Spencerian: Controlled Speed?

[Mickey]

  On 8/29/2014 at 3:48 AM, proton007 said:

Mickey, I've been reading this thread with interest, although I'm not practicing Spencerian currently.

 

Just a point to add, and I hope it will save others the wasted effort in practicing incorrectly. For smaller loops, the fingers play the devil. Our natural instinct is to offload small loops and turns to our fingers, which I realized during my practice yesterday, is a debilitating mistake. Once the fingers take over, getting the control back to the arm is deliberate, conscious effort, and the word never forms right because of a loss of rhythm.

 

 

Yup, and with the loss of rhythm goes repeatability. My practice is definitely pointed at repeatability. I wrote "E' somewhere between 60 and 80 times today, the last two dozen or so done one right after the other, trying to embed the rhythm. (Anyone want to advance the theory that Broca's area is involved in this process?)

 

One problem with formal mathematics, interesting as they can be, is that human bodies can seldom make direct use of them, even if they describe the end product of an activity fairly accurately. What is far more useful is a description of the physical activity which invisibly embeds the mathematics in a readily acquired skill or suite of skills. For example, there is the formula to describes a circle and then there is a piece of string with a pin on one end and a pencil on the other. The former is almost useless for someone wanting to draw a circle, whereas the latter is directly useful once one understands the principle of operation. I can do the mathematics, but I'm much more of a string and pencil sort of thinker.

 

(Yes, to some degree my idea came from work I did decades ago writing plotter drivers.)

[proton007]

  On 8/29/2014 at 4:45 AM, Mickey said:

What is far more useful is a description of the physical activity which invisibly embeds the mathematics in a readily acquired skill or suite of skills. For example, there is the formula to describes a circle and then there is a piece of string with a pin on one end and a pencil on the other. The former is almost useless for someone wanting to draw a circle, whereas the latter is directly useful once one understands the principle of operation. I can do the mathematics, but I'm much more of a string and pencil sort of thinker.

 

(Yes, to some degree my idea came from work I did decades ago writing plotter drivers.)

 

I agree, but in my experience, a qualitative understanding of a mathematical or scientific principle helps a great deal. We don't 'explicitly' make use of formal mathematics in our daily activities, but implicitly the principles are at work as forms and patterns in nature.

The good thing is, sometimes glancing upon these formulas can bring insights which otherwise by experience or intuition would take a long time to be discovered. The bad thing is the maths.

 

I haven't really used Bezier curves anywhere apart from maybe a couple of Inkscape drawings, and neither did I know the maths until now (there are too many things in this world to know scientifically and mathematically), but after going through the explanations and writing the previous post, I'm much more clear about the concept of lines and curves in the context of handwriting.

 

Anyhow, please carry on. I'm glad I got something from this thread, and hope I've contributed something.

Edited August 29, 2014 by proton007

[Mickey]

  On 8/29/2014 at 5:31 AM, proton007 said:

 

I agree, but in my experience, a qualitative understanding of a mathematical or scientific principle helps a great deal. We don't 'explicitly' make use of formal mathematics in our daily activities, but implicitly the principles are at work as forms and patterns in nature.

The good thing is, sometimes glancing upon these formulas can bring insights which otherwise by experience or intuition would take a long time to be discovered. The bad thing is the maths.

 

I haven't really used Bezier curves anywhere apart from maybe a couple of Inkscape drawings, and neither did I know the maths until now (there are too many things in this world to know scientifically and mathematically), but after going through the explanations and writing the previous post, I'm much more clear about the concept of lines and curves in the context of handwriting.

 

Anyhow, please carry on. I'm glad I got something from this thread, and hope I've contributed something.

 

I agree utterly that any new way of looking at or understanding a problem is useful. Thank you for your contribution. It did give me a new angle on the topic. I wish I had an animation program (and the wit to use it) to display the visualization I described in #38. I think that might make my proposal a bit more intuitively clear and I'm curious what the velocity curves would look like (in effect, the letters with the rotational data subtracted. This might bring us a step closer to explaining how we actually write.

 

(Sorry for this next bit. I'm more than rusty in my maths, my last course of study being half a century ago and with only sporadic exercise since.) I'm not sure Bezier curves are quite the right tool for describing how we write this hand, since the shapes of the curves (in Spencer) are not predetermined by the starting condition, only constrained. (The order is undetermined.) A letter is still a performance. In my model, V (velocity), in lieu of Bezier control points, is dynamically and continuously variable. Perhaps we are talking about Bezier curves of order n, (hardly an elegant or particularly useful solution) or maybe we should be looking something a bit more straight forward. Any candidates?

[TXKat]

I am reading (and practicing along with) this thread with interest! Thank you!

 

I need clarification on something to ensure i am not practicing incorrectly as I think I'm backwards. When producing the finer lines, I am going slower and when producing the wider lines I am going faster??? It seems I am doing just the opposite. ~This comment isn't much of a contribution, so I'll also add this just for interest.

 

 

Study as much as you practice.
Know what you want to execute.
Use only the best materials.
Keep your pens very clean.
Watch your slant carefully.
Master one style at a time.
Sit up, don't slouch, and breathe regularly.

- Louis Madarasz (view image)

[Mickey]

  On 8/29/2014 at 3:08 PM, TXKat said:

I am reading (and practicing along with) this thread with interest! Thank you!

 

I need clarification on something to ensure i am not practicing incorrectly as I think I'm backwards. When producing the finer lines, I am going slower and when producing the wider lines I am going faster??? It seems I am doing just the opposite. ~This comment isn't much of a contribution, so I'll also add this just for interest.

 

 

Study as much as you practice.

Know what you want to execute.

Use only the best materials.

Keep your pens very clean.

Watch your slant carefully.

Master one style at a time.

Sit up, don't slouch, and breathe regularly.

 

- Louis Madarasz (view image)

 

Actually, both your question and the Madarasz quote are great contributions. (I've spent I don't know how much time, just on the S in study, and have learned a fair amount in the process.) One of the tenets of the approach I'm trashing out here is that linear velocity has mostly to do with curvature, not line weight: the slower the pen, the greater the curvature; the straighter the line, the faster the pen. Because shading increases drag on the pen, it usually results in slower pen movement and, consequently, more curvature. Of course, that can be easily mitigated by increasing the drive to the hand to maintain velocity. To allow the slowing or not is contextual: do you want greater curvature or not?

 

Today's practice was kind of a homeboys session. The holder was one of Musinkman's earliest efforts, made from a piece of old walnut I supplied, with its contour borrowed from my Magnusson holder. I made the flange from phosphor bronze. Likewise, I made the ink, an iron gall formula made from South African Red Bush tea. It is capable of very fine hairlines, but is somewhat treacherous to use, as it takes several minutes to hours for the marks to appear. (No separate dye in it, just a slight red/brown tint from the tea.) Kind of like working in the dark.

 

Today's letter is L, in honor of Lupfer.

 

 

 

Both are pretty acceptable, the biggest flaw being not enough curvature in the stem. (The first is the better of the two in that regard.) The fault is somewhat the result of the nib choice - fairly stiff, an Esterbrook 358 - and my emphasis today on smoothness, even to the extent of sacrificing form a bit. One of the things I discovered was that if I concentrated on smooth movement and continued rotation, I could automatically generate more (or less) velocity simply by seeing where I wanted the line (and pen) to go. In the case of the first gesture (loop), I tried not to rush the bottom of the turn while at the same time trying to finish the lower arm somewhat past the beginning of the upper arm. You can see the result. Not bad, even if I do say so myself. The difference in curvature is subtle and I think close to stylistically correct. (BTW, that opening loop is for me the most difficult thing to pen acceptably.)

 

I also took a couple of shots a the letter E to see if anything stuck from yesterday's practice. Evidently something did.

 

Edited August 29, 2014 by Mickey

[Anne-Sophie]

  On 8/28/2014 at 4:10 PM, Mickey said:

(Thanks for your input, Iso. It's useful.)

 

But ovals (and ellipses) are not ubiquitous, they are virtually non-existent in Spencerian (or OP). It's one of the principle, possibly seminal difference between it and Copperplate. (Look carefully. You won't see ovals or ellipses.) Copperplate, on the other hand, is rife with ellipses, but Spencerian and its close kin have none. OP, as the term is generally used on the IAMPETH site, refers to extensions of Spencerian. (Engravers and Engrossers scripts, both of which prominently do show ellipses and are similarly extensions of Roundhand, and they have their own section on the IAMPETH site.) As such, OP is just as lacking of true ovals and ellipses as unornamented Spencer is.

 

The tracing of ovals and circle is useful for building muscle memory, but that doesn't mean they are a feature of these hands. They just aren't. Here's a way to understand what I'm saying. Tracing a circle or ellipse is an exercise with one important (Spencerian) parameter eliminated - net movement from left to right. Add that parameter (one eventually does) and you produce spirals. The circle or ellipse disappears as soon as rightward movement is added. You draw the circle or ellipse to embed the movement, to which you will eventually add net movement to the right. This is done, I firmly believe, by varying pen velocity, which will inevitably produce oval destroying asymmetry.

 

A true oval on a page of OP would stand out line a nude man in a ladies' locker room. It has a feature (an axis of bilateral symmetry) that the other gestures lack. The mathematics to describe ovals and ellipses cannot adequately describe Spencer or the OPs based on it. I would suggest that rather than studying the styles of Taylor, Zaner, Lupfer ** et al. (I would include Courtney, almost to the point of excluding everyone else), that you study their methods. Try to understand the reasoning behind the exercises, not their architecture. That's what I'm espousing in this thread.

 

Here's another visualization of the method (or technique) I'm intuiting. Imagine a sweep hand from a watch projected over the tip of the pen. The hand completes one rotation every second*, either clockwise or counter clockwise. The pen is allowed to travel only in the direction the arrow is pointing at any given moment Now, visualize getting the pen point from point A to point B. To get there (at all) you need to move the pen quickly and leave some amount time before the hand points to B. You will arrive at B with the hand pointing an equal amount late. (Think ballistics.) Remember, the pen may move only in the direction the sweep hand points.

 

Now, choose a pen speed. If your acceleration is infinite (or you begin your mark with the pen already in motion), the mark will be an arc, a section of a circle. At a slower speed; you will have to leave earlier and you will arrive an equal amount late. Choose a slow enough speed, and you will not reach B, at all. You will complete the half circle before reaching B. Choose a still slower speed, but accelerate continuously, and you may spiral your way to point B. Get the picture. It is this sort of movement which describes Spencer and most OP, not ovals and ellipses. The same mathematics which describe Spencer, can be used to describe most pen movement in OP. It's mostly a matter of fiddling the parameters.

 

Observation: Spencer was supposedly inspired by the shape of river washed pebbles. In a strange way, that fits in with this theory I'm promoting. A pebble resting (fixed) in a stream will wear away flatter of the side with the faster current. There is only one case where the stones would be ovals, down the center of a relatively broad stretch of river, such that there is no water movement from one bank to the other and current is uniform on both sides of the pebble. If, however, we (or geography) wish for the water to move from side to side (or for a line, to move up, down and left to right on the page and not simply draw a single ellipse ad infinitum), there must be changes of velocity. Oval and ellipse require that velocity be equal relative to the axis of symmetry. If, however, we wish the pen to eventually move from the left side of the page to the right, the net velocity to the right must exceed that going left. That pretty much guarantees asymmetry under the proposed regimen and thus a paucity of ellipses.

 

* or any other relatively short interval

 

** Take a close look at http://www.iampeth.com/artwork/Lupfer02.jpg Lupfer seems to be almost playfully avoiding ovals and ellipses, but only just slightly. Take a look at the first letter, that beautiful L. Those two huge loops are beautifully balanced, but they are not symmetrical, the bottom arm of both is slightly flatter, indicating the pen was moving faster. Notice also the subtle shade on the upper arms, (also suggesting a slightly a slower pen). This extra link balances the visual weight of the lower arm - all very subtle and quite beautiful, but there is not really an ellipse or oval to be found on the page. I guess what I'm trying to say, is if you lock yourself into seeing ovals and ellipses, you miss what's really going on, something much more interesting and inspiring (not to mention humbling). Also, locking yourself into seeing what you think was done can sometimes lock you out of intuiting or learning how it was done.

 

That beautiful L looks like it has been written backwards.

 

After another look, I now think, it was written like regular handwriting, totally lost now.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Anne-Sophie

[Mickey]

  On 8/30/2014 at 9:51 PM, Anne-Sophie said:

 

That beautiful L looks like it has been written backwards.

 

After another look, I now think, it was written like regular handwriting, totally lost now.

 

Though nowhere near as well executed as Lupfer's, my two Ls in post #45 were written in the same manner as his, one continuous stroke starting top center. (Another couple reams of paper and a pint or two of ink, my L might be maybe half as good.)

[j.a.j.]

I’m not sure if the difference between gross and fine motor skill has been discussed in length here, please ignore this if this is old news.

When i practice italic i try to use quicker pen movements for arcs and slower for loops and other smaller details. The quicker movements seem to be controlled more by gross motor skill and smaller more by fine motor skill.

Transitioning from gross to fine motor skill is demanding. This is a factor that is taken in consideration when designing user interfaces. If a click target is small (for example the “Sign Out” button on the header of this page) a person has to first use gross motor skill to move the pointer close to the button. Then the person transitions to fine motor skill and positions the pointer exactly to the small click target.

If the small target is near the original position of the pointer the movement is controlled only by fine motor skill and the movement is quite slow. Moving the pointer from one edge of the screen roughly to the opposite edge is much faster as it is controlled by gross motor skill.

When the click target is too far for fine motor skill things get interesting. It seems to take about as much time to move the pointer 1/6th or 2/3rds of the screen to hit the small target. The time fine motor skill requires stays surprisingly constant regardless of the distance which is controlled by gross motor skill.

When drawing smaller or larger circles it feels like the amount of fine control needed is the same. Like the time required to draw a shape is not defined by the distance the pen travels but the complexity of the shape itself.

The transition from gross to fine motor skill feels – to me at least – as irritating regardless of the distance the pointer or pen travels.My feeling – that is again not based in any study – is that a steady rhythm helps to keep the “mental discomfort” from switching between fine and gross motor skill in check and more manageable. In the same way a person overall finds steady rhythm more pleasant than erratic.

[Mickey]

  On 9/2/2014 at 11:16 AM, j.a.j. said:

 

I’m not sure if the difference between gross and fine motor skill has been discussed in length here, please ignore this if this is old news.

 

When i practice italic i try to use quicker pen movements for arcs and slower for loops and other smaller details. The quicker movements seem to be controlled more by gross motor skill and smaller more by fine motor skill.

 

........

 

When drawing smaller or larger circles it feels like the amount of fine control needed is the same. Like the time required to draw a shape is not defined by the distance the pen travels but the complexity of the shape itself.

 

The transition from gross to fine motor skill feels – to me at least – as irritating regardless of the distance the pointer or pen travels.My feeling – that is again not based in any study – is that a steady rhythm helps to keep the “mental discomfort” from switching between fine and gross motor skill in check and more manageable. In the same way a person overall finds steady rhythm more pleasant than erratic.

 

 

If by 'here' you mean the penmanship subforum, gross versus fine motor control has been discussed at some length. As regards Spencerian and Ornamental penmanship, the topic has little relevance. This is true handwriting, some might even call it arm writing. (One famous practitioner had no hands or forearms, at all.) While the fingers may play some role beyond securing the pen to the arm, it is limited and, among most true adepts, exceedingly limited. (Watch the DeCollibus and Tysdal videos linked to this thread.)

 

Because of the way these hands are typically performed, any small motor skills employed are so deeply embedded in the overall activity that, to all intents and purposes, they have ceased being fine motor activities and are not consciously controllable at the moment of execution. Take the minuscule 'l', for example. Madarasz may have reached for the upper half of its loop, but this break with general practice was hardly at the service of a small or intricate features (the upper half of the loop certainly isn't), but an (acceptable for him) idiosyncrasy or extension to his technique.

 

"When drawing smaller or larger circles it feels like the amount of fine control needed is the same."

 

Correct - no fine motor control is necessary (or desirable).

 

"Like the time required to draw a shape is not defined by the distance the pen travels but the complexity of the shape itself."

 

This is true enough. Under the regime proposed in this thread, the time required to draw any shape is determined by the number of degrees of curvature, not the scale of the shape. Complexity = Curvature. (Obviously, this does not hold once the scale of activity ceases being writing and becomes lettering or sign painting.)

 

While I proved in another thread that fairly acceptable italic could be written with zero small motor activity (the fingers and wrist were constrained), fine control of edge orientation is useful in italic, but as there is no comparable activity in Spencerian or OP, there is no comparable role for the fingers (and thus, for fine motor controls generally.)

 

I think you make a good point that transitioning from gross to fine motor control creates a level of discomfort - I would call it a discontinuity - the sort which, in a hand where fineness and smoothness of line is prized, would be unacceptable. (Looking at my own work, I can see where small muscles intrude.)

Edited September 2, 2014 by Mickey

[j.a.j.]

I realize i should probably have used the term “control” when i wrote about drawing circles. I am a bit confused by the terminology. Some sources use “fine control” or “fine motor skill” to describe small muscle movement made with fingers or hand. And some include also precise control of the arm from the shoulder. In the context of my examples i meant the latter. For example the case of small click target occurs regardless whether the pointer is controlled with mouse wrist held immobile or with trackpad using only a finger.

At the moment i perceive the “irritation” between transitioning from “gross” to “fine” state even when practicing shoulder writing with 30cm high letterforms wrist and fingers held immobile. I have been practicing italic shoulder writing only for a few months. Now i’m very interested to see if the amount of irritation that occurs when penning the small details lessens over time as my muscle memory improves.

[Mickey]

  On 9/2/2014 at 7:10 PM, j.a.j. said:

 

I realize i should probably have used the term “control” when i wrote about drawing circles. I am a bit confused by the terminology. Some sources use “fine control” or “fine motor skill” to describe small muscle movement made with fingers or hand. And some include also precise control of the arm from the shoulder. In the context of my examples i meant the latter. For example the case of small click target occurs regardless whether the pointer is controlled with mouse wrist held immobile or with trackpad using only a finger.

 

At the moment i perceive the “irritation” between transitioning from “gross” to “fine” state even when practicing shoulder writing with 30cm high letterforms wrist and fingers held immobile. I have been practicing italic shoulder writing only for a few months. Now i’m very interested to see if the amount of irritation that occurs when penning the small details lessens over time as my muscle memory improves.

 

 

I believe the usual division of fine motor control and gross motor control puts small muscles group (fingers, hands, lips, tongue, toes) activities on one side and everything else on the other. So, fine motor control of arm and shoulder doesn't quite make sense.* I believe the distinction you wish to make is between what might be called gestural writing and other forms requiring more direct, real-time control of the individual muscles. Spencerian and OP are almost exclusively gestural, even when including small muscle groups.

 

* Large muscles are generally incompetent of direct fine control. One of the ways around this is damping or opposition, such as planting the forearm on the table to stabilize the arm and damp the large muscles of the arm and shoulder, putting their operation in their most linear range. Another technique is embedding, patterning, rehearsal, and visualization, some combination of which makes fair precision possible in activities which occur at speeds well in excess of feedback loop competence. This technique is employed for a lot of OP writing, where the arm is free of the table.

[j.a.j.]

  Quote

I believe the distinction you wish to make is between what might be called gestural writing and other forms requiring more direct, real-time control of the individual muscles.

 

 

You are probably right. I did some reading and re-reading on the subject and what i wrote really is a bit contradictory. On the other hand the phenomenon is credited to transferring from gross to fine motor skill but it is evident also in movement that is conducted only by larger muscles of the hand. I blame Alan Cooper :-)

 

It could be that the two states are more related to switching control from primary to posterior parietal cortex or somewhere near there. The “gross” hand movement moving the pointer near the small click target controlled by primary cortex. The "fine" movement moving the pointer exactly to the small click target would be controlled by posterior paretial cortex, or one of it's near friends, as it requires closer eye to hand coordination

 

This would also neatly explain why a easy shape in a letterform performed from muscle memory (mostly controlled by primary cortex) feels so different to me than a more complex shape that requires more planning (more controlled by posterior partietal cortex et al.)

Edited September 3, 2014 by j.a.j.

[Mickey]

Here the subject of today warmup/practice/torture session, a majuscule G. Actually, this G has been my target for the last 3 days. It is far from my favorite form of the letter. It simply does not suit my eye, which is probably a good excuse for working on it. First, because it does not suit my eye, I will likely be more critical of my faults, and second, because I won't feel bad destroying it, time after time after... (Several pages later...)

 

 

 

If there is anything I've done so far that confirms for me the validity of the method / technique I'm pursuing here, it's this particular G. If the rotation I've been harping about slows or hesitate for even an instant, the shape suffers. The most critical point for me is right after the first shade (the interior loop). Any hesitation there and the large shade will not align with the smaller, nor will the two succeeding 3 shades mirror it. I repeat, the geometry of the hand is embedded in the method. (I will continue working on the descender shade, which is still not quite right.)

 

I heartily invite others to post their efforts and let me know if this thread is helping their work.

 

BTW, the holder and nib are the same as with the letter L. The ink, however, is walnut, sold in crystal form by various vendors. The letter form is after an exemplar penned by Francis B. Courtney and published in Michael Sull's "Spencerian Script and Ornamental Penmanship: Early American Handwriting (Volume 2)."

 

p.s. Other than cropping, there has been no manipulation or clean up of the image, at all.

Edited September 4, 2014 by Mickey

[Anne-Sophie]

Your Spencerian is most beautiful Mickey and your assiduous practice is paying off because that G capital is most pleasing.

 

I can see now, that your are using Seyes ruling, even more impressive because those lines are tiny.

 

I believe that you are right about Spencerian being fluid but not curvy.

 

 

I took some quick notes yesterday, hem, practice is needed.

Do you feel, that with your everyday serious practice, your everyday writing benefits?

[fiberdrunk]

  On 9/4/2014 at 5:37 PM, Mickey said:

Here the subject of today warmup/practice/torture session, a majuscule G. Actually, this G has been my target for the last 3 days. It is far from my favorite form of the letter. It simply does not suit my eye, which is probably a good excuse for working on it. First, because it does not suit my eye, I will likely be more critical of my faults, and second, because I won't feel bad destroying it, time after time after... (Several pages later...)

 

 

 

If there is anything I've done so far that confirms for me the validity of the method / technique I'm pursuing here, it's this particular G. If the rotation I've been harping about slows or hesitate for even an instant, the shape suffers. The most critical point for me is right after the first shade (the interior loop). Any hesitation there and the large shade will not align with the smaller, nor will the two succeeding 3 shades mirror it. I repeat, the geometry of the hand is embedded in the method. (I will continue working on the descender shade, which is still not quite right.)

 

I heartily invite others to post their efforts and let me know if this thread is helping their work.

 

BTW, the holder and nib are the same as with the letter L. The ink, however, is walnut, sold in crystal form by various vendors. The letter form is after an exemplar penned by Francis B. Courtney and published in Michael Sull's "Spencerian Script and Ornamental Penmanship: Early American Handwriting (Volume 2)."

 

p.s. Other than cropping, there has been no manipulation or clean up of the image, at all.

 

Lovely! What a great looking "G"!

[Mickey]

  On 9/8/2014 at 2:09 PM, Anne-Sophie said:

 

I can see now, that your are using Seyes ruling, even more impressive because those lines are tiny.

 

I believe that you are right about Spencerian being fluid but not curvy.

 

 

I took some quick notes yesterday, hem, practice is needed.

Do you feel, that with your everyday serious practice, your everyday writing benefits?

 

My morning warmup is almost always at a desk setup to encourage proper posture, good technique, etc. Most of my writing, however, is done on a lap desk, with my feet propped up, but I believe some benefit from the practice does carry over to the lap desk. As for Seyes ruling, it's a convenient size for me. My day to day handwriting is small, the x-height slightly under 2mm. I do practice at various scales.

 

Nothing to post today, but here is an observation from the morning's practice. Pay (more) attention to way you move the pen right. This is not just because most Indo-European cursive hands are written in that direction, but because of the construction of the (right) hand and the standard grips. Because the fingers of the writing hand are curled under, it difficult to curl them further, but fairly easy to uncurl them a bit. Consequently, it's easy to remember to move the entire hand when the pen must move left and equally easy to cheat and uncurl the fingers slightly when it moves right, destroying the carefully constructed relationship between page and point. Concentrate on feeling those last two finger nails (or the side of the little finger) slide to the right as you warm up. Holding a small ball of yarn in your palm discourages "cheating," as does the grip variation with the ring finger curled further in and the middle and last finger touching.

 

A very little bit of reaching up or down with the fingers may be acceptable technique, but turning or reaching rather than moving sideways is not. BTW, cheating with the fingers tends to disturb proper rotation and acceleration, thus it is relevant to this thread.

[Mickey]

Here's another post, again inspired by the hand of Courtney, this time it's a letter O.

 

 

Though certainly not up to Courtney's standards, I think these examples do show what I noticed. As long as I maintained uniform angular moment (i.e., I kept rotating evenly), all that was necessary to get the beginning and end points to connect smoothly (i.e., with the same curvature) was to control the pen velocity for about the last 180 degrees of rotation (from the point where the line crosses over itself a second time). From there, I in essence,I steered with the brakes. (These were written fairly quickly, no more than 1.5 seconds apiece.)

 

To draw these figures free hand, would be difficult for me, boarder line impossible, but by reducing the variables to one (linear velocity), the rusty old number cruncher behind my eyes can get the job done with very little effort. Again, I am amazed by the brilliant conception of this hand.

 

(BTW, Courtney does not connect the ends himself. Instead, he allows the hair line to become finer and finer until it disappears completely, leaving the viewer's eye to make the connection.)

Edited September 11, 2014 by Mickey

[Mickey]

Today, we get to the letter S, chosen because I believe it offers an interesting perspective on letter performance, particularly on rhythm and tempo. By this I don't mean some vague sense of tempo or flow, but rhythms every bit as specific as those in a Bach invention, but as temporally malleable as a Chopin etude. For the non-musicians in the audience, tempo (it is presumed) was metronomically even in Bach's day, as steady as a clock or the pulse rate at rest (a common tempo reference, BTW). By the time we get to Chopin, time is as malleable as Salvador Dali's watch. Rhythmic notation is no less specific than in Bach's day, but tempo is allowed to change smoothly, not just shift abruptly (prolate), as was the case in Bach's day.

 

The opening loop is an interesting time study in itself. The lower arm is flatter, ergo it is drawn with greater point velocity, but when do you start accelerating? For me, later than instinct told me. For me to make an acceptable S, I needed to allow the first turnaround to complete before accelerating, otherwise the loop ends up squashed, tilted, etc. So, the first loop starts at (1) one speed, (2) slows rapidly for a moment to reverse direction, (3) resumes the original speed for a moment, then (4) accelerate to a slightly greater speed. (My persistent error was to skip step 3.) It's all about tempo. If you're not clear on the concept, maybe this will help. Listen to how time is bent. (Probably easiest heard in the B section at approx 40 second in.)

 

Not quite the same thing, I agree, - I think Puccini comes closer - but the concept is similar. The following 5 esses were penned rapidly, a little over a second apiece. Not perfect, but I'm starting to get my rhythm changes together. (Pardon to all you jazz musicians out there for the pun.)

 

 

Edited September 12, 2014 by Mickey

[Mickey]

No pen work to post today, but a couple of observations. Do your daily practice with the best paper you can afford to use in vast quantities, - but don't be afraid to reach for a fresh sheet - and after every dozen or so sheets of practice paper (like HP 24 lb) use something something a bit more upscale, like Canson Pro-Layout Marker (c. $13.00 per 50). In some ways, such papers are harder to use than copy paper and in some ways easier. Pen angle is more critical, but finer hairlines are easier. (On this stuff, even I can produce hairlines that almost vanish into the air.) Every once in a while, give yourself a treat and a test at the same time.

 

Observation two, don't waste paper, ink, or time trying to practice after a heavy lunch (popover, salad, Kobe beef hamburger, fries, macaroons), a large glass of Pinot Noir, a cigar (Fuente Hemingway Perfecto 7 x 48), and a second glass of Pinot. Probably the worst offender was the cigar, a very rare indulgence for me, enjoyed only when I am at my club.

[Lyander0012]

Have to agree with you on the paper front. I'm very much sad to note that I'm running dangerously low on Rhodia and Tomoe (standbys in the premium paper area for me) on account of my having so much fun writing on them. I suppose I could resort to local Bevania for practise, which is actually really good for the price (~PHP15/$0.33 for an 85gsm 10-pack), but that's very much like going for a Coors after accustoming oneself to craft :/

 

Still, nice to see this thread pleasantly buzzing. I'm a bit abashed at my lack of contribution, but at least I'm learning quite a bit following this, haha. Maybe I'll post the results of my daily practise in a few days, though I'll likely need a new nib first; my last one's quite worn in the tip already. Ah well!

 

 

Cheers!

 

Kevin