When I first tried to paint, and I thought about this image, I wondered how Frazetta could pack so much detail in around the main figures. It looked like an impossible task. I was 13 and only handled paint in one day of my mom's Saturday afternoon painting group.
I look at it now and I can see how so much of it is roughed in, and done in little more than silhouette and outline. Genius how he can allude to so much detail while creating so little.
To the ignorant 13 year old, a few things stand out: What's that divot in his elbow? Are the triceps at the back of the arm really shaped like an upside down heart? Look at that big, round, naked man-ass. How did he get his right leg buried into the vegetation? What are those round things flying off of his face? Did he inadvertently take a chunk out of his face with his spear? That mammoth is COMING STRAIGHT AT YOU!!
Seriously, Frazetta's handling of composition, perspective, paint detail and blurriness give an amazing impression of movement, both of the viewer towards the mammoth, and of the mammoth towards the viewer. But look at how there is this placid patch of foreground. The twisted vines on the right are in perfect focus. Don't trip!!
Notice the unfinished parts, and how they don't matter: The flat chunk of flesh under his elbow, the weird chunk of sky at the top of the painting, the mammoth's ears.
But that's it. This is why this is still one of my favorite Frazetta's. It's very satisfying in how much actually is finished. Say, 20%. Same with the original/revised "The Destroyer".
I don't have much more to praise or criticize about this painting. Sure, it contains little more than the traditional 4 or 5 Things Frazetta always paints: Twisted roots, mammoth/lion/etc., action dude. But at least there isn't any bimbo who tripped on herself so bad her ass is sticking up in the air.
It's a necklace...follow the direction of movement...it's swinging.
ReplyDeleteElbows leave a hollow on either side before the musculature of the forearm begins...
And yes...an overly developed triceps looks like 'an upside-down heart', or a horseshoe...
Other than that, I agree with you.
I guess what I was trying to inelegantly say about those aspects is that, despite their incongruousness, they still work beautifully. The divot under the top of the forearm musculature, for example, is simply too dark to just be definition of the muscles. It looks like an injury. There is nothing holding the necklace together, so it just looks like flying bits.
ReplyDeleteBut it doesn't matter. It even makes you pay more attention... they're eye-grabbing, and make the work more interesting. Just amazing.