I owe it to the CN sketchers as I rediscovered the moon through sketching it. And what a joy this is!
I remember that it was you who wrote to the rest asking why Mark's solar sketches could not be included in the sketching and that my hand in the sketch was not interfering on the outer perimeter of my art works.
As you all can see, I traded my hand and the suns low activity for the constance of the moon. Yet I feel that I have not even scratched the surface of the moon, compared to Rich's, Frank's, Carlos', Eric's, Roland's, Erika's and others detailed lunar close-ups.
Something to learn from perhaps. Feel free to ask questions as I am discovering my own art through all of you here in the forum.