Learning to Draw for those able to see
mdeli
The science of drawing is still taught to engineers and architects and
by a few competent teachers. This incorporates the rules which govern
the foundations of drawing three dimensional objects.
It includes geometry, technique, perspective, light and shade etc.
With this as a foundation the artist must go much further and learn
how to draw amorphus forms and textures. Example are figures, drapery
and abstract solids. All this is craft based on science. An artist
must also be able to perform these tasks from imagination.
I suppose some artzy fartzy here will complain that everyone would
learn the same thing.
Everyone learns to write the same letters, yet all people write
differently. The same can be said for the scales in music and harmony.
Even among those who learn to master the skills of rote few become
accomplished artists because art certainly requires MORE than these
particular skills. However, no skill no art.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
to assimilate us all
run - run for your lives
tale care: Keith (I'm off to bed)
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c3bbdc4...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
RBrac53660
My question would be in your response what do the borg represent? A stalinist
form of government and or a reagan/nixon form of statehood.
RBrac53660
Lauri Levanto
Once Mani deserves an answer. Not for his arrogance but ignorance.
Mani wrote:
>The reasons why things look the way they do is a scientific matter.
It is a scientific matter. Let us then study the scientific foundation of
seeing.
First we have the physics describing the path light takes.
That is well illustrated by photography, and approximated by
linear perspective. Linear perspective is a classical convention
of representation. Nothing more.
If you stand in front of a long wall, the
perspective goes to both directions. So the parallel lines of the wall
are not seen parallel, nor straight. If you take a photograph of an
arcade,
the pillars are not of the same width across the picture.
(Draw a row of circles. Then draw tangents thru a common focal point.
Now draw a picture plane behind the focal point. The middle tangets
meet the picture plane sooner than those from either side. Therefore
the middle circles are projected narrower.)
Consult also any psychology book about visual illusions. They demonstrate
that we *cannot* see thinga as they are.
Then is the science of physiology. It affects most the color vision.
Our eyesight makes an distinction of illumination and object color.
Blue objects are blue thru the day until sunset. They do not turn
purple as in photographs. Our color perception depends on three
sets of wideband sensors. Their *relative* stimulation is later
interpreted in brain as a gamut of colours. In physical world there
are no colors, only spectral distributions of reflectance multiplied
by spectral distribution of illumination. That's why some shadows
look blue.
Next we must take in account the science of psychology. If you look
at a 6' person from 5 yards distance, and another is 10 yards away,
you can easily tell if the other one is 2" taller or shorter.
You cannot see him as 3' tall like perspective tells.
This is called constancy. Far from perfect, but illustrates how
what we see is an reconstruct - carried oout in brain - of the
physical view. Look samples by Esher and Magritte. Their images
are rather stiff, They are elaborusly constructed by "scientific
principles". Compare it, say to Pissarro: The Boulevard Montmarte.
I quote "Despairing of a 'scientific' analysisi of light,
Pissarro reverted to an intuitive approach, painting with the skill of
his hand rather that the calculation of his brain" ( from David Piper:
The Illustrated history of art).
>The science of drawing is still taught to engineers and architects...
The construction drawings are orthogonal projections, even in the
'exploded' pictures parallel lines are kept parallel, not in perspective.
I have some engineering background. My works are close to classicism,
but I never try to depict things as they are.
-lauri
journeyman of sculpture
http://www.netti.fi/~laurlev
Monte Guerdis
> The science of drawing is still taught to engineers and architects and
> by a few competent teachers. This incorporates the rules which govern
> the foundations of drawing three dimensional objects.
How do those rules apply to the representation of ideas? What if those ideas
have nothing to do with scientifically observable objects in 3D space?
> Everyone learns to write the same letters, yet all people write
> differently.
I hope time travel will be invented in your lifetime so that you can go and
live in 1480 and be blissfully happy that your
drawing-as-rudimentary-life-skill ideal is relevant to the world around you.
For those of us in 2002, where even film is no longer necessary for
capturing exactly what's in front of you, the skill and art of drawing has
many more applications, none of which carry the old-world burden of
obligatory usefulness.
> The same can be said for the scales in music and harmony.
> Even among those who learn to master the skills of rote few become
> accomplished artists because art certainly requires MORE than these
> particular skills. However, no skill no art.
Certainly, the ability to represent reality is a crucial foundation, but
your argument has a nasty attachment, which is that the rudiment is the
limit - To you, to go beyond or away from the base is to abandon skill,
which is, of course, total nonsense.
All skill, no art.
Hutto
Monte Guerdis
> My question would be in your response what do the borg represent? A
stalinist
> form of government and or a reagan/nixon form of statehood.
>
Nerd.
Hutto
RBrac53660
Revenge of the Nerds hehehehehehehe
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
mdeli
> Linear perspective is a classical convention of representation. Nothing more.
If it "nothing more, what took the best minds in Europe so many years
to figure out? What's in all those books on the subject and why did
artists flock to Italy to learn "nothing more?"
>If you stand in front of a long wall, the
>perspective goes to both directions. So the parallel lines of the wall
>are not seen parallel, nor straight. If you take a photograph of an
>arcade,
>the pillars are not of the same width across the picture.
>(Draw a row of circles. Then draw tangents thru a common focal point.
>Now draw a picture plane behind the focal point. The middle tangets
>meet the picture plane sooner than those from either side. Therefore
>the middle circles are projected narrower.)
>Consult also any psychology book about visual illusions. They demonstrate
>that we *cannot* see thinga as they are.
Well if that's all there's to it all here can see this and become
instant experts. I hope they thank you for enlightening them.
>
>Then is the science of physiology. It affects most the color vision.
>Our eyesight makes an distinction of illumination and object color.
>Blue objects are blue thru the day until sunset. They do not turn
>purple as in photographs. Our color perception depends on three
>sets of wideband sensors. Their *relative* stimulation is later
>interpreted in brain as a gamut of colours. In physical world there
>are no colors, only spectral distributions of reflectance multiplied
>by spectral distribution of illumination. That's why some shadows
>look blue.
And why do some shadows look red, green, light gray, dark gray, etc.
etc?
>
>Next we must take in account the science of psychology. If you look
>at a 6' person from 5 yards distance, and another is 10 yards away,
>you can easily tell if the other one is 2" taller or shorter.
>You cannot see him as 3' tall like perspective tells.
>This is called constancy.
Constansy, I see.
>Far from perfect,
Yes, somewhat!
> but illustrates how
>what we see is an reconstruct - carried oout in brain - of the
>physical view.
I'm sure you imagine it does.
> Look samples by Esher and Magritte. Their images
>are rather stiff, They are elaborusly constructed by "scientific
>principles". Compare it, say to Pissarro: The Boulevard Montmarte.
Are you referring to Pissarro the worst of impressionist patzers?
>I quote "Despairing of a 'scientific' analysisi of light,
>Pissarro reverted to an intuitive approach, painting with the skill of
>his hand rather that the calculation of his brain" ( from David Piper:
>The Illustrated history of art).
Most students have no choice but to revert to little more than an
intuitive approach because they are taught practically nothing .
>
>>The science of drawing is still taught to engineers and architects...
>The construction drawings are orthogonal projections, even in the
>'exploded' pictures parallel lines are kept parallel, not in perspective.
Depends on what you were taught and I suspect you were taught very
little.
>I have some engineering background. My works are close to classicism,
>but I never try to depict things as they are.
>-lauri
>journeyman of sculpture
>http://www.netti.fi/~laurlev
Your website isn't working.
Craig Luce
That's OK.
But whom among this NG is actually trying to imitate [what things look
like (by thought)]? Isn't it the EXPERIENCE we're after? And yes, when
I see a straight wall LOOKing curved, I paint it that way, if
called-for. Usually, not always--- no skill, no preconceptions, only art.
C>
Lauri Levanto wrote:
>
> Once Mani deserves an answer. Not for his arrogance but ignorance.
>
> Mani wrote:
> >The reasons why things look the way they do is a scientific matter.
>
> It is a scientific matter. Let us then study the scientific foundation of
> seeing.
>
> First we have the physics describing the path light takes.
> That is well illustrated by photography, and approximated by
> linear perspective. Linear perspective is a classical convention
> of representation. Nothing more.i
RBrac53660
>
>
>
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
>
>> Linear perspective is a classical convention of representation. Nothing
>more.
>
>If it "nothing more, what took the best minds in Europe so many years
>to figure out? What's in all those books on the subject and why did
>artists flock to Italy to learn "nothing more?"
ohhh fuck it mani and go to china and learn something after all they did have
gunpowder first and also moveble type
well Korea at least
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
You sometimes come out with reasonable comments, but you have a tendency not
to see the forest for the trees. You omit the historical; political and
social context within which the artist worked. The church controlled much
of what the artists were allowed to paint, and how they painted. You must
have been around in the 40's when the church still controlled much of what
we were allowed to think.
Mani you are old enough to know better. It's time to grow up!
take care: keith
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c3cc150...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Lauri Levanto
mdeli wrote:
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
>
> > Linear perspective is a classical convention of representation. Nothing more.
> Mani:
> If it "nothing more, what took the best minds in Europe so many years
> to figure out? What's in all those books on the subject and why did
> artists flock to Italy to learn "nothing more?"
>
lauri
The geometry of perspective was a great mathematical achievement, like
Pythagoras theorem or Fibonacci series. It also made rendering easier.
It still is a convention, filled with flaws I explained a couple of sentencies
later
> <skip>
lauri
>Consult also any psychology book about visual illusions. They demonstrate
> >that we *cannot* see things as they are.
> Mani:
> Well if that's all there's to it all here can see this and become
> instant experts. I hope they thank you for enlightening them.
All here are experts in seeing, some with and some without glasses.
making art is another story.
> lauri
> >Then is the science of physiology. It affects most the color vision.
> >Our eyesight makes an distinction of illumination and object color.
> >Blue objects are blue thru the day until sunset. They do not turn
> >purple as in photographs. Our color perception depends on three
> >sets of wideband sensors. Their *relative* stimulation is later
> >interpreted in brain as a gamut of colours. In physical world there
> >are no colors, only spectral distributions of reflectance multiplied
> >by spectral distribution of illumination. That's why some shadows
> >look blue.
> Mani
> And why do some shadows look red, green, light gray, dark gray, etc.
> etc?
Try to figure it out. The text above gives some hint.
> lauri
> > but illustrates how
> >what we see is an reconstruct - carried oout in brain - of the
> >physical view.
> Mani
> I'm sure you imagine it does.
If it were of any help, I could find English referencies. Those I have at
hands happen to be in Scandinavian languages.
<skip>
lauri
> >The science of drawing is still taught to engineers and architects...
> >The construction drawings are orthogonal projections, even in the
> >'exploded' pictures parallel lines are kept parallel, not in perspective.
> Mani
> Depends on what you were taught and I suspect you were taught very
> little.
>
lauri
You are welcome to consult U.S.Patent Office. They have a few sample of my
technical drawings.
>
> >I have some engineering background. My works are close to classicism,
> >but I never try to depict things as they are.
>
> >-lauri
> >journeyman of sculpture
Lauri Levanto
Re-read your favourite artist Paul Cesanne. He worked with scientific principles,
constructing landscapes of cubes, cones and cylinders
-lauri
mdeli
You also forgot to read what Cezanne said which was something like,
draw all in cubes, cylinder and cones, all in good PERSPECTIVE.
Unfortunately his knowledge of perspective was pathetic as was his
drawing ability and most everything else. His portraits were
absolutely juvenile while his landscapes show no knowledge of
perspective. If you have any evidence to the contrary point out some
of his work.
Just saw a Portrait of his wife (1873-7 so the book says). Looks like
the worst student crap. Garbage! Check the perspective. His work is a
great inspiration for failures.
Complaining about perspective is about as stupid as complaining about
the scales in music.
mdeli
>You JUST NOW discovered this portrait?
You said that not me.
>No wonder you never answer questions
>about your educational background - apparently you've never taken an art
>history course.
Of course not. For a patronizing idiot like you I don't know anything
except how galleries sometimes cheat naive artists and how charlatans
like you have to AK for a living.
>(Note to group: Mani alludes to a professional background in art, but
>*never* answers the question, 'where have you shown your work?'
You never asked me. The last gallery I showed at in NY was Meisel
gallery when he still had his place on Madison Ave. The others don't
exist any more. I also showed in Toronto. However I sold most of my
better stuff privately. Lets hope that you don't believe me.
I've described my education here on many occasions. Anyone can find
these at Yahoo Groups as they seem to have messages dating back ten
years.
I guess Fox who has his college pedigree expects that anyone who
possesses the same will appreciate his artwork. Take a look at it and
you will see what that can really be really worth. I hope all his
patrons have carefully perused his degrees.
> My guess:
>his website, and that's it. His rants against lousy web art and art-school
>failures are just projections of his own utter failure to produce or show
>or sell anything of value whatsoever.) He won't answer this time, either.
>
For Fox a description of why you don't like something is a rant. I'm
waiting for some creative psychobabble to go along with his educated
comments.
>>n...@mail.com (mdeli) wrote:
>>
>> Just saw a Portrait of his [Cezanne's] wife (1873-7 so the book says).
>> Looks like the worst student crap. Garbage! Check the perspective. His
>> work is a great inspiration for failures.
Its too bad we can't show pictures here. This is Cezanne at his worst
but in a private collection. One can more readily see Cezanne's
original lack of any ability in the famous portrait of his father at
the National Gallery which illustrates not only his utter incompetence
but his grasp on perspective, which amounts to nothing.
This painting has no redeeming qualities, abominable color,
composition, technique, drawing and no originality at all. It is worse
that an average student schmier.
Its a perfect example of artwork considered great for people who are
willing to imagine they see what they have been taught rather than
taking a close look.
Perhaps Fox our art history maven here, can describe some of its fine
points or as he say's "He won't answer this time, either." I'm sure
Dale can also spout an appropriate aphorism for ignoring the matter
while Marilyn will give several permutations of the word great.
For a detailed illustrated criticism of Cezanne's Bathers check my
website. I even have a theory about it which I'm sure will make all
the theory specialists here happy.
RBrac53660
Good GAWD is that all you want to deli is put people down? I would think so.
BTW how does Dali, Salvador compare to french academic artist... can you tawlk
about it or are you to great?
never mind your to great so shut up
Lauri Levanto
mdeli wrote:
Mani:>Complaining about perspective is about as stupid as complaining
about the scales in music.
Who has complained here about perspective?
When the first railway was built from St Petersburg to Finland,
The Russian Csar Alexander II honoured the opening ceremony.
While waiting the firts train, His Highness walked at the station
and asked the personnel why the tracks converge in the distance.
"Your highness, it is perspective."
"There shall be no perspective in Russian railways" declared the
almighty Csar. That is the only case I know that someone has
complained about perspective.
-lauri
discussion
the mountaintop, Oh, Moses!
Try - Self portrait on Rose background, ca. 1875 o/c Paris, Musee d'Orsay
A little sloppy in it's finish, but a great example of portraiture. Just
feel the
power from the rough brushstrokes. Horses for courses, this impressionistic
style can be appropriate sometimes - and in the right hands of course.
By the way, I read that Cezanne would have been your soulmate if you two
had met, - I read somewhere he wanted to burn down the Paris 'Salon'.
N.H
"mdeli" <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c3e6855...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
> Snipped<
ejudy
not chopping quite so heavily.
So the Mani guy who does the distorted faces etc...
doesn't like Cezanne?
Hmmmm....i seem to remember the core ideas Cezanne was working on were
quite different than trying to live up to somebody's value system
which states that perspective or drawing skill should be shown off.
Cezanne, IMHO, flattened the world. And in so doing he exploded
the earlier "perspective". Now that's power. Gosh, gee whiz.
Maybe that's why he is refered to as "the father of modern art", eh?
ejudy
"discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com> wrote in message news:<Aw008.468$qS6.1...@newsr2.u-net.net>...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
relax take your pills - have a good night's sleep.
Keith
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c3f5848...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Edward
> Maybe that's why he [Cezanne] is refered to as "the father of modern art", eh?
>
Poor world!
If Cezanne (who could hardly draw/paint and who was rather distorted in
his perception) was "a father of modern art" -
no wonder that "the children of modern art" - new, fresh & clean-cut
(i.e. prefabricated standard) modern artists can not draw or paint at
all.
(No need to mention triffles like perspective, depth, colour theory ot
composition - this is fa-a-a-r-r-r beyond...)
------
Edward
mdeli
>"In painting, the equivalent to the conventional framework
>of narrative is ordered composition, the formal structures
>of space and depth and perspective. But the visible world is
>never really ordered into such a framework. We actually see
>it in random bits and pieces strung together on a thread
>of our continuing consciousness. And in our consciousness
>whether what separates the elements of our experience is
>time or space, whether it is the spacial distance between
>objects or the temporal distance between events, these
>are actually so similar that they are interchangeable.
>Recognition that this is the true nature of experience
>has been one of the principle factors that has shaped
>modern art distancing it from the structured formalities
>of the art of previous centuries. Cezanne saw this and
>set modern art on a course it has followed for a century."
>
>Duncan MacMillian, 1999 "Elizabeth Blackadder"
I hope this brilliant statement will aid all artzy fartzies here in
their persuit of success.
mdeli
>Give it up Dan, he just doesn't get Cezanne and therefore
>doesn't understand modern painting. So he slams it.
Welch has been claiming "understanding " for Picasso, Rothko, Cezanne
and rooms full of bananna peels, etc. since her appearance here.
However when asked she offers the usual Artspeak cop-out, nothing
said. List five things you understand that I don't. Know's your
chance.
Artzy Fartzies always claim that you just don't get it. "The language
of Modern Art," sputter sputter. Its there way of reassuring
themselves that they are among the elite. The Emperor's taylors at
least mentioned the fineness of the weave etc.
They offer some aphorisms like Blow-bag Dale. They complain, you don't
know art history and tell us your pedigree before you have the
audacity to disagree, like Dan Pedigree Fox or the disappear when
asked a point.
hudson
n...@mail.com (mdeli) wrote:
> courtesy of Marilyn Welch :
>
> >"In painting, the equivalent to the conventional framework
> >of narrative is ordered composition, the formal structures
> >of space and depth and perspective. But the visible world is
> >never really ordered into such a framework. We actually see
> >it in random bits and pieces strung together on a thread
> >of our continuing consciousness. And in our consciousness
> >whether what separates the elements of our experience is
> >time or space, whether it is the spacial distance between
> >objects or the temporal distance between events, these
> >are actually so similar that they are interchangeable.
> >Recognition that this is the true nature of experience
> >has been one of the principle factors that has shaped
> >modern art distancing it from the structured formalities
> >of the art of previous centuries. Cezanne saw this and
> >set modern art on a course it has followed for a century."
> >
> >Duncan MacMillian, 1999 "Elizabeth Blackadder"
>
> I hope this brilliant statement will aid all artzy fartzies here in
> their persuit of success.
It's nothing more than a reiteration of Henri Bergson.