Why draw the figure?
Ted Park
This, of course, assumes that you are one of the many people who attend
life drawing sessions. What motivates you? How do you work? What length
of poses do you like?
As far as artists go, I'm pretty much in the hacker class. My training
is limited to a few courses at the local art college. I am relatively new
to this, having started only a few years ago.
I truly enjoy drawing, but what makes figure drawing special to me is
its lack of forgiveness and it's forgiveness. A lack of forgiveness is
there, because most errors of proportion or shape are instantly recognizable.
Forgiveness, because anyone that looks at the drawing can tell what it's
supposed to be.
At the beginning of a drawing session, we usually do about 1/2 hour of
quick poses. I like to do gesture drawings during this period, although
many people prefer to do quick contour drawings. In many ways, I prefer
the shorter poses (because the model can do much more dramatic poses, since
the pose doesn't have to be held as long) but the longer poses are good as
well, since they allow greater development of a drawing. I like poses
of around 20 minutes, since that period of time allows me to get a fairly
developed drawing, yet isn't too long to hold for the average model.
For gesture drawings, I concentrate on the figure only, but for longer
drawings, I draw what the model is sitting on and some of the background.
Sometimes, that is, when I'm not in a lazy mood. I either use a drawing
board balanced on the edge of the table, or I stand at an easel when I'm
feeling more ambitious. Standing a long time bothers me, so I left a bar
stool which I use when I want to sit at the easel.
Lighting varies between various groups as well. At the Muttart the lights
are standard fluorescent lamps, longest pose is about 20 minutes, and there
is no music. The wednesday day group has natural lighting, studio lamps,
and we usually listen to the CBC. The local art college has the lights
on all the time (too many nasty rows about lighting) but they used to
experiment quite a lot.
How much does anatomy help you? It helps me somewhat, since it points
out what areas help to define the figure more than others.
I like to work with conte crayon, or pen and ink in my sketchbook. I
prefer to work using a larger format, but I really don't like to carry
too much stuff around. I use vine charcoal or conte on newsprint for
gesture work when I have it. I have used compressed charcoal, but I'm
not really a fan of this medium, it really doesn't fit with my mark
making, and it makes a huge mess. For long poses (45 minutes to an hour)
I like to paint with acrylic. Some people like to paint with oil, but
I prefer not to cart wet oil paintings around. As a relatively green artist,
matching color is somewhat of a problem for me.
Please post your experiences with life drawing. I think this came up on
the net a while ago, but I'm sure there are lots of people out there with
different experiences with this art form.
--Ted Park.
OXCLOVE
engage. The figure, to paraphrase Kenneth Clark, is the center of our
universe. And Picasso: There is no abstract or figurative art, all art is
figurative. The body is a metaphor for all of our visual understanding:
To understand the body is to understand the cohesiveness, articulation,
and essence of body in all creation. All of our perception is through the
body, and therefore conditioned by the body. Thus, to understand, through
drawing, the body, is to understand all else.
The study of anatomy is also important as an aspect of figure study. As
Melville took the whale and strove to understand its every aspect, so,
too, we must attempt to understand the body, from the inside out as well
as outside in. To understand bones is to grasp the fundamentals of
structure, itself.
I could go on and on, but perhaps this isn't the place. It can not be
stressed enough, however, how even in 1995, with all the history of art
that has marched up to our doors, figure study is paramount.
ThomKitts
when the image has deviated unknowingly or become distorted by the
beginning artist.
In the case of other living things such as trees, landscapes and animals
it is possible to draw poorly yet still fool others into believing the
shapes and forms are plausible. (Except for specialized artists who've
spent a great deal of time with these things).
As humans, we all have intimate and ongoing exposure to the figure, artist
or not. So we all can see or sense when something is "off". If the viewer
is anatomically knowlegable they can recite proportional reasons why it is
so. If the viewer isn't anatomically knowledgable they still can see that
the drawing "feels" wrong to them. This is one of best reasons drawing the
human figure is very important to artistic training.
I am not saying that everyone must portray the figure in a realistic way.
I am saying that it is an indispensable part of the process of learning to
draw.
Hope it helps.
ThomKitts
Thom...@aol.com
Jaxas
>As humans, we all have intimate and ongoing exposure to the figure, artist
>or not. So we all can see or sense when something is "off".
Or "ON" as the case may be. Don't overlook the pure voyeuristic reason for
wanting to draw the figure--a powerful stimulation, at best. And don't come
back with that ole line about being too absorbed with the mechanics of
drawing to notice the model. It's amazing how much better MOST people
do with a drawing of a desirable looking figure than one that is repulsive,
unless it's a class on German-style expressionism.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** + Jaxas from Texas + *****
***** Look for the silver lining, *****
***** But don't leer! *****
***** *****
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> Drawing the figure is the most important aspect of art training one could
> engage. The figure, to paraphrase Kenneth Clark, is the center of our
> universe. And Picasso: There is no abstract or figurative art, all art is
> figurative. The body is a metaphor for all of our visual understanding:
> To understand the body is to understand the cohesiveness, articulation,
> and essence of body in all creation. All of our perception is through the
> body, and therefore conditioned by the body. Thus, to understand, through
> drawing, the body, is to understand all else.
This is exactly the kind of illogical extrapolation that so many
figurative artists are so fond of.
It's such a shame that there are still humans who are trying to
clone the image of themselves with paint. What do you end up
with? ANything more than an annoying illusion? Yes perception
is through the body. Yes, the body provides a condition or
conditioning. But that does not mean that therefore the artist
must draw from the figure.
Besides that physicists keep telling me that something like
90% of the universe is not available for direct human perception.
If that's the case, then artwork derived from perception, whether
the perceptions are keenly understood or not, only accounts for a
very small portion of existing things. So perhaps it would be wiser
to say that through figure drawing or painting it is marginally
possible to gain small insights about the human condition.
> The study of anatomy is also important as an aspect of figure study.
that's a very academic attitude. yawn. what kind of anatomy? anatomy
by who's definition? which mode of description? Why should figure
study be descriptive of the perceived structures of things?
> (clip)
> It can not be
> stressed enough, however, how even in 1995, with all the history of art
> that has marched up to our doors, figure study is paramount.
It cannot be stressed enough however, that when figurative artists invoke
art history as part of their defense, that usually they are thinking
about art primarily in the Judeo-christian tradition, especially
focussing upon the italian and german renaissance cults. What about
long traditions like zen circle painting? What about landscape?
what about the numerous caveworks and wallworks that do not have
figurative content? What about the history of art since 1920?
Why not assert an open-ended philosophy about the study of art
in all of its grandeur and variety, rather than a close-ended
poorly stated demand for the figurative?
so to topic: why study figure drawing/figuration/etc...
because you want to. b/c you are driven to. b/c it may have
poetic meaning for you. b/c you're interested by it
but please do not let your interests and passions
culminate into a rigid philosophy that may bind others.
otherwise all of your figurative work will amount to nothing
more than fascism.
Greg Scheckler
Sl...@cc.usu.edu
Andy Pearlman
>This is exactly the kind of illogical extrapolation that so many
>figurative artists are so fond of.
>
>It's such a shame that there are still humans who are trying to
>clone the image of themselves with paint. What do you end up
>with? ANything more than an annoying illusion? Yes perception
>is through the body. Yes, the body provides a condition or
>conditioning. But that does not mean that therefore the artist
>must draw from the figure.
The usefulness of doing figure drawing is that it is perhaps the best control
available for a combination of both technical and artistic skills. It is
amazingly easy to fake a landscape(witness Bob Ross). Drawing buildings and
still lives tend to be more technical. As a teaching method, it allows the
teacher to gain something of a yardstick as to how talented a particular
student is. Many practical physicists dislike the odder variants of math, but
recognize that they do provide a certain, on occasion, useful toolbox.
Figurative is the same way.
Andy Pearlman
--
Andy Pearlman
apea...@panix.com
"Warning: Easily confused by metaphors. Proceed with caution."
ThomKitts
concerning use of the human figure in art.
Please calm down. Passion is cool, but less attitude please...
If I have misinterpreted your tone let me know.
Thank you,
ThomKitts
Thom...@aol.com
Scott Van Note
> I am curious to know why you choose to draw from the nude model.
(why models)
People communicate using their entire bodies. Trees and buildings do not.
The human form is quite useful for communicating human emotion.
(why nude)
Learning to depict the proper joint, muscle and fat proportions and
positions is much easier when you can see them.
Clothes just hang on the structure underneath.
Scott V
Mr. Charles Carroll; (SGSH; GUEST)
lead one to become a figurative artist but will I am convinced add to
artists range of "pallette". The self discipline of learning to draw is
not necessary obviously to create art but it is a discipline that through
its mastery can create freedom.
I see nothing to attack if a person chooses the figurative as his/her
idiom or practices figure drawing as an act of improving technical skill
I find technical skill neither a crime or a necessity -- just an act of
discipline that leads to greater freedom.
I am happy that I have included it in my pallette and that like any color
it is there to be used or not . Ultimately I want all the tools I can lay
my hands on to choose from in order to get my message across.
If you begrudge the artist the use of the figure just because you
yourself don't need it. It's as if I were to begrudge you the use of
yellow because right now all my pieces are black. Why step on each
other's pallette. Why not honor the differences, the uniqueness.
Should we deny the art of the cave because it is non figurative or attack
the art of Michelangelo because he chose to master it? Is it necessary
that Frank Stella draw the figure? Is it necessary that figure
painters leaarn to draw zen circles? I think not...
In the end let us honor the art ... and not attack the tools.
p.s. andy hope you
don't find this metaphor confusing.
Mary Cate Carroll
--
Charles Carroll
internet ccar...@umbc7.umbc.edu
metnet tur...@metnet.epflbalto.org
URL http://umbc7.umbc.edu/~ccarroll/index.html
Andy Pearlman
>In the end let us honor the art ... and not attack the tools.
>p.s. andy hope you
>don't find this metaphor confusing.
Nope, not at all. I'm not usually confused by metaphors.
Andy
Andy Pearlman
>In article <3hf1c7$5...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
>> In article <1995Feb9.1...@cc.usu.edu> sl...@cc.usu.edu writes:
>>>This is exactly the kind of illogical extrapolation that so many
>>>figurative artists are so fond of.
>> amazingly easy to fake a landscape(witness Bob Ross). Drawing buildings and
>> still lives tend to be more technical. As a teaching method, it allows the
>> teacher to gain something of a yardstick as to how talented a particular
>> student is.
> ^^^^^^
> with figure drawing! with skills related to observational art!
Not in my book. As any good figurative artist should be able to tell you,
making the skin tones is generally an exercise in abstraction. Good artists
tend to realize this, and hence their figurative drawings have a certain
life to them - that isn't found in the highly technical figurative drawings of
students that haven't figured this out. How do they make the strokes? Long
flowing strokes or short tentative ones? Do they use black in shadow or add
the inverse of the light color to skin tone? What areas do they focus in on?
The whole body, a section, or a zoom-in closeup? Do they experiment with
materials at all, or just stick to one or two tools? Is color use always the
same or at the whim of the artist?
i.e. how one does the shading says a lot about what areas one is strong in and
one isn't, even *if* the figurative quality isn't that strong.
And for reference, I'm not generally a figurative artist.
Andy
Camelmann
most demanding skill in fine arts. If there's no value in it, then why do
so many of the famous abstract artists study it? Pollock, Jiacommetti,
Dali, Picasso, Matisse all had a solid background and early training in
figure drawing. Read Dali's "50 Secrets to Great Art."
Who else assumes Greg Sheckler's paintings look like stick figures? Greg
-- I'm kidding, I'm kidding -- just trying a little humor to lighten
things up here!
d;-) Cammelmann
sl...@cc.usu.edu
Hi ho glad for the levity today last night I stayed up and wrote alot
and remembered that in this thread I've managed not only to bore myself
to death but be awfully hopelessly didactic and dull.
actually lately the figures i've been making are quite rudimentary. a good
stick can carry as much expression as a fully articulated form. I think my
problem is that after studying at the New York Academy I got really bored
with the way things look. more interesting, how thhings express.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Ted Park
: Let's be specific. The skills gained by academic figure-drawing are skills
: that are sometimes, and not always, good for academic figure drawing.
: These skills may or may not be applicable to other sorts of
: drawing/observing/thinking/artmaking etc.
: But that's not what most figurative artists or teachers usually will tell
: you...
: they let the technical ability to render accurately=ability to make art!
: Note above the use of the word "control"!
: Go to figure drawing class to be put under control!
: Let them invoke "technique" and "objective reality"!
: Hog-tie you with phrases about objective proof!
: Let them try to measure your efforts with a yardstick!
: Fascists! Rapists!
: People blinded by what they see!
I think I must be missing something here. How does the ability to draw
what you see interfere with artistic ability? The teacher that I took
my first figure drawing class with primarily painted large abstract
works. Personally I have found the ability to draw what is there helps
the ability to draw what is my mind as well. Drawing and "creating art"
can be unrelated. A large majority of the figure drawings that I do are
throwaways, it's the act of drawing that's important.
: How many times have I heard the shallow critic say he
: respects an artist's abstract work more now that he knows
: the artist can also draw representationally? Aaaaaargh!
I think that you may have a point here. An artist that I know paints
"groundscapes" which are strongly representational closeups of neat
areas of ground for example rocks, plants, earth. Sometimes the initial
impression that people have is of a purely nonrepresentation work until
the perception of what it is "supposed to be" clicks in. It's sort of
a "what is it" to "Ooohh, cool!" transition.
: And all to do what? ... to create the image of reality _as
: related to_ the reality of a drawing (separated), rather than
: reality itself _as joined with_ the reality of a drawing
: (intermingled).
: There is only one real skill: the clarity of mind. Everything
: else is a matter of dexterity.Teachers who are just teaching
: dexterity, tricks of certain tools, confusing them with skill,
: are doing a disservice to their students -- for they are not
: attending to actual mindfulness.
I equate the seeing skills required to do representational drawing and
painting to the writing skills of knowing sentence structure and grammar.
purely nonrepresentational work would equate to someone making interesting
sounds, abstract works would equate to weird poetry found in coffee shops,
representational art would equate to published poetry, and pure
representational drawing would be like a technical manual. I don't know
about the "teaching dexterity" part - hardly any of the skill required to
draw is in manual dexterity, it's the seeing part that enables someone to
draw accurately. Many conceptual works that I have seen clearly required
very good representational drawing skills. Political commentary work
may utilize the ability to do some rather nasty and unflattering portraiture.
I think that the ability to create good art depends on a combination of
concept and capability - you have to have something you want to create,
and you have to be able to create it.
: Perhaps some of you may be fortunate enough
: someday to study with figurative teachers who use the external
: references of their art (the way it looks, the dexterity, etc.) to
: address the more intimate internal matters (the beliefs
: and philosophies driving the artmaking, the clarity of mind,
: the intelligence of making art, i.e. the real skill). If you have that
: clarity of mind then you can easily make any sort of art.
: Greg Scheckler
: SL...@cc.usu.edu
Much of what art is happens in the mind of the viewer. Unless there is
some basis for shared understanding it isn't possible to communicate with
the viewer. If your work is a personal expression of an idea and you
want it only to have significance to yourself, that's fine too. I try
to make my work meaningful to other people as well. I disagree with your
statement that "If you have that clarity of mind you can easily make any
sort of art" however. Some types of art require great technical facility.
Technical facility does not limit your ability to create art, it expands it.
250 Ted Park <tp...@novatel.ca>
GIBSTER844
learns how to master drawing the human figure,he can in no way become a
superior talent".I think that gaining a reasonable knowledge of figure
drawing..surface anatomy,line,mass and proportions,lighting. Can really
help an artist concieve more clearly his vision on paper,or canvas.To
sharpen one's skills in this area,is just to me a matter of mastering the
basics.Then you can create.
Question..Can you draw a straight line freehand?
Or a circle?
I think drawing skills are a must for any painter,sculpter, etc.
Gib
For in every man the glory of God is revealed.Infinite gifts.with
infinite diversity.
Michael Gibson-
Bruce VonAhsen
: In article <3hp4e8$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, came...@aol.com (Camelmann) writes:
: Hi ho glad for the levity today last night I stayed up and wrote alot
: and remembered that in this thread I've managed not only to bore myself
: to death but be awfully hopelessly didactic and dull.
Actually, I thought your posts were quite thought provoking. I have yet
come up with a good reply. The best I can think of is that the reason I
enjoy drawing the figure is because I enjoy it.
: actually lately the figures i've been making are quite rudimentary. a good
: stick can carry as much expression as a fully articulated form. I think my
: problem is that after studying at the New York Academy I got really bored
: with the way things look. more interesting, how thhings express.
Perhaps in art, as in life, you need to go *through* things in order to
reach a certain perspective at the end. (is that clear??) I do non
figurative art as well, but I find myself returning to it because - well
- I enjoy it.
--
--
,/| ..._ .
brenda is /, \'. _-' \
br...@sparc.isl.net { \ `_- `
Rochester MN `;;' ;
(,_..., bev (,..___ ,
Art4 beaut
good
<stick can carry as much expression as a fully articulated form. I think
<my problem is that after studying at the New York Academy I got really
<bored with the way things look. more interesting, how thhings express.
I studied at nyaa also (sculpture) and find the challenge of the figure in
two dimensions very demanding. The mastery of the skill gives the worker
freedom to create an infinite number of relationships. The post partum
depression that I feel is that of withdrawl from an environment where I
could work from life five days per week to the financial burden of finding
models to compleat more than even a small project. My goals are simple, to
find forms that fairly represent my ideas. Keep searching and remember
that the method of inquiry is more to the point than coping what is in
front of your eyes, don't look/ see.
Art4 beaut
the world is not flat land
Joshua Heuman
: It's such a shame that there are still humans who are trying to
: clone the image of themselves with paint. What do you end up
: with? ANything more than an annoying illusion? Yes perception
: is through the body. Yes, the body provides a condition or
: conditioning. But that does not mean that therefore the artist
: must draw from the figure.
You are giving a report card about artists in general...a very contro-
versial thing to do! The fact that many people like figurative works
should come as no surprise. Many people, myself included, like to know
what they are looking at. Jackson Pollock, Jock Macdonald, or whichever
abstract, pseudo-spiritual artists you mean to put forward as great
exemplars of Modern or Post-Modern Art just show paint on a 2-dimensional
surface...as if that hasn't been overdone by now! The whole Post-Modern
movement, BTW, ismoving more and more toward figurative expressionistic
political and social works. Abstract is, unfortunate to the unskilled,
being phazed out.
: It cannot be stressed enough however, that when figurative artists invoke
: art history as part of their defense, that usually they are thinking
: about art primarily in the Judeo-christian tradition, especially
: focussing upon the italian and german renaissance cults. What about
: long traditions like zen circle painting? What about landscape?
: what about the numerous caveworks and wallworks that do not have
: figurative content? What about the history of art since 1920?
Remeber that these movements you allude to become, as does figurative work,
become more and less popular in rather cyclical phazes. Landscapes do not
show people (true), however, the content is still recognizable. You must
keep in mind too that landscapes developed at the same time as a subject in
its own right along with genre paintings in 17th century Flanders and
Holland...certainly showing the human figure!
As for the history of art since 1920. Nice try, but Greenberg started his
linear progression of art much earlier...try 1850s. But that arguement
passed away when Greenberg did (probably before!). Not all art since the
1920s has been figure free. In fact, many of the greatest artists have
painted the human figure with much success and originality.
The only artists since 1920s who began reducing form to the point of
non-representational canvases did so because of spiritual stiving for
purity...sounds just as bad (as you hint) as the Judeo-Christian tradition!
The modern artists who did not strive for spirituality were toting other
propagandistic messages...Jackson Pollock with his American Hero (according
to Greenberg), Kandinsky to be an Anarchist, Rothko because he had no
skill (which applies to many Abstract Expressionists and abstractionists!).
I think it interesting, too, that you have decided to ignore the fact that
Modernism is OVER, replaced by the equally confusing, but even less-well
defined, Post-Modernism. Post-Modernism does preach the figure, gender,
politics, society...everything the Modernism reacted against. But the
bigger they are (or art in this case), the harder they fall! Modernism
is Dead, Long live Post-Modernism??? Or maybe more poignant: Modernism
is Dead, Long live Modernism???
--
Joshua Heuman
yu10...@yorku.ca
Art History Undergraduate
Macphail Center For The Arts
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
> : It's such a shame that there are still humans who are trying to
> : clone the image of themselves with paint. What do you end up
> : with? ANything more than an annoying illusion? Yes perception
> : is through the body. Yes, the body provides a condition or
> : conditioning. But that does not mean that therefore the artist
> : must draw from the figure.
>
> You are giving a report card about artists in general...a very contro-
no actually I was responding to a couple of posts that stated
some pretty obnoxious exclusionary philosophies.
(clip)
> As for the history of art since 1920. Nice try, but Greenberg started his
> linear progression of art much earlier...(clip)
hmmmm. I think if you had hit upon the parts where I spoke to the over-lapping
of realities as opposed to the distinct separating of them, then you might
have caught on to the fact that I was proposing something far more
convoluted than linearity.
>
> I think it interesting, too, that you have decided to ignore the fact that
> Modernism is OVER, replaced by the equally confusing, but even less-well
> defined, Post-modernism
Modernism isn't over yet. Postmodernism isn't confusing.
If I were to make a prediction about the state of the arts in the
future (and I'll stick my neck out here), I'd say we're in for
a major resurgence of Modernism as more and more artists seek
out its form as expression of the spiritual -- but after our struggle
with postmodernism we might for once find those open forms without
all of the 1950s political baggage, chauvinism, and rhetoric of the
greenbergians.
besides that for the general populace I think modernism never really
began, or is just barely beginning. So many even in schools when looking
at a Pollock don't know what they are seeing, rather than recognizing
that they are seeing paint and rhythms.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
OXCLOVE
topic. Nevertheless, I find it an interesting point of take-off. As a
teacher of figure drawing and a painter of abstract paintings, I am aware
of both sides of the fence. All this business about technical dexterity
is misplaced. When an artists learns to <see>, the technical dexterity
comes naturally. It also comes about from the sheer activity of the work.
Focus and clarity of mind are important. There are different methods of
teaching figure drawing. Those based on eye-hand co-ordination, I feel,
are paramount. Those based on schemes, i.e., tricks such as drawing the
figure from preconceived cubes and spheres, are anethema. They destroy
the artist natural sensibilities. However, what is most important, is
that whatever an artist learns, it must be un-learned. Art must come from
a sense of not-knowing. So, I feel sympathy for the student who must
weather the sort of teaching that only reinforces the negative attributes
of figure study. There are so many awful teachers in art. At best, one
has teachers who are ineffectual; and fortunate to find, perhaps, only one
whom is meaningful. It requires a certain fortitude in dealing with
negative teachers.
va...@cwu.edu
> Representing the human figure accurately and in proportion is by far the
> most demanding skill in fine arts. If there's no value in it, then why do
> so many of the famous abstract artists study it? Pollock, Jiacommetti,
> Dali, Picasso, Matisse all had a solid background and early training in
> figure drawing. Read Dali's "50 Secrets to Great Art."
>
was the primary concentration and discussion in art.
Re: Dali: You should be aware that the art establishment has never
considered Dali to be much of an artist, except for perhaps one
single year of his life, 1929 to be precise. I'm not certain what
that means, but thought it ought to be added to the conversation.
Vance
Jaxas
>Re: Dali: You should be aware that the art establishment has never
>considered Dali to be much of an artist . . .
And whose loss is that ?
The "so-called" establishment doesn't recognize a lot
of people who are "fine" artists or a lot of art that is
popular in the eyes of the populace.
***** ***** ***** ***** *****
***** + Jaxas from Texas + *****
***** Look for the silver lining, *****
***** But don't let others tell you *****
***** How to think! *****
ArtisticI
You said in your post:
> The post partum depression that I feel is that of withdrawl from an
environment
> where I could work from life five days per week to the financial burden
of finding
> models to compleat more than even a small project.
There may be some people willing to model just for the fun of it. (I for
one have done that.) What area of the country are you in?