sophisticated simplicity

Whether drawing or painting, first and foremost, an artist should be thinking of how to simplify what he/she is looking at. To simplify is to do-away with distracting details in order to see the larger sum. A helpful approach to simplification is to use, "the rule of 3’s". The rule of 3’s is a method used to simplify the infinite amount of possibilities for purposes of efficiency–to reduce what is complex down to it's most simple state, to make clear important relationships. It is a helpful approach for an artist to better understand the subject of design and image making.

With drawing, it is helpful to reduce the object (or image) to 3 values (dark, mid-tone, light). Later on, you may decide to add another value (or two) to help better strengthen the image or idea, if needed. However, for the sake of efficiency I suggest getting directly to-the-point of what is important vs. what is less important. Leaving out certain details is much needed in order to play-up a feeling, attitude or emotion. Besides, why spend time rendering every value when it’s not necessary.

The core of what you are looking at is not in the details. It is in the major shapes held together by their relationships to one another. It is boiled-down and reduced to, “what is necessary” vs. "what is not necessary”. From an aesthetic standpoint, if the image doesn’t hold-up with 3 basic values then it’s most likely not going to hold-up with 4 or 5 values, graphically or philosophically speaking. A stronger image and a stronger idea will be achieved.

When observing an image from life, an artist can see that it is made up of an infinite amount of information (colors, tones, values, textures, details, etc.). Without simplifying, the artist will make complicated work and will lose sight of what’s truly important. There's a certain honesty and sophistication obtained through simplicity. If something becomes complicated, in a sense, it becomes less sincere. Mistakes are covered up. Weaknesses are masked and revisions make heed for filters. Or, instead, what needs to be said can be revised and reduced to it's basic meaning–to be more poignant, efficient. A certain simplicity of beauty is attained. Poets and writers do it. They understand the efficiency of words and to only use the amount necessary to achieve what needs to be said. Musicians know this. And so, some of the most beautiful well-known songs ever made, at their core, are made up of only three cords. 

Of course, this is just an approach and it could be argued that it is only one perspective. To say that what needs to be said with as few words as possible can be argued and, notably, that it can become a contentious argument. Beauty can be however you define it. Socrates would be proud of us if we were to think independently, creating our own definitions–to be an outlier, a fringe element and question everything. An artist may sometimes prescribe the opposite effect of simplicity. And, in which case, beauty may take on a different definition, one that is chaotic or complicated. But to pull even this off, I believe the artist would have a certain mastery and understanding of simplicity–an intelligence to hold all the chaos together, as a heart is to the cardiovascular system. This doesn't necessarily mean that what is simple isn't sophisticated and, by the same tolken, that what is complicated doesn't automatically have sophistication. Nonetheless, this is a good point to be aware of as an artist.

However an artist goes about creating values through line-making (or brush stroke), is entirely up to the artist so long as the artist retains the correct 3 values from afar. You may use chaotic strokes, edgy strokes, hatching, cross-hatching, or smoothed-out tonal strokes to build these value planes, so long as they read from far away as being within a prescribed value. No matter how complicated your line-work, it is ultimately held together, and made sense of, by-way-of the hierarchy of values.

Drawing done by artist, James Dietz

This example is by James Dietz (illustrator). He makes deliberate hatch-mark lines to build shapes and, ultimately, the image. When he thinks about building an object, he's thinking in terms of how dark to make a line, how hard of an edge it will have and how long it will be. Collectively, he knows the build-up of many similar lines next to one another, having slightly different shades, ultimately bundle together to represent a single shape. From a distance, these smaller shapes merge together to create a larger shape, compounded exponentially in this fashion. 

So when you squint your eyes or step back from the image, what do you see? I see an image made up of three basic shapes and 3 basic values. A foreground shape (jeep and people), a mid-ground shape (plane), and a background shape (sky). The foreground shape is the mid-tone value, the mid-ground shape is the dark value and the background is the light value. Basically, that’s 3 values (lights, mid-tones and darks).

His foundation began with an understanding of 3 basic tonal values and how they read from a distance. Technically, he added a fourth value (probably toward the end) to the wheel-well and grill of the jeep. By doing so, he helped bring the foreground objects closer to the viewer and create more interest. Where the artist ends-up and how dark to ultimately go will be dictated by the artist's needs. These needs will have the artist constantly pushing the parameters of the rules. The the darkest darks added toward the end of the drawing are minor notes, much needed supporting actors, if you will.