Just Another Walking Contradiction

for a particularly strong version of this kind of replacement: the word "bear" comes from a proto-Germanic word meaning "brown one" because there was a taboo against saying the animal's actual name. the taboo is gone but it was so strong in the past that we have no record of what the proto-Germanic word for "bear" even was.

and EVEN WHEN things were more muted/neutral, the neutrality was OFFSET by ACCENT COLORS and HIGH CONTRAST between the wood tones and everything ELSE

ALSO AMERICAN COLONIAL INTERIORS POPPED OFF, Y'ALL (IN TERMS OF COLOR/COZINESS)

PEOPLE USED WHITEWASH AND COLORFUL TRIM OR EVEN JUST COLORFUL FURNITURE IF THEY COULD AFFORD TO DO SO

AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON FRENCH AND BRITISH AND AMERICAN WALLPAPERS

"ELIZABETH" YOU CRY, "WHY ARE YOU BEING SO EXTRA THIS MORNING?! IT'S MONDAY"

Because, my friend, my war on GREIGE will NEVER end.

Historic interiors were filled with LIFE and LIGHT and COLOR. ALWAYS HAVE BEEN.

Part of the reason we don't see a lot of textile art is because, frankly, textiles tend to degrade over time - especially ones that had utility! And yes, pigments and weaving and dying all boosted the expense of things, when we were finally reliably block-printing fabrics and broad reams of paper, it was no longer just the wealthy who could afford pretty patterns!

In the Americas, a far wider variety of pigments also became available because of the abundance of... well, a shitton of flora and minerals, some of which weren't as common in Europe.

WHY THE HIGHLIGHTER COLORS? you ask.

CANDLES.

Those colors reflect candlelight and natural sunlight REALLY WELL.

Humans LOVE bright colors, it's NOT just a thing for kids. We live in a brilliant, vibrant, multifaceted world. We ALWAYS have.

(If ever you have the opportunity to visit the Stencil House at the Shelburne Museum in Vermont (pictured above at 3, 4, and 5), I highly recommend.)

And that's before you get into American painted murals:

This post talks about a new DM feature in youtube. What it fails to mention is that as part of this new feature is that when you send someone a link to a video, and they open it in the youtube app, they will see who sent them the link. Specifically, your channel name.

If your google account name is your real name, so is your channel name by default.

This means the new default behavior is that everyone you send a youtube link to will see your full name if they open it in the mobile app.

To turn this off:

Go to your youtube app settings

Go to Privacy

Turn off "Channel visibility for shared links"

i literally picked out the majority of her cantrips to support her hair care routine: shape water to get it wet, prestidigitation to apply product (using the “dirty” or “clean” a surface function), shape water + mage hand to finger curl each strand, then prestidigitation again to dry it. that’s how she gets her hair into these perfectly defined, bouncy, ringlets that still have individuality and character and don’t look like uniform heated rod creations.

when it comes to shading and deciding detail, it’s all about figuring out where the light hits. depending on your lighting, most of your detail is either going to be where the light illuminates the hair the most or (if the light is so bright it blows out those areas and causes loss of detail) in the mids. typically where things are turning away from the light you want less detail. but it really depends on the situation.

all hair is basically made of many tiny ribbons that you can clump together in larger forms to simplify the shapes/drawing process, but the curlier or more coily the hair is, the less clumping you can get away with. very very curly/coily hair that is more textured typically looks better painted rather than drawn, imo, because painting is much better at capturing the depth of the hair and the way it catches and bounces light. not to say it can’t be done, but in my own work i think i am more successful at painting it than drawing it, as you can see in the two pieces below where one is more “drawn” and one is more “painted”

what’s important to realize about the “bouncy clouds” in hair is that these are actually a representation of many, many many teeny tiny coils of hair so densely packed together that trying to individually draw every individual coil will never properly capture the way uniquely beautiful way very textured hair reflects light. because at the end of the day, hair is all about texture and light.

and ngl im not sure im the best person to come to for advice on simplifying how to draw curls because i am a freak that draws and paints basically every clump of hair. maybe because i primarily draw wavy and curly hair, maybe because i’m a freak idk, maybe because i still have learning and growing to do as an artist.

i also wouldn’t consider myself an expert on textured hair (i still have a lot to learn), but these are my observations as someone who has drawn and painted a lot of hair over the years.

also, when i say i draw every piece of hair--i do not mean individual hairs, but rather clumps. curls form clumps and the size of those clumps is a big factor in the over all determination of hair texture. straight, wavy, curly, and coily hair actually have different follicle shapes and these determine the category of hair texture, but a lot of the tightness and definition in a curl is determined by clump size. the smaller the clumps, the tighter the curls are/look. i have a looot of hair references saved that i use constantly but i don't just look at them--i think about how that texture and definition is achieved. when i can, i make an active effort to find the hair care routine of the person i'm referencing so i can see their hair in various states, including styled, brushed out, wet, and with different (and preferably also with no) products.

(source)

so when i think about defining hair visually, those are the main things i think about: texture, care, and clump size. and light. you can broadly think about different types of wavy, curly, and coily hair as either cylinders, cones, or ribbons (and ribbons can also be used for straight hair).

for most textures, the more defined hair is, the shinier/more reflective it will be, and the more light it will catch. in general when shading a full head of hair it just comes down to practice, observation, and trial and error. the hair that is in shadow will catch Less light but very infrequently will it catch No light.

i think the problem you are running into is that curls have a lot of dimension and shape so when you separate it only into Front Pieces and Back As A Single Mass, you are basically flattening it into a couple cardboard pieces instead of seeing it as a complicated mass of smaller shapes that all interact with each other, similar to a mop head

i recommend taking some time to study some references, including drawing from them and trying to break down the hair into larger shapes. try this several times with different categories of shapes--whether the shape is defined by mass. when you do this you'll notice that even the clumps of hair that catch the least light still usually catch some light.

it's also important to note that most light is caught on the parts of the curls that face outward (or towards a very directional light source) and that the parts where curls face each other is usually in shadow. it's part of why curls are so hard to simplify.

i don't really have time to go more in depth than this so i hope this helps!