Sunday, January 3, 2010

Rodak's Drawings: Who Are They?

X
Here is a small cast of characters in search of a story:



Although this one isn't dated, I assume that it was drawn in response to my short-lived enthusiasm for fanatasy fiction, during the Lord of the Rings fad in the psychedelic '60s. It seems probable that I had intended to write a tale to accommodate these folk and never got around to it. As I said, my enthusiasm for fantasy was brief.

They are kinda cute, though. Don't you think?

X

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Try adding some color and it would make a nice album cover

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Dukes_25oclock.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/DisraeliGears.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Odessey_and_Oracle.jpg

If you're up to some oil painting

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Molly_Hatchet_-_Molly_Hatchet.jpg

---MS

Rodak said...

I like the Molly Hatchet one.

Rodak said...

Btw, oils are too messy. Acrylics, maybe. I always preferred drawing to painting, though. It requires less equipment and is more portable.

Anonymous said...

You have to be good and quick to do acrylic. Apart from the look of the surface finish, those artists that like to paint (I'm not one of them) prefer oil for its slow-drying capabilities and the ability to go back into a color many times over before final drying.

Yeah, Molly Hatchet always had the best covers in terms of that D&D element. I'm a pen-and-ink RO Blechman, Edward Sorel kind of guy so the Beatles' Revolver cover is still my all-time favorite, minimalist though it may be.

Although for sheer Dada-ist juxtaposition of title with photographs, I like the Dead Kennedy's first three albums.

---MS

Rodak said...

Very true that oils are the most versatile. But they are also messy and stinky. I can't be bothered. Acrylics can give you things like texture that water colors can't.
Actually, for color, I liked working in pastels and pastoils.