No. 7 is a good pen and ink treatment, which is to a certain extent formalised (unclosed tips of fingers and absence of nail) but it is, so far as it goes, completely life-like. Neither the fat parts nor the joints have been slurred over, and yet the result, if suggestive of size and vigour, is not clumsy. This is essentially the treatment of a rather lanky woman's hand, just as Nos. 3, 6 and 9 seem to belong to chubby people.
No. 8 is the child's hand, which is always rather plump (No. 3 could be a girl's hand). Owing to their lack of colour, nails are often left out: but, if
included, they should seem rather small and unexploited. The whole hand should be small and broad, and when doing or holding anything, should be entirely devoid of archness or grace.
No. 9 is the hand that has never known war-work, but which occasionally survives, none the less, in old-fashioned magazines and advertisements, and which can even now be seen in the flesh on the seat of a pre-war Daimler. It is just possible that you may be asked to reproduce it in a drawing. Dimples abound, the fingers taper without being long, and have the unpleasant appearance of turning back at the tips with the added implication that, were the room to grow a little hot, the nails would curl back further and peel off altogether. This kind of hand frequently appears in the work of specialists, such as drawings of furs or corsetry. Tremendous concentration on a particular branch of fashion work often leaves the artist weak in drawing the subsidiary features or else, as here, with an obsolete ideal in regard to everything but his own branch.
Nos. 10, ii, 12, 13 are the kind of hands that are fashionable at the moment (1932) and have been for the last five years or more, and are here given the rather rough treatment that came into existence when daintiness went out. The ideal here seems to be gothic rather than masculine, and is in direct opposition to the rococo-Boucher tradition that lay behind No. 9 and so much pre-war work. This kind of unaffected, capable hand is peculiarly dependent for its proper expression on a spontaneous wash treatment. It is not feasible to express it with an ink outline merely, No. 7 being the nearest one can get to it. No. 12, where two hands are lightly clasped, resting probably on the knee, is an example of an effect which would have lost all its freshness in a line treatment, when it is impossible to leave anything to chance and where every line would have had to be followed through to its logical conclusion. No. 13 is a better position than No. 11, because it is devoted entirely and unselfconsciously to holding the cigarette, whereas No. 11 is spoilt by the raised forefinger which ever so slightly savours of No. 9.
No. 14 is the kind of hand you find beside the Shalimar, and is always used in advertising preparations that soften the skin or make the nails rosy. Wrist watches and bracelets are shown on it. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it, it has the impression of being boneless. When doing this kind of drawing it is essential to remember that langour and softness are the paramount virtues, the idea being that hands that have been coarsened and roughened with domestic duties can be restored to some fabled condition by the application of the advertised commodity.
To anyone proficient in drawing hands, gloves bring no added terrors. If you possess a pair of gloves, you can study the immemorial parts where stitches occur. Gloves, whether men's, women's, dear or cheap, are cut on invariable
principles which you can examine and discover for yourself. It is hard to find a pair of gloves which do not have three rows of stitching on the back, and these are known as the points. Beyond assuming that they are always there, there is nothing else you can take for granted about them, because the design and quality of stitching vary. Of the gloves illustrated here, Nos. i and 2 are typical of the way gloves are drawn and photographed for magazines, while No. 3 is the way they are usually shown in advertisements. No. 3 has the advantage of being simple, of showing both sides of the glove and exactly how much stitching you get for the money. Its disadvantage is that it gives no idea of the particular character of the glove. An example of this is that, by the flat method, gloves Nos. 1 and 2 would appear identical but for their length. You would have no idea of this particular method of wearing long gloves, and they would merely
seem, as in fact they are, the same old gloves you wore in Queen Alexandra's reign : and you would feel disinclined to buy them since they would mean just an extra expense without promising a new experience.
But a far more important difference of character is brought out by drawing the gloves on the hand. No. 1 is a bulky glove, and is not intended to make your hands look small, although its effect will be, incidentally, to make your arm look slim. It is a practical out-of-door glove with square fingers, heavy stitching, and a positively clumsy gauntlet. It would have been impossible to express this bulk, if it had been drawn flat and lifeless. No. 2 is a glove that is tight to the hand which emerges with spurious slimness from a wrist that is carefully wrinkled. Although, as worn, this glove does not reach as far as the elbow, it would reach almost as far as the shoulder if worn (and drawn) in the wrong way.
And so you must remember that, not only do gloves change in fashion, but
Blink
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Google
Simpy
Spurl
Technorati
Y! MyWeb