The most controversial and strange (with some important implications) aspect of my work is that the majority of my work is done without models or reference. It is "from my head." I am often asked how I do this and what the techniques are but for sometime I've been at a loss to describe this process. I think I have been able to order my thoughts and some data regarding this subject which I'd like to share here.

Yesterday I received an email from an artist who was very complimentary to my work, but also wanted some ideas on how to proceed with drawing without references or models. The letter echoed several other letters and comments I've received, so I set about answering it.

I think my response helps answers some of the general questions I've received on this topic. Here is my response:

Thanks for the very kind email. Let me try to address your questions, but I must admit there is some difficulty I am finding in relating the difference between drawing with models and without. The problem isn't the similarities in technique, the problem is they are extremely different procedures.

First I would recommend not being humbled. Just keep in mind I'm just another nerd, and it's likely what I can do, you and many others can do, but it may seem a bit new or counter intuitive so might feel unfamiliar and intimidating. Don't be intimidated, remember these are just drawings and there have to be easy methods and likely a ready body of knowledge to accomplish these drawings.

I started drawing without reference. When I started drawing from reference I just assumed I could. Drawing from reference is a smaller tool set then drawing from imagination because you don't have to calculate or puzzle as many aspects out. With reference, the whole reason for reference is, that a great deal of information is provided. There are also other differences. Like in how to think of the picture. With reference you get parts of the work as an already assembled sight. You know what it is at the start of the work and it has guides. Drawing from imagination you don't have an end result to compare it to (reference drawing is comparative), you are building and formulating based on several parts:
1. The mental image
2. The rules for the different aspects of the drawing (I'll explain more in a moment)
3.Acceptable distortion.

The mental image is easy enough but "getting it onto paper" seems to be difficult by popular description, but this has a fairly easy explanation. The habit for people drawing and how they are taught and often learn to draw is to draw drawings. People draw in the way they have been show to draw. That is they use simplified ways of drawing, using lines to map shapes. And these line maps are simplified to a very few compositions. When people try to translate the mental image they are using the habitual tools which were invented and adapted to cover a different purpose. Line mapping is comparative and comes from using reference. The mental image isn't "set" like a photo, or actual vision. It is general in conception and only sharpens as it is considered in detail. Even the mental image needs to be built and in large part invented as one goes. Many trying to draw this first general unsettled mental image try to use it like picture reference- but it isn't done yet. So with habitual line mapping, unsteady mental reference (and conflicting points of concentration jumping from the act of drawing to the act of imagining) the endeavor will likely fail. So other procedures have to be used. New methods of translation other than traditional drawing need to be used. For many this would mean they could not think of this task as a drawing at all (in the sense they traditionally think of drawing).

The rules for the different aspects of the drawing will be somewhat familiar because a great deal of drawing is based in technique and rules. But there are differences. Rules of perspective can be useful, for example. But these type of rules, trained and instructed have limited use(and can be broken effectively). The rules that are important have to do with parts. When using reference to draw an arm you are limited to some tool rules. How you use your pencils or paint, or how to use this position to restrain the measure of that position. And these rules do come into play, but the foremost rules in drawing the example arm, would be a series of questions and considerations. What is an arm? What are it's parts. What do all arms have in common? What is extremely variable arm to arm? How does an arm work? And then How does light work on objects? etc. The first few times you deal with these questions it is a struggle to answer them. But you only need to answer them once to start to get useful answers. (You, however, have to revisit these questions perennially.)

The last part, acceptable distortions, has to do with "real", and what falls within limits of perceived reality. Dealing with elements and building any type of image will uncover areas where exaggerations and distortions can be completely useful and enhance the work. Bernini experimented with this type of distortion working against "measured" realism, with exaggeration because our perception exaggerates, and this is how our brains deal with events in time and space (prior to this geometry, following the Greeks, was held as the essential principle for realism). Light and paint pigments do not act the same. Pigments mix in a way that light doesn't, which means you can do things with paint pigments light cannot do (and vice versa). Which means you can make the illusion of light in a painting do convincing things actual light cannot do. Every tool in a painting or drawing which interprets something else (form, structure, lighting-as opposed to light-, perspective etc) can be convincingly distorted, embellished, and even blended in unlikely (or impossible) but convincing ways. The question is in what proportion and how well these distortions fit within the composition as it evolves from the mental image.

Memory can be good and helpful, but memory isn't a stand alone issue. Separating the memory from intelligence or figuring isn't possible. So I don't think it can be held aside or honed as a separate principle. to hone skills drawing without reference I would suggest practice (which can weed out problems and errors) and study everything you can, and anything you can. Some of my capabilities with art come from studying history or mythology, or listening to music or reading poetry (these all build mental imagery, and the more you practice this the clearer it gets). Writing also helps. Art isn't a stand alone event or skill, so to hold it aside or aloft will actually ruin the endeavor. Personally I think this is a great failing of many would be artists- they worship "art" without realizing art is dependent on interest and interesting things.

Anyway, I hope I have answered your questions in a clear way, and thanks again for the letter.