Animal Art Notes - Bird Study Skins Part I

For those of you painting, drawing, or sculpting birds, learning how to work from prepared study skins can open up an entirely new area of reference material for you. I am grateful to have access to a couple of different college and university collections and look to these study skins to fill in gaps from blurry photos, or in composing paintings simply from a memory I have of a scene.

I do not personally advocate simply tracing a photo in order to create a painting or drawing, so study skins have become important reference material for me.

Why not simply trace a photo?

If you do not have the ability to draw and rely solely on tracing to create a painting, you are severely limiting yourself and what you can create. You are now a complete slave to your photo, relying on it for composition, proportion, pose/gesture,  movement, and detail. Your ability to "invent" or create scenes from your imagination is severely limited, as is your ability to make minor tweaks and changes. Basically, you have hog-tied your creativity. If you rely completely on tracing, do yourself a HUGE service and learn to draw. It's a discipline that will take time, but it's time well-spent.

So what is a bird study skin anyway?

Bird study skins are just that - the skin of a bird preserved for later study. These are not taxidermied mounts (although working from mounts can be a valuable aid as well). Preserving a bird as a study skin is a no-frills way to keep a large number of bird specimens in a neat and compact form for future study.

What you get:

1. Usually wings-in mounts
2. Good reference for overall length and measurements of head, beak/bill, legs, and some feathers
3. Body feather patterns and colors on fresh skins
4. The ability to see individual variability in a large collection of skins
5. A bird that stays in one place so you can practice your drawing :)
6. The ability to view and draw extinct species

What you don't get:

1. Typically you won't see wings-out skins because they are more fragile and more difficult to store
2. On older skins, colors of beak/bill and feathers may have faded or changed
3. Skins can be in "not-so-perfect" condition (missing feathers, somewhat contorted, broken wings)
4. Eye details (eyes are not preserved or replaced in these skins)

Do's and Don'ts of using study skins:

1. DO expect to work on-site, not at your home
2. DO bring white cotton gloves and use them for handling fragile skins
3. DO draw using dry media only: pencil and disposable mechanical drawing pens preferred
4. DO ask about photography before bringing your camera
5. DO be respectful and professional: show up on-time, work quickly, and handle the specimens carefully
6. DO gently smooth down feathers if needed
7. DO NOT try to pull the wings out or open the beak - you will break them
8. DO NOT try to move the legs or feet - you will break them too!
9. DO NOT allow water or other liquids near the specimens
10. DO NOT pull on feathers

Working from skins has its limits. It's probably best not to let working from bird study skins take the place of personal observation. Observing birds first hand will allow you to watch how the bird moves, behaves, and communicates. Direct observation also allows you to see accurate colors in different lighting situations. Because of this, working from study skins is a great supplement to personal observation and photograph reference material but in most cases should not replace it.

Obtaining permission to use a study skin collection will be the subject of my next post.

All contents of this post copyright 2011 Nancy Rynes

Abstract/Contemporary "vs." Traditional" Art

In art circles these days, it seems many artists have arranged themselves in one of two opposing "camps": abstract/contemporary artists vs traditional (representational) artists. Some arts organizations have even sprung up to entrench these divisions, separating "us" from "them" with decidedly militant-sounding editorials and websites. Some proponents of "traditional" art completely dismiss anything "modernist" as worthless - not even art. The same can be said for some modernists' views of traditional art.

Seems humans aren't happy unless they can create drama and conflict.

I'm not sure why such a gulf has to exist.

I've been painting for about 25 years, taking it seriously in the last 8-10 years. My work to date would be considered "traditional" in style - certainly representational. I'm not sure I would consider it "art." Craft, yes, but art....? Let me explain...

A couple of years ago I'll admit to a certain boredom with my subject matter - I think my feeling at the time could be summed up by: who really cares to see yet another painting of a woman, a sunset, or a seashore? I mean really...who cares? Yeah, the technique may be beautiful, the lighting exquisite, and the subject well-rendered, but really, what is this saying? I realized my paintings weren't saying much at all. I felt they had no depth, no "soul." They certainly weren't representing what was in my own soul. I was simply painting pretty pictures - things that were appealing to the eye and that sold when hung on a gallery wall. But I had ignored the soul of the painting - and my own too.

And what's art without soul?

It's certainly not art...

So I set about to try to free "soul" in my paintings...and it's something I'll explore for the rest of my life I'm sure. It's also the core of what my course and book will cover. To start things off, I thought I would try abstraction...it looked pretty easy, so why not, right?

Do you "traditional" artists know how utterly difficult it is to create a really well-executed abstract? Try it sometime - I was shocked at how horrible the resulting "art" looked as a whole. Thankfully I had wonderful training and knew how to use my materials (brushes, paints, canvas, etc.), but I had no idea how to compose and execute an abstract painting.

It's not easy - I gained a profound respect for gifted modernists.

I also realized that there are a few things both camps can learn from the other:

-Modernists can learn that there is a huge value in thorough study of the materials and techniques of their chosen media. I have seen a lot of "modern art" where it's obvious that the artist really didn't have a clear understanding of things such as paint handling and application, color mixing, drawing, and composition (for a painter).

-Traditionalists can learn that there is value in learning how to create a pleasing painting absent in obvious subject matter. You'll learn the true importance of value, color, transitions, line, shape, balance, and composition.

-I learned that with modern art, the state of your inner being is more readily apparent in your work. I haven't done a scientific study on this, but I've noted repeatedly that abstract artists with, for example, fast-moving/energetic minds tend to create mostly fast-moving and energetic paintings. This isn't so obvious in traditional or representational pieces - the subject matter and traditional technique can camouflage a lot.

-Both camps can learn the absolute necessity of painting what's in your heart and soul - not what someone else tells you is the "right" thing to paint. When it comes right down to it, you're the best judge of what is right for you. Creating from your soulspace is freeing, energizing, and absolutely satisfying.

I explore 3 different painting styles now...realism with mythic and surreal elements, abstraction, and a hybrid of the two. I'm excited about integrating the two camps in my own work - it seems to give me the balance I crave. And I now look forward to easel time, rather than dread it!

There is always something I can learn from someone else...I'm thankful that I gave abstraction a chance to speak to me and broaden my mind, and my art.