When "real" is too real

I've just realised that, even though I'm not drawing much at the moment, I still look at things with a "sketcher's eye".

Sometimes I'll see something so odd, or so perfect, I know that if I drew it, no one would believe I didn't make some of it up.

Take sunsets, for instance. The other night I watched as the sky out my back window turned into strips of orange, purple and green. There was no "blending" or "bleeding" of one colour into another. Just stripes of bold, glowing colour. If I had painted that, any viewer would have sighed and said, "Hmmm... nice colours. Wouldn't happen like that, though."

Then their companion would chuckle and say, knowingly, "No! A bit of poetic licence, there, I think!"

And yet it WAS like that!

I've experienced the same with pictures of animals. A cat picture can look alluringly tempting to draw, then I realise, hang on, where's his other leg? Tucked under his belly, of course. But it doesn't look ODD in a photo, because the brain accepts it as a true reflection of what was there. In a sketch, though, it might look like I forgot his other leg.

Photography has been around how long? Say, about 140 years, give or take? We giggle at the naivety of the Victorians for being taken in by so-called photographs of ghosts and fairies. But it was a new medium. Our brains are still set-up to accept a photo as true. But we take it further- if it isn't a photo, it might be "wrong": the sunset must be exagerated, or the sleeping cat might be missing a leg.

The cat at the top of this post is lovely, but so perfect it would be difficult to draw faithfully. With his tuxedo, tie and crooked whiskers, he looks like he's been out on the town all night. Never mind. I wanted to share him with you anyway. Hope he makes you smile.