Draw what you know? Draw what you see?
peter nelson
As a beginning art student (3 years of basic drawing
and figure drawing classes 1 evening a week) I'm struggling with
the "Draw what you know" versus "draw what you see" issue:
Steve Lieber wrote in message ...
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>> I have trouble with hands and
>> feet. Sometimes I'm in a 3-hour class where we're supposed
>> to be drawing the figure and I'm spending the whole time
>> sketching the hands and feet and I STILL can't get them to look
>> "right" even though from the standpoint of pure draughtsmanship
>> I think I have all the lines and proportions correct
>Try taking a look at the construction methods with which some illustrators
>approach the hands. Andrew Loomis' fine book "Drawing the Head and Hands"
>is difficult to track down, but is positively jammed with worthwhile
>information.
>
>Also, while I rarely recommend his work, several of Burne Hogarth's books
>contain his drawings of the unifying arcs across the knuckles.
This actually illustrates very well one of my basic drawing dilemmas.
There are two fundamental approaches to drawing the figure:
1. Construction. By understanding the anatomy and
construction of the human body you draw what you KNOW
to exist. I understand that *this* bone is longer than *that*
bone, or that the epicondylite juts out *here* in the
elbow, or that when the foot is bent in a certain manner
the gastrocnemus muscle is shortened *thusly*.
2. Draw what you see.
Being an engineer, I'm attracted to the first approach ("drawn"
to it, you might say) but it gets me in trouble a lot. In the
"foot" example, above, it turned out that I *did* have the
proportions just right. The foot looked unnatural until I
adjusted the weighting of the lines. But that's not something
you can get from an anatomical approach. "Drawing what
you know" can also be troublesome with foreshortened
subjects.
The other problem with drawing what you know is that every
new subject requires new "knowing". After spending
years mastering anatomy so you can draw the figure, you
may want to place your figure in the world. The world has
cloth and glass and flowers and trees and clouds and
water and many other physical things which have their own
"anatomy" - their own physical construction and rules.
Shouldn't these be drawn as accurately as the figure itself?
Because of my technical background I happen to be
familiar with the physics of optics. I COULD take an
"anatomical" approach (Snell's Law, etc) to drawing
glass and it would look very accurate. But for someone
without my background it would take long study to achieve
this.
Likewise one could study the internal contruction of plants
-woody plants, fibrous plants, etc in order to better understand
how they bend, how their weight is distributed, how snow or
water cling to their bark, how their leaves transmit light, etc.
"But the world is so full of a number of things I'm sure
we should be as BUSY as . . . " (sorry Robert L.) . . . we'd
never get to the end of it. After a lifetime of study there
would be a handful of subjects you could construct - THIS
artist can place his figures in a wooded glen with flowers
and birds. THAT artist can place his figures in a hall of
mirrors next to a seashore, etc.
So I think I should concentrate on SEEing because it's
more versatile. Maybe. But the downsides are:
1. It's much harder to TEACH or to even systematically LEARN.
I definitely get better when I practice but I can't tell you what
I did to achieve my improvement! At least with an anatomical
construction approach I can say, "this month I'm going to learn the
deltoid muscles, humeral head and clavicle."
2. It may limit the ability to work from imagination. If I wanted
to draw a flying saucer landing in front of King Arthur's
castle and a princess walking out to it, I'm in trouble
because I can't see any of them.
And it's true that every time I'm in class and the model is before
me I can't make up my mind!!! Sometimes I start by drawing
a stick-figure skeleton with the major bones and large muscles.
Other times I draw an outline of the shapes or shadows or
negative space I see.
Comments? Suggestions? Opinions?
---peter
Andy Pearlman
peter nelson wrote:
> As a beginning art student (3 years of basic drawing
> and figure drawing classes 1 evening a week) I'm struggling with
> the "Draw what you know" versus "draw what you see" issue:
>
> 2. It may limit the ability to work from imagination. If I wanted
> to draw a flying saucer landing in front of King Arthur's
> castle and a princess walking out to it, I'm in trouble
> because I can't see any of them.
That's not really what drawing what you see is. The two methods can really be
boiled down to this:
a - Constructing a mechanically accurate figure, then filling in the shading.
b - Creating interesting lights and shadows, then possibly drawing in the
lines that would be there.
A is perhaps stronger when your goal is to do medical illustration, but the
problem with A is that mechanically correct rarely makes for interesting art,
unless you are really, really, really good at it. The intrinsic goal of A is
to make a realistic object, not necessarily an art object.
B on the other hand, the goal is to make a study in lights and shadows, which
often have much stronger relationships than lines do. A painting I did in
college hangs on my wall and people like to comment on it. I made up some
lights and shadows and fit it into the lines of a drawing. Even though I did
all the colors in an abstract manner(her arm is green as an example), someone
actually recognized the model from the painting, one of the life models that
were used. With B, the general idea is to make something interesting to look
at - if it is realistic and you wanted that, so much the better. But even if
you fail at the realism part, that doesn't really matter, because often, the
results will be encouraging.
With a lot of artists, B will produce more accurate results as well, because
you aren't getting hung up on making an anatomically correct eye or mouth,
etc, which doesn't have any real relationship to the anatomically correct
chin. Whereas the shadow under the eye has a real relationship to the
highlight on the nose...
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman - artwork at http://www.inet-images.com/gallery/pearlman_a.html
Bob C
>
> peter nelson wrote:
>
> > As a beginning art student (3 years of basic drawing
> > and figure drawing classes 1 evening a week) I'm struggling with
> > the "Draw what you know" versus "draw what you see" issue:
> >
> boiled down to this:
> a - Constructing a mechanically accurate figure, then filling in the shading.
> b - Creating interesting lights and shadows, then possibly drawing in the
> lines that would be there.
>
I think you are incorrectly mixing two independent characteristics of
drawing. You have
a - drawing the edges/outlines vs. drawing the light/shadows
b - constructing the image from knowledge vs. drawing it as you see it
I agree with most of your statements regarding that first pair of
characteristics, mainly that drawing with light/shadows is usually the
superior approach. The experienced artist, of course, can use either
extreme of both pairs to their advantage, but the beginner will usually
err by drawing the edges/outlines first and by trying to draw completely
as they see it without actually understanding the form of the objects
being drawn.
Regarding the second pair of characteristics, I believe that I
personally am always using a combination of the two, trying to combine
what I see with the knowledge of the structure of what I'm seeing. Once
I understand the structure, it is much easier to accurately represent
the lights and shadows as they fall on that structure. Understanding
that structure is actually an important part of seeing.
Which brings us to the question of what it really means to "draw what
you see". Does it mean constructing a 2D image of the scene in your mind
and then guiding your hand based on that image? Or does it mean trying
to let the hand be controlled directly from the input to the eye without
any other mental intervention? One might argue that humans are
physiologically more adept at converting what they see to a knowledge of
its structure then they are at converting it to a 2-dimensional
representation. If that's the case, then reconstructing the scene based
on your knowledge of it's structure might be more accurately called
"drawing what you see".
Maybe it's apparent by now that I buy heavily into the arguments made by
Gombrich in "Art and Illusion". They made a lot of sense to me and
seemed to really explain a lot of things which I had been experiencing
myself.
- Bob C.
Bob C
>
> B on the other hand, the goal is to make a study in lights and shadows, which
> often have much stronger relationships than lines do. A painting I did in
> college hangs on my wall and people like to comment on it. I made up some
> lights and shadows and fit it into the lines of a drawing. Even though I did
> all the colors in an abstract manner(her arm is green as an example), someone
> actually recognized the model from the painting, one of the life models that
> were used. With B, the general idea is to make something interesting to look
> at - if it is realistic and you wanted that, so much the better. But even if
> you fail at the realism part, that doesn't really matter, because often, the
> results will be encouraging.
>
Ultimately, the goal should be to make every mark contribute to the
beauty, the expression, or the message of the drawing. If it needs to be
realistically accurate to do so, then it's something you need to worry
about, but it certainly frees you up to do wonderful things when you are
concentrating on how the mark contributes to the drawing as a whole
rather than on its exact proper placement with respect to that which is
being represented.
- Bob C.
Peter Nelson
>Andy Pearlman wrote:
>>
>Which brings us to the question of what it really means to "draw what
>you see". Does it mean constructing a 2D image of the scene in your mind
>and then guiding your hand based on that image? Or does it mean trying
>to let the hand be controlled directly from the input to the eye without
>any other mental intervention?
My understanding iis that it's the latter. The classic
"draw what you see" book is _Drawing on the Right
Side of the Brain_ by Betty Edwards. The whole idea
is to draw the raw visual input without any effort made
to *interpret* or *analyze* it. When you draw a hand
or face your just drawing light and shadow - no knowledge
of what it is.
To this end she has you do exercises such as looking
at the subject upside down and other things to totally
disorient you so you stop thinking of what the thing is
that you're drawing.
---peter
Steve Lieber
> This is what Drawing on the Right Hand Side of your Brain is good for.
>
> peter nelson wrote:
>
> > As a beginning art student (3 years of basic drawing
> > and figure drawing classes 1 evening a week) I'm struggling with
> > the "Draw what you know" versus "draw what you see" issue:
> >
> > 2. It may limit the ability to work from imagination. If I wanted
> > to draw a flying saucer landing in front of King Arthur's
> > castle and a princess walking out to it, I'm in trouble
> > because I can't see any of them.
>
> That's not really what drawing what you see is. The two methods can really be
> boiled down to this:
> a - Constructing a mechanically accurate figure, then filling in the shading.
> b - Creating interesting lights and shadows, then possibly drawing in the
> lines that would be there.
That's not a definition of "drawing what you see" I've ever encountered.
I've always understood the term to refer to close, accurate observation of
the model "in the flat," carefully noting negative shapes, shapes of
shadows, comparing heights of comparable points on various parts of the
model etc. It's a way of getting the same information a camera obscura
would give you. You can "draw what you see" in pure line, pure tone, or any
combination thereof, in any order one cares to.
Steve Lieber
--
My web page: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/8914/
WHITEOUT #4 now in stores. The ongoing follow up series is coming in 1999.
Preview of WHITEOUT #1 at http://www.easystreet.com/~kodiak/Whiteout.html
zi...@interport.net
I do tend to believe that any one who reads abook and follows someone
else's methods,merely by learning methods or what Gombrich calls
"Schema" he/she is learning something which will be useful in the
future.
Of all the books on drawing hands, probably the Bridgeman book willdo
the least harm. You may learn his schema only to unlearnthem later,but
they won't ge too much in the way. I did not teach in a typical art
department. When we were at our best 3/4 oif the artists in it were
figurative. Wew ranged from a detailed extraordinarily facile
draftsman through to a post Matissean one. One thing we all agreed on
was how terrible the Loomis book was. I can also remember my first
teach Isaac Soyer [Kid brother to the others] suggestun that I buy the
anatomy book of his old teacher at Cooper, Victor Perard. That is
another terrible book. Also, why study hands separately from the rest
of the body. We all need shcema for arms, leags, feet shoulders the
face and head and of course the body. That ius ifthat is the way your
min runs. There is an OP book by Stephen Rogers Peck whom I newver
studied with. It is called something like an Atlas of Artist's
Anatomy. He made up schema which I liked to argue with, but they were
reasonable, and more connected with what there is out there to paint
with the technical approaches of the past 200 years than that
Hungarian [I cannot remember his name] who did those flashy drawings
which never reach a clear or precise place where there is a plane
change in the form.
I would suggest thre pages on hands in Peck plus the rest of the
book., Test his schema against what you see.Don't follow him blindly.
While we are at it, the great anatomy book of the late nineteenth
century is Richer. Just looking at his drawings might do you some
good. It has never been translated out of French. It went through
dozens of editions and should still be around in old art school
libraries, gathering dust.
Gabriel
On Tue, 29 Dec 1998 10:01:48 -0500, "peter nelson"
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>
>As a beginning art student (3 years of basic drawing
>and figure drawing classes 1 evening a week) I'm struggling with
>the "Draw what you know" versus "draw what you see" issue:
>
>2. It may limit the ability to work from imagination. If I wanted
>to draw a flying saucer landing in front of King Arthur's
>castle and a princess walking out to it, I'm in trouble
>because I can't see any of them.
>
Andy Pearlman
Steve Lieber wrote:
> In article <3688EEA0...@mail.idt.net>, apea...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> > That's not really what drawing what you see is. The two methods can really be
> > boiled down to this:
> > a - Constructing a mechanically accurate figure, then filling in the shading.
> > b - Creating interesting lights and shadows, then possibly drawing in the
> > lines that would be there.
>
> That's not a definition of "drawing what you see" I've ever encountered.
> I've always understood the term to refer to close, accurate observation of
> the model "in the flat," carefully noting negative shapes, shapes of
> shadows, comparing heights of comparable points on various parts of the
> model etc. It's a way of getting the same information a camera obscura
> would give you. You can "draw what you see" in pure line, pure tone, or any
> combination thereof, in any order one cares to.
You're restating of what I said is actually the same thing for the most part. It
is quite possible to create lights and shadows via use of line. Drawing what you
see emphasizes lights and shadows over being mechanically accurate. However,
Reid(and I for that matter) would say that it equally applies to the use of
abstract shading and color to generate the image of a realistic form. Regardless
if the color is there or not.
There's an interesting book by Charles Reid called Painting What You(Want To) See
published by Watson-Guptill. Excellent book on Watercolors and Oils, but his main
argument is that rarely do people actually draw what's there. The goal is to draw
something that makes visual sense, regardless of what relationship it has to the
original object. To use the Mona Lisa as an example, who really cares if it is a
feminized version of Leonardo or a model with a funky, knowing smile? I might like
to know personally, but certainty is not going to change what a given person
thinks of Leonardo. The important thing is that enigmatic smile.
He actually comments on the original Winslow Homer quote to a tourist, "I paint
exactly what I see." as probably being something of a practical joke on the
tourist - Winslow Homer always being in a foul mood and hating stupid questions.
Definitely take a look at the book though. I've never seen someone be so
objectively critical of his own work in a book. He's a realistic watercolorist who
uses lots of abstract forms and colors in his figure studies and landscapes.
Andy Pearlman
Bob C wrote:
> Andy Pearlman wrote:
> > That's not really what drawing what you see is. The two methods can really be
> > boiled down to this:
> > a - Constructing a mechanically accurate figure, then filling in the shading.
> > b - Creating interesting lights and shadows, then possibly drawing in the
> > lines that would be there.
> I think you are incorrectly mixing two independent characteristics of
> drawing. You have
> a - drawing the edges/outlines vs. drawing the light/shadows
> b - constructing the image from knowledge vs. drawing it as you see it
To a certain extant true, but there's a relatively inexperienced artist wanting to
get past a block of seeing vs knowing. I'm phrasing it in terms of how I would to
a student of that level. Once they're past the block, then discuss how you can use
both. If his artwork improves, I'm sure he'll forgive me.
My philosophy is b doesn't actually exist except as a construct in the mind about
how one approaches making art. It may influence the look of the art, because of
how you approach the subject, such as having the model there or not. But if the
model is right in front of you... It is a way of intellectualizing the art making
process, which is fine, as long as it doesn't get in the way of making the art you
want to have happen. Some people need to do that to get the realistic results that
they want. Some don't. (as witness the Italians vs the Northern Europeans in the
Renaissance)
> Which brings us to the question of what it really means to "draw what
> you see". Does it mean constructing a 2D image of the scene in your mind
> and then guiding your hand based on that image? Or does it mean trying
> to let the hand be controlled directly from the input to the eye without
> any other mental intervention? One might argue that humans are
I think that usually, I just relax and use the model as a reference to what I want
to have happen. Sometimes that will mean intense realism, sometimes that means
just abstract color patterns. Depends on the mood of my hand. Or in other words, I
try not to worry about it and just get into a particular type of mood. I know that
probably sounds horribly evasive, but when things are going well, I don't break it
down into components. Things just happen.
> Maybe it's apparent by now that I buy heavily into the arguments made by
> Gombrich in "Art and Illusion". They made a lot of sense to me and
> seemed to really explain a lot of things which I had been experiencing
> myself.
I'll have to read that. As I noted in my other reply, I'm heavily influenced by
Charles Reid - Painting What You (Want to) See.
Rodney J Anderson
peter nelson wrote in message <76aqsn$ed1$1...@strato.ultra.net>...
>
>As a beginning art student (3 years of basic drawing
>and figure drawing classes 1 evening a week) I'm struggling with
>the "Draw what you know" versus "draw what you see" issue:
>
Hi, Peter. I'm an art student myself, so I might not speak with as great
authority as a "made" artist, but I think I can cut to the quick of your
dilemma with a fair amount of confidence. My answer is that I think you've
probably theorized about this issue as much as is going to do you any good.
Every artist in his drawing balances "what you know" and "what you see" in
some idiosyncratic proportion. And the way they arrive at their own
proportion is by busting their asses drawing and drawing until they arrive
at something that satisfies them (and even then, of course, they're not
*really* satisfied, there's always more work to be done). You're banging
your head against your problem when you should be banging your drawing hand
against it . . .
How can I say it better? I don't know -- I mean, you seem to want to draw
*better* -- what kind of drawings do you hold up to yourself as models? Do
you want to draw like Michelangelo? Or like Ingres, or like Daumier? Do
you have a gut feeling about what a good drawing looks like? How can I say
it better?
Regarding your thoughts on "drawing what you know":
>Likewise one could study the internal contruction of plants
>-woody plants, fibrous plants, etc in order to better understand
>how they bend, how their weight is distributed, how snow or
>water cling to their bark, how their leaves transmit light, etc.
Well, now, you don't do that (I mean, unless you really want to). You want
to learn how to draw a tree, you go out in the woods and draw the trees that
you see. Your brain gets an idea of what a "tree", in general looks like,
and you can produce one from combined memory/imagination, later on, that
looks legitimately like a proper tree -- or oak or birch, if you've made a
more specific study. And then you could make a tree with birch bark and oak
leaves if you wanted, and it would look like a proper tree to someone who'd
never lived in the country.
Christ, I'm babbling like a fool, but I'm baffled that you seem to have run
so thoroughly aground on this dilemma. You seem determined to reason your
way to drawing excellence, but you can't. You've got to be patient while
your visual intuition slowly grows -- through observing and drawing from
life, observing and copying drawings that you admire, drawing from memory,
doodling pointlessly . . .
--Rod Anderson
"Saw, n. A trite popular saying, or proverb. (Figurative and colloquial.)
So called because it makes its way into a wooden head."
--Ambrose Bierce, from "The Devil's Dictionary"
Steve Lieber
> Steve Lieber wrote:
> > That's not a definition of "drawing what you see" I've ever encountered.
> > I've always understood the term to refer to close, accurate observation of
> > the model "in the flat," carefully noting negative shapes, shapes of
> > shadows, comparing heights of comparable points on various parts of the
> > model etc. It's a way of getting the same information a camera obscura
> > would give you. You can "draw what you see" in pure line, pure tone, or any
> > combination thereof, in any order one cares to.
>
> You're restating of what I said is actually the same thing for the most
part. It
> is quite possible to create lights and shadows via use of line. Drawing
what you
> see emphasizes lights and shadows over being mechanically accurate. However,
> Reid(and I for that matter) would say that it equally applies to the use of
> abstract shading and color to generate the image of a realistic form.
Regardless
> if the color is there or not.
Again, we're working with different definitions. My understanding of the
term "line drawing," is limited to a drawing in which line can represent
three (and only three) things:
1. an inside plane break
2. an outside plane break
3. the horizon of a form
In other words, line defines construction. One can trick it up, by adding
weight to a line to increase the illusion of light hitting the form, or to
add decorative interest, but I've always understood "pure line" to refer to
the diagramatic aspect of drawing, with no tone present at all. A Franklin
Booth drawing is comprised of nothing but pen and ink lines, but it
wouldn't be a "line drawing." The lines in a Booth are defining tones
moving across the surface of forms, rather than simple construction.
Irritatingly didactic, I remain,
Steve Lieber
cartoonist and illustrator- Portland, Oregon.
peter nelson
really be
>> boiled down to this:
>> a - Constructing a mechanically accurate figure, then filling in the
shading.
>> b - Creating interesting lights and shadows, then possibly drawing in the
>> lines that would be there.
>
>I've always understood the term to refer to close, accurate observation of
>the model "in the flat," carefully noting negative shapes, shapes of
>shadows, comparing heights of comparable points on various parts of the
>model etc. It's a way of getting the same information a camera obscura
>would give you. You can "draw what you see" in pure line, pure tone, or any
>combination thereof, in any order one cares to.
"Drawing what you see" means drawing strictly on the basis of
visual input with no effort made to analyze or interpret
what you see. A hand or a shoulder is just shapes of
light and dark, not an anatomical component of a biological
entity with bones and muscles, etc
The classic "draw what you see" book is _Drawing on the
Right Side of the Brain_, so titled because the LEFT side
of the brain is where all the logical analysis takes place.
The book is full of exercises to break down one's natural
tendency to try to "understand" one's subject, such as
drawing upside down.
As an engineer I'm very "left brained"
I tend to resist the draw-what-you-see approach, but there's no
question that certain beginner-student drawing problems such
as proportion and perspective and much improved in my case
when I take that approach.
---peter
peter nelson
<76ckqi$8rk4$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>Hi, Peter. I'm an art student myself, so I might not speak with as great
>authority as a "made" artist, but I think I can cut to the quick of your
>dilemma with a fair amount of confidence. My answer is that I think you've
>probably theorized about this issue as much as is going to do you any good.
But it's MORE than a theoretical problem. Every time I'm standing
there with the model in front of me I have to decide which approach
to take because you START OFF totally differently with the the two methods.
With a "draw what you see" approach you pick some dominant
lines or shadows to start with, and typically you start at
the outside and work inward. There's no thought that you're
drawing a person - it could just be an abstract shape like
a crumpled paper bag used in student exercises.
With an anatomical construction approach you might start
with a stick figure skeleton: the spine, some lines connecting
the shoulders for the clavicles and scapulae the pelvic girdle,
femurs, etc. Once you have the basic gesture and you've filled
in some skin and muscles, you repeat this process for details -
with the head you sketch the skull and jaw for reference even if
you have to draw the skin and hair over it afterwards, ditto with the
hands.
(Another common construction approach is to see the figure
as a collection of geometric shapes - cylinders, spheres, etc)
So . . .
Maybe the question I should ask is: do most experienced,
succesful figure artists stick with one approach to start their
drawing or do they take different approaches each time, i.e,
construction for a standing nude of a slim model (i.e., one
where anatomic reference points are visible) and a draw-what-
you-see approach for heavy models, or ones where the
pose produces abstract shapes (e.g., where the model
is curled into a ball or heavily foreshortened)?
---peter
Bob C
>
> "Drawing what you see" means drawing strictly on the basis of
> visual input with no effort made to analyze or interpret
> what you see. A hand or a shoulder is just shapes of
> light and dark, not an anatomical component of a biological
> entity with bones and muscles, etc
>
> The classic "draw what you see" book is _Drawing on the
> Right Side of the Brain_, so titled because the LEFT side
> of the brain is where all the logical analysis takes place.
> The book is full of exercises to break down one's natural
> tendency to try to "understand" one's subject, such as
> drawing upside down.
>
I started to go through the book, but never made it past the first
chapter. The author uses the entire first chapter to try to convince you
that you should take their system seriously but never actually says
anything about the system and uses only anecdotal evidence as support of
why it works. It read just like an Amway sales pitch and it worked in
reverse on me. I would never have started reading except that I thought
it was something to be taken seriously, but then the first chapter did
everything possible to convince me otherwise, so I never made it any
further.
With that in mind, I may not be really understanding that type of "draw
what you see", but I think I'm close. And although this may be splitting
hairs, I think that what it is really happening is that we are replacing
one type of seeing with another. Instead of seeing a face or a body, we
choose to see the shapes created by the lights and shadows. But the
first type of "seeing" is actually the type of seeing we do
instinctively; it's the second type of seeing which we have to learn how
to do.
When I was in a class drawing several portraits a week and sketching
skulls and skeletons at the same time, I eventually learned to "see" a
persons skull when looking at them. Initially, I just used my knowledge
of skull structure as a way of getting a portrait started when I wasn't
having any luck creating the proper relationships out of lights and
shadows. Eventually, however, I began to be able to actually see the
skull in the head which I was rendering. I would occasionally see
someone in public without even trying I would realize that I had a
mental image of their skull in my mind and be thinking about how I would
draw it. I really believe I was "seeing" the skull just as much as I am
able to see the shapes created by light and shadow.
By studying the structure of something (such as anatomy or perspective),
you can learn to see things that you couldn't see before. This is why I
tend to get turned off by phrases such as "draw what you see". I think
there are many different ways of seeing, some of them innate and some
which must be learned, none of them any more "seeing" then the other.
- Bob C.
Bob C
>
> With a "draw what you see" approach you pick some dominant
> lines or shadows to start with, and typically you start at
> the outside and work inward. There's no thought that you're
> drawing a person - it could just be an abstract shape like
> a crumpled paper bag used in student exercises.
I think in most cases you still start from the inside and work your way
out. It's usually a good exercise for a beginner not to add any edges or
outlines to a drawing until they've actually defined the lines using
areas of values or colors alone. Then you can add them for emphasis.
> Maybe the question I should ask is: do most experienced,
> succesful figure artists stick with one approach to start their
> drawing or do they take different approaches each time, i.e,
> construction for a standing nude of a slim model (i.e., one
> where anatomic reference points are visible) and a draw-what-
> you-see approach for heavy models, or ones where the
> pose produces abstract shapes (e.g., where the model
> is curled into a ball or heavily foreshortened)?
>
I've known very competent artists who almost always use the same
approach to get started, but the ones who can lay claim to the title of
"experienced successful figure artists" all tell me that they approach
each figure with no preconceived notions about how they will get
started. I tend to vary my own approach (and I'm not an experienced
successful figure artist), but I think it is as much a matter of what
mood I'm in as it is of how I'm responding to the subject.
- Bob C.
Andy Pearlman
Steve Lieber wrote:
> In article <36898699...@mail.idt.net>, apea...@mail.idt.net wrote:
> In other words, line defines construction. One can trick it up, by adding
> weight to a line to increase the illusion of light hitting the form, or to
> add decorative interest, but I've always understood "pure line" to refer to
> the diagramatic aspect of drawing, with no tone present at all. A Franklin
> Booth drawing is comprised of nothing but pen and ink lines, but it
> wouldn't be a "line drawing." The lines in a Booth are defining tones
> moving across the surface of forms, rather than simple construction.
If you abstract the line fully, to the level of say Jackson Pollack - he uses line
in a way that people often see forms that are perhaps intended, perhaps not.
It is possible to use a line in such a way, usually in a fluid, abstract manner,
that a line gives a sense of light or shadow of the surrounding area - without
tone. If I wanted to convey a sunsplashed area as an example.
mdeli
>Of all the books on drawing hands, probably the Bridgeman book willdo
>the least harm. You may learn his schema only to unlearnthem later,but
>they won't ge too much in the way.
Bridgeman's problem was that he couldn't complete anything. His books
are all rough sketches. At least he has a concept of form. However,
his form is flawed and he has little concept of how perspective comes
into drawing the figure.
>I did not teach in a typical art
>department. When we were at our best 3/4 oif the artists in it were
>figurative. Wew ranged from a detailed extraordinarily facile
>draftsman through to a post Matissean one. One thing we all agreed on
>was how terrible the Loomis book was.
Of course anyone who admires a fumbleklotz like Matisse and Cezanne
and paints colored fuzz would poo-poo Loomis.
Loomis' books contain information. He instructs on all the technical
elements necessary for realistic drawing. His books are excellent and
hint at all necessary knowledge.
However Loomis painted pin-ups which is something Picassoid can't
tolerate. Therefore they reject Loomis' formal teaching because they
don't like his subject matter. For Picasoids, if it looks fuzzy like
Bridgman that's sort of OK. But if you stress technique and detail its
a no-no.
> I can also remember my first
>teach Isaac Soyer [Kid brother to the others] suggestun that I buy the
>anatomy book of his old teacher at Cooper, Victor Perard. That is
>another terrible book. Also, why study hands separately from the rest
>of the body. We all need shcema for arms, leags, feet shoulders the
>face and head and of course the body.
Anatomy is form. If you don't learn to draw form, nothing will help,
Anatomy is among the most difficult forms to draw because of its
complexity and familiarity. If you draw an apple or a tree reasonably
no on can say its off, But if you draw a face and the nose is off, its
obvious to everyone. The modern way of dealing with this is to schmier
out any hint at detail, whatever subject you try to draw. Just look
at Gabriel's work.
Doctors know more anatomy than artists and most can't draw beans.
By the way another excellent source is the manuals of the "Famous
Artists Course." You won't find them in most art school libraries as
these are run by artzy-fartzies who make sure anything that hints at
illustration is carefully kept from the Modern Academic student.
Perusing this sort of heresy might get some students to figure out
what idiots their teachers really are.
The worst book on drawing is the ever popular "Natural way to draw" by
Nicholaides. Its good to look at the student drawings he puts in as
examples. If you want to draw that badly follow his teaching its a
road to failure.
Of course I am all for artists who can't draw. The less artists who
know their craft, the more work for those who do.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Rodney J Anderson
Bob C wrote in message <368A56...@erols.com>...
>
>I've known very competent artists who almost always use the same
>approach to get started, but the ones who can lay claim to the title of
>"experienced successful figure artists" all tell me that they approach
>each figure with no preconceived notions about how they will get
>started. I tend to vary my own approach (and I'm not an experienced
>successful figure artist), but I think it is as much a matter of what
>mood I'm in as it is of how I'm responding to the subject.
>
tend to just pick a place I *want* to start -- a line that looks
particularly beautiful, generally a torso line, and work out from there. I
might note also that the first drawing I make of any given figure is always
bad. So I start a drawing session with several small, quick studies to try
to work out the problems(finding forms and contours, etc.); thus, they're
not completely new to me when I start in on the detailed drawing. So, to
get back to your subject, this process of experimental sketching generally
leads me to decide what approach (what combination of "knowing" and
"seeing") I need to take in the detailed drawing.
By the way, sorry about the nuttiness of my prior post. I was already in a
agitated state when I read your message -- my better instincts told me I
should hold off and let my thoughts settle before replying, but, well, I
didn't listen to them. :-I
Steve Lieber
> I started to go through the book, but never made it past the first
> chapter. The author uses the entire first chapter to try to convince you
> that you should take their system seriously but never actually says
> anything about the system and uses only anecdotal evidence as support of
> why it works. It read just like an Amway sales pitch and it worked in
> reverse on me. I would never have started reading except that I thought
> it was something to be taken seriously, but then the first chapter did
> everything possible to convince me otherwise, so I never made it any
> further.
I was assigned most of the exercises in Drawing on the Right Side of the
Brain, way, way back in early high school, and I remember how well they
worked. I was exhausted and furious at what I thought was difficult and
pointless busy work, until my teacher, who I trusted, made it clear that
what we were doing was a sort of mental calisthenics, as useful to an
artist as leg lifts are to a dancer. I've watched students take remarkable
jumps in a very short time working with Edwards' methods (which all existed
long before her book, for what it's worth.) I haveve little or no interest
in the left brain-right brian notion, but the model she proposes seems
quite close to what I've observed in my own head while I'm working, and
other artists with whom I've discussed the matter tend to agree.
Steve Lieber
dropped the job description. It was starting to sound pompous.
Steve Lieber
(mdeli) wrote:
> By the way another excellent source is the manuals of the "Famous
> Artists Course." You won't find them in most art school libraries as
> these are run by artzy-fartzies who make sure anything that hints at
> illustration is carefully kept from the Modern Academic student.
> Perusing this sort of heresy might get some students to figure out
> what idiots their teachers really are.
Heh. I don't know if I'd put it that harshly, although during my brief time
studying art at a university in Pennsylvania, I was unable to find an
instructor who was willing to teach me perspective.
Actually the reason you can't find the FAS books in art school libraries
anywhere is because they tend to get stolen by students hungry for solid
academic information. Same with the Loomis books. Since they're (largely)
out of print, they're irreplaceable. Most libraries that still have copies
of these books don't allow them to circulate.
Some of the lessons from the FAS books have been recycled in a book on the
figure compiled by Walt Reed of Illustration House. One of the Loomis books
reappeared ten years ago in an edition published by North Light. Everything
else requires long hours of searching through used and rare book dealers.
Book searches aren't much help. The demand for these far, far excedes the
supply.
(And as an aside to Gabriel- if you know of anyone who'd like to dispose of
any "useless" Loomis books, please email me. I know dozens of working
artists who'd be quite happy to pay a fair price for them.)
Steve Lieber
Steve Lieber
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> But it's MORE than a theoretical problem. Every time I'm standing
> there with the model in front of me I have to decide which approach
> to take because you START OFF totally differently with the the two methods.
Robert Fawcett, in his book "On the Art of Drawing" advises artists to know
*why* they are making a drawing.
If you are drawing as preparation for a painting, take careful note of the
behavior of light and shadow, the planes that make up the surface of the
figure, the weight of the model. and the subtleties you see that you'll
want in the painting. Try to put down everything you'd need to make a
painting. Search for the form, circle things out the get a better feel for
the bulges and hollows, then draw the form again with an eye for light.
Keep in mind that the drawing is not a complete work, but rather a series
of notes for future use.
If you're drawing to learn anatomy, concentrate on the deep construction.
Identify the bony landmarks and prominent muscles and tendons, teach
yourself to sort out fatty tissue from muscle, and how to distinguish a
smear of dirt on the hip from the shadow beneath the great trochanter.
Treat the model as a source of information about the body's construction,
(both geometric and anatomical) and try to produce a drawing that is a
clear statement of your understanding of that information.
If you're drawing to produce a polished "photographic" image, try putting
down a very light geometric construction. Note the large patterns of light
and shadow, block them in (lightly!) then start carefully observing light,
constantly comparing each area of tone to to its neighbors.
If you're drawing with expression in mind, you're probably getting ahead of
yourself at this point. If you (and that's the generic "you," not
specifically you, Peter) have to ask how to distort expressively, you don't
have any business doing it yet.
With all of these, it's important to keep your mind and spirit open and
allow yourself to be surprised by what you see. Without this openness, no
learning can take place, and the drawings won't, for lack of a better term,
come to life.
mdeli
Large snip
>I've known very competent artists who almost always use the same
>approach to get started, but the ones who can lay claim to the title of
>"experienced successful figure artists" all tell me that they approach
>each figure with no preconceived notions about how they will get
>started. I tend to vary my own approach (and I'm not an experienced
>successful figure artist), but I think it is as much a matter of what
>mood I'm in as it is of how I'm responding to the subject.
The important thing is what the picture looks like when it is
finished. No one gives a damn what approach you used.
mdeli
>In article <368a4b5e...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
>(mdeli) wrote:
>
>> By the way another excellent source is the manuals of the "Famous
>> Artists Course." You won't find them in most art school libraries as
>> these are run by artzy-fartzies who make sure anything that hints at
>> illustration is carefully kept from the Modern Academic student.
>> Perusing this sort of heresy might get some students to figure out
>> what idiots their teachers really are.
>
>Heh. I don't know if I'd put it that harshly,
So how would you put it?
>... although during my brief time
>studying art at a university in Pennsylvania, I was unable to find an
>instructor who was willing to teach me perspective.
Is that the reason it was brief?
Imagine you went to a music school and no instructor would teach you
the scales. Instead they all give you a page of notes and said play.
That's present day art teaching.
Here the students gather round and a nude model gets up on the stand.
The teacher gives you some convoluted aphorisms and everyone schmiers
away. Most couldn't even draw a copy of the drawing instrument they
are holding. Once in a while everyone hangs up their horrible results
and the teacher says some polite things in order to get the students
to continue paying for the privilege of learning practically nothing.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so "harsh" as to call the teachers idiots..
Perhaps its really the students who are the idiots. After all the
teachers are getting paid for their attendance. If the students had
any brains they could save their money, stay at home and try to draw
peeled bananas.
>
>Actually the reason you can't find the FAS books in art school libraries
>anywhere is because they tend to get stolen by students hungry for solid
>academic information. Same with the Loomis books. Since they're (largely)
>out of print, they're irreplaceable. Most libraries that still have copies
>of these books don't allow them to circulate.
>
>Some of the lessons from the FAS books have been recycled in a book on the
>figure compiled by Walt Reed of Illustration House. One of the Loomis books
>reappeared ten years ago in an edition published by North Light. Everything
>else requires long hours of searching through used and rare book dealers.
>Book searches aren't much help. The demand for these far, far excedes the
>supply.
>
>(And as an aside to Gabriel- if you know of anyone who'd like to dispose of
>any "useless" Loomis books, please email me. I know dozens of working
>artists who'd be quite happy to pay a fair price for them.)
Steve Lieber
(mdeli) wrote:
> (Steve Lieber) wrote:
>
> >In article <368a4b5e...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
> >(mdeli) wrote:
> >
> >> By the way another excellent source is the manuals of the "Famous
> >> Artists Course." You won't find them in most art school libraries as
> >> these are run by artzy-fartzies who make sure anything that hints at
> >> illustration is carefully kept from the Modern Academic student.
> >> Perusing this sort of heresy might get some students to figure out
> >> what idiots their teachers really are.
> >
> >Heh. I don't know if I'd put it that harshly,
>
> So how would you put it?
As I said in my post, I don't think they're carefully keeping students away
from this sort of instruction. I think the sudents are stealing the books,
and the libraries aren't able to find replacement copies. (This theft
problem isn't something I'm just pulling out of thin air. I've heard it
from fa half dozen different library systems, for what its worth.)
I've known a few art teachers who were quite accomplished realist painters
who learned under that vague system and genuinely believe it's a better way
to learn, particularly where color is concerned. I'm primarily a commercial
artist and almost always have to work without models, so I was very glad to
get instruction that gave me a precise set of problem solving tools, and
left the personal side of art entirely in my own hands. If expression and
creating my own visual and symbolic language had been my absolute priority,
I might've been better off under teachers who insisted I learn by looking
and feeling rather than by applying formulae. Everything I've read about
Howard Pyle for instance, suggests that he was opposed to teaching academic
technique, yet one can hardly claim that his work, or that of his students,
suffered for it.
Vvvv999
trick of mickey mouse. a circle for the palm and the fingers . 4 or five
whatever
zi...@interport.net
Dear Folks,
I have missed most ofthis conversation by email. But I have also found
Gombirch's terminology very useful. But he is not an artist. He just
provides terms of reference. It is amazing to realize that Constable's
supposedly most free, wild cloud paintings were often based on
pictures of clouds in artists 'schema' books by that guy who invented
the blottesque method. I cannot get his name right now.
But you have both gotten down to a dichotomy in drawing which is
something quite historical, but not quite right in terms of nineteenth
century practice after the mid 1850s. It really is the Rubenistes
versus the Poussinistes! Painterly and volume and shape oriented
versus linear and edge oriented. Well in the 19th century that was
seriously transformed
A woman artist whose name I am also not getting today, but who was
influenced by Delacroix and Gericault made up a new national
curriculum for teaching drawing which was approved and instituted by
the state. In it she substituted for the current practice teaching to
draw by using outlines filled with a series of lines which changed
direction and were some times curved, to develop the forms, a practive
of using parallel lines only to develop shapes of tone against the
outlkines.. This was a clear win for the Rubenistes.
But later in the century, Van Gogh's brother who was a salesman for
Goupil began selling a new Coupil drawing course. Goupil was himself a
painter in the academic tradition and seems to have made up the
courses he sold, himself. This course had a series of drawings which
the student was to copy in which the gesture of the figure was
paramoun and tha shape made by gesturing was paramount. Albert
[Alfred?] Bpoime the art historian at UCLA whose name has not bewen
inmy head for a couple of days wrote an amazing article about what
happened next. This drawings which simplified and intensified the
shapes of figures gesturing were copied by both Van Gogh and Seurat
[separately, neither knew the other was doing this]. Boime found some
of the Van Gogh drawings and also letters toTheo about the work. He
said that he thought that copying those drawings had made his
landscapes[!] better. The influence of them is all over Seurat's
work.
So late 19th century work was influenced first by the official changes
in the French curriculum in grade school and high school and then by
popular drawings courses, and finally by the work of masters who had
been influenced by them. Modern drawing, in the main, as taught in
serious and reasonable places has followed from the late nineteenth
century methods. How does this connect up with ypour discussion?
Well, I think youhave been leaving out the effectof gesture and shape
[even silhouette] as a source of modern ways of thinking about not
only the figure but everything. AND the idea of getting the true core
of what you are looking at - an expressionist and an abstract idea -
can be seen in a late nineteenth centgury commercial drawing course,
before painters were even doing it!
This stuff all blows my mind. That is why I am putting it down. Not
because I disagree with you. I just think there has been siuch a
strange and wonderful path to the good things which are possible
today. I think being able to be responsive to gesture, to suggest
rather than noodle, is wonderful. For those artists it was freeing.
For some younger artists, now, the revers -studying anatomy, working
out how forms flow from eahc other and make a whole might also be
freeing. But it is strange that so many contrary things can be alive
and well at the same time.
Sincerely,
Gabriel
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 02:19:13 +0000, Andy Pearlman
<apea...@mail.idt.net> wrote:
>
>
>Bob C wrote:
>
>> Andy Pearlman wrote:
>> > That's not really what drawing what you see is. The two methods can really be
>> > boiled down to this:
>> > a - Constructing a mechanically accurate figure, then filling in the shading.
>> > b - Creating interesting lights and shadows, then possibly drawing in the
>> > lines that would be there.
zi...@interport.net
I think I gave you guys a historical context for this.
But you are bringing up a new problem. If you don'y know/feel what it
is you want to do and you don't know/feel why -then you are not an
artist but either a hack [you can do whatever people like] or a
student [you don't know what you want/like/must do]. The real
question, ultimately is how do you develop your own voice.By the way I
did not dsay a new voice I said your voice.
Believing in the new as the summum bonum is a weird little historical
quirk of about a hunder and fifty years of some of the artists
interests. Look around you. Did the Egyptians believe int he New? Did
trhe Northwest Coast artists? Did the Chinese? Did Ingres? If
delacroix and Gericault di, why did they spend so much of their own
time gojng to the Louvre to paint from old p[aintings -the dominant
activity in their lives for many years. Did the Greeks really believe
in the new? What a problem when so many people have braimnwashed
themselves into believing in something which, if it is any good will
come naturally, or not at all.
Forced newness is like bad cooking. The parts don't hang together and
mean anything, it tastes awful. Ther eis a jumble and a mess. Most of
you are too young to remember "semi-abstract Art" That was work by
conservative ly trained people TRYING TO BE NEW. It always felt as
though the new was grafted on to something old and neithr made any
sense. The wqeird thing is that their have been many isms since then
which I read as semiabstract or as semi smoething else. But never as
an artist who truly came up with something his/her own while looking
for themselves.
Gabriel
On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 09:25:22 -0500, "peter nelson"
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>Rodney J Anderson wrote in message
><76ckqi$8rk4$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>...
>
>>Hi, Peter. I'm an art student myself, so I might not speak with as great
>>authority as a "made" artist, but I think I can cut to the quick of your
>>dilemma with a fair amount of confidence. My answer is that I think you've
>>probably theorized about this issue as much as is going to do you any good.
>
>But it's MORE than a theoretical problem. Every time I'm standing
>there with the model in front of me I have to decide which approach
>to take because you START OFF totally differently with the the two methods.
>
>With a "draw what you see" approach you pick some dominant
>lines or shadows to start with, and typically you start at
>the outside and work inward. There's no thought that you're
>drawing a person - it could just be an abstract shape like
>a crumpled paper bag used in student exercises.
>
>With an anatomical construction approach you might start
>with a stick figure skeleton: the spine, some lines connecting
>the shoulders for the clavicles and scapulae the pelvic girdle,
>femurs, etc. Once you have the basic gesture and you've filled
>in some skin and muscles, you repeat this process for details -
>with the head you sketch the skull and jaw for reference even if
>you have to draw the skin and hair over it afterwards, ditto with the
>hands.
>
>(Another common construction approach is to see the figure
>as a collection of geometric shapes - cylinders, spheres, etc)
>
>So . . .
>
>Maybe the question I should ask is: do most experienced,
>succesful figure artists stick with one approach to start their
>drawing or do they take different approaches each time, i.e,
>construction for a standing nude of a slim model (i.e., one
>where anatomic reference points are visible) and a draw-what-
>you-see approach for heavy models, or ones where the
>pose produces abstract shapes (e.g., where the model
>is curled into a ball or heavily foreshortened)?
>
>
>
>---peter
>
>
>
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
How and why to draw
******************
The discussion started from a student question
"what is best way to learn". Recently BobC and
especially (zita) Gabriel pointed out the
meaning, what to express in drawing.
The original question of Peter I read as
- is it better to begin with constuctive
synthesis of parts and shapes, either anatomical or
geometrical)
or
- with analytical dissection of shapes and lines.
There lies a hidden presumption that both could lead
to the same end result, in terms of a complete etude and
in terms of a learning experience. That I doubt, althoug both lead
to a decent representational skill.
to produce a drawing;
If you begin with synthesis, you must have the freedom
to pose your model to force it into the Form (in Mark's sense).
If you begin with analytic "what you see", you must have the freedom
to distort the forms and lines to fit into the form.
As a learning experience;
Synthesis provides you with constructive tools, for illustrative
work based on a storyboard
The analysis provides you with a sense of light and shadow,
flow and rhytm of lines. It seems also to give a faster start.
Bob C said 30/12:
> ... the ones that can lay claim to the title of
> "experienced succesful figure artists" all tell me that they approach
> each figure with no preconcive notions...
> (snip)
> I tend to vary my own approach (snip), but I think it as much a matter
> what mood I'm in as it is of how I,m responding to the subject.
Here we have a testimonial that both ways work and BOTH are needed.
Bob C 30/12:
> ... and although this may be splitting hairs, I think that we are
> replacing one type of seeing with another...
> (snip)
> ... I really believe I was "seeing" the skull just as much as I am
> able to see the shapes created by light and shadow.
Now, in strict physiological sense, we see nothing! What happens is
that we build an image of the world. Only part of it is based
on the light falling into our eyes. The rest is based on our knowledge,
expectations and mood. As Bob mentioned we can decide very much
what we are looking for, and that is what we really see.
Then again, in the drawing we have to decide what we intend to show,
and then find the means. This was beatifully narrated in Gabriel's (zita)
reference of Poussian and Rubenist view.
( Here I finally have the opportunity tho thank Gabriel
and apologize my behavour when I was a neophyte in this NG.
I have felt guilty all the time. -lauri)
Andy Pearlman 30/12:
> I think that usually I just relax and use the model as a reference to
> what I want to happen. SOmetimes that will mean intense realism,
> sometimes that means just abstract color patterns
> (snip)
> I know that propably sounds horribly evasive, but when things are
> going well, I dont break it down into components. Things just happens.
Once more about the WHY of drawing, and a motion of mood Bob C mentioned
above.
For me drawing a figure is drawing life. Sometimes I see the life in the
rhytm of lines, sometimes in the softness of skin and shadows.
The mood is something I am studying now. I have some Zen experiences
how a drawing takes place through me. Just one speacial night, I felt the
freedom to do anything.
We had a young boy as a model. I drew a line drawing (it is on my veb page),
no corrections, just like that. Next I decided to work with halftones only, no
lines.
I made three good (as relative my usual standard) drawings that evening. All
intentionally as different as possible technically.
Everytime I did know all the time that I'll succeed.
We cannot afford to wait the proper mood, however. There must be techniques
to get into it. For me Betty Edward's book has hinted some. One method I have
found useful is, that when I get stuck, I try something different. Replace
charcoal with pencil, try ink and brush or conte on colored paper.
Shift from line to volume, from surface to siluette.
Gabriel (Zita) 30/12:
> Well, I think youhave been leaving out the effectof gesture and shape
> [even silhouette] as a source of modern ways of thinking about not
> only the figure but everything. AND the idea of getting the true core
> of what you are looking at - an expressionist and an abstract idea -
> can be seen in a late nineteenth centgury commercial drawing course,
> before painters were even doing it!
(snip)
> ... I think being able to be responsive to gesture, to suggest
> rather than noodle, is wonderful. For those artists it was freeing.
Art is very much a question of creative exstasis and control.
Sometimes when I concentrate my control to the technique,
more creativity is liberated. Can anyone tell more about
different mood techniques.
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Larry Seiler
> succesful figure artists stick with one approach to start their
> drawing or do they take different approaches each time, i.e,
> construction for a standing nude of a slim model (i.e., one
> where anatomic reference points are visible) and a draw-what-
> you-see approach for heavy models, or ones where the
> pose produces abstract shapes (e.g., where the model
> is curled into a ball or heavily foreshortened)?
> ---peter
Peter...first of all...I got to say I laughed at a number of things Rodney
had said in an affirmative I agree manner. (funny stuff Rodney!).
But..the longer you live..the more tools you add....the more drawings
you've finished....the less you try to think it all through, and the more
you begin to trust your instincts. When you have 10 drawings behind
you....you look at the three that are quite good, and try to remember what
you've done. It gives you enough faith that you CAN do it...and you do 10
more drawings. Now in those new ones, you've discovered a couple things
that now make the three you liked in the first ten obsolete...and nearly
embarrassing to think you thought they were good! hahaha...
So you draw ten more....and then ten more, and this feeling of insecurity
continues to rear its ugly head, and you continuously look back at
completed drawings to arouse some courage to face the beast and scream "I
DID GOOD BEFORE....I'LL DO SOME GOOD ONES AGAIN!" Then with shaky hands,
pick up your cup of java and enjoy a good long sip.
You pick up this book....pick up that one..try this AND that. After 20
years goes by....there are some books you just don't bother picking up
anymore...and wonder why you thought they were good to begin with?
Ahh...now you are growing into your own sense of "how-to".
When I first started drawing life models...I was concerned with structure.
I mean, it is like going on a long trip without a map. You'll have to stop
27 times to get directions. But...the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th time out you stop
less and less. A word from the prof....seeing other students work.
Getting command of your tools, and second guessing if they are the right
tools. Heck...now give me anything....a carpenter's marking
crayon....piece of charred stick from a fire pit.....don't matter.
You get older.....enough work completed.....the beast' voice grows quieter,
and waits for other moments to harass you like meeting deadlines or
something!
My approach now typically with any 2D work is to squint my eyes to hide the
details from my nature to want to imitate. I see the forms.....but more
specifically I look to see what negative space would reveal to me. I'm
finding these days what goes on around the form is easier to duplicate or
understand than what inner construct molds the shape.
Whatever you work with long enough, becomes part of you.
Speaking of one book I do want to get out is a portrait "how to" for High
School, which is a simple 10 page laminated step by step process beginning
with the eyes and working out. It was based on some cadaver studies I
studied that Leonoardo Da Vinci wrote a great deal about.
I'll simply say this without revealing too much of it (because of you other
greedy plagerists out there!).....there are standard relationships that go
on, and knowing these helps see where the unique things about each person
stands out.
For example....on a typical European caucasion descendent...the length of
the eyes equals the distance between the eyes, equals the width of the
nose; the distance from pupil to pupil equals the length of the nose...the
ear...and the mouth...and from mid closed mouth to bottom of chin.
(right now people are out there all over with the hands frantically moving
about their faces!.....hahahaha...).
After awhile....adhering with great mental faculties to focus on whatever
will help you becomes in time second nature and part of you. Eventually
little regard to it is necessary and you flow. In fact, the only time I
think about it now is when another watching says, "how'd you just do that?"
Be encouraged Peter.....!
Larry
Larry Seiler
my art web site at- http://cwinc.net/larryseiler
"Art attacks can skill!"
Marilyn
Hi Larry,
The above could be the forward to your book.
Now stop laughing and get it together, man.
Marilyn
Bob C
>
> The mood is something I am studying now. I have some Zen experiences
> how a drawing takes place through me. Just one speacial night, I felt the
> freedom to do anything.
> We had a young boy as a model. I drew a line drawing (it is on my veb page),
> no corrections, just like that. Next I decided to work with halftones only, no
> lines.
> I made three good (as relative my usual standard) drawings that evening. All
> intentionally as different as possible technically.
> Everytime I did know all the time that I'll succeed.
In that case, you're very lucky. It seems like every time I start out I
do so with the fear that I won't succeed. In fact, the more confident I
am when I start, the worse I usually end up doing. I think I do much of
my best work when I have to fish around for something which finally
clicks.
What I really hate is when I get halfway through a work which is going
better than expected and I become afraid to even touch it for fear that
I can't keep up the level I was maintaining and that I'll just end up
ruining it. In most cases there really is a certain quality of the half
finished work that you have to sacrifice to get to a finished one, and
it's always painful to make that sacrifice even when you know its well
worth it.
I try to keep enough projects going at once so that at I'll find the
time to be in the mood to work on at least one of them every day. But
I'll probably never become a professional because it's simply too
difficult for me to get into the mood to work for more than 2 hours in a
typical day. As wonderful and fulfilling as it may be, it's still work
to me. So I guess I'm in no position to be telling anyone anything about
mood techniques!
- Bob C.
mdeli
Lieber) wrote:
>As I said in my post, I don't think they're carefully keeping students away
>from this sort of instruction. I think the sudents are stealing the books,
>and the libraries aren't able to find replacement copies. (This theft
>problem isn't something I'm just pulling out of thin air. I've heard it
>from fa half dozen different library systems, for what its worth.)
I bet if you really research the matter you will find that the books
were missing for years. The fact is that they can be replaced.
>
>I've known a few art teachers who were quite accomplished realist painters
>who learned under that vague system and genuinely believe it's a better way
>to learn, particularly where color is concerned. I'm primarily a commercial
>artist and almost always have to work without models, so I was very glad to
>get instruction that gave me a precise set of problem solving tools, and
>left the personal side of art entirely in my own hands. If expression and
>creating my own visual and symbolic language had been my absolute priority,
>I might've been better off under teachers who insisted I learn by looking
>and feeling rather than by applying formulae.
If you could draw better your work would be better.
>Everything I've read about
>Howard Pyle for instance, suggests that he was opposed to teaching academic
>technique, yet one can hardly claim that his work, or that of his students,
>suffered for it.
>
He did. I find his work second rate.
mdeli
snip
>to produce a drawing;
>If you begin with synthesis, you must have the freedom
>to pose your model to force it into the Form (in Mark's sense).
>If you begin with analytic "what you see", you must have the freedom
>to distort the forms and lines to fit into the form.
>
>As a learning experience;
>Synthesis provides you with constructive tools, for illustrative
>work based on a storyboard The analysis provides you with a sense of light and shadow,
>flow and rhytm of lines. It seems also to give a faster start.
>
If you ever hear this sort of murky babble coming from your teacher,
get another teacher.
>Now, in strict physiological sense, we see nothing!
Perhaps you might see, no visit, an eye doctor.
>For me drawing a figure is drawing life. Sometimes I see the life in the
>rhytm of lines, sometimes in the softness of skin and shadows.
>
>The mood is something I am studying now. I have some Zen experiences
>how a drawing takes place through me. Just one speacial night, I felt the
>freedom to do anything.
Any books on studying "mood?" What sort of moods have you come up
with.?
>We had a young boy as a model. I drew a line drawing (it is on my veb page),
>no corrections, just like that. Next I decided to work with halftones only, no
>lines.
>I made three good (as relative my usual standard) drawings that evening. All
>intentionally as different as possible technically.
>Everytime I did know all the time that I'll succeed.
At what?
>We cannot afford to wait the proper mood, however. There must be techniques
>to get into it. For me Betty Edward's book has hinted some. One method I have
>found useful is, that when I get stuck, I try something different. Replace
>charcoal with pencil, try ink and brush or conte on colored paper.
>Shift from line to volume, from surface to siluette.
This advice should be a big help for all those who can't draw.
>Art is very much a question of creative exstasis and control.
>Sometimes when I concentrate my control to the technique,
>more creativity is liberated. Can anyone tell more about
>different mood techniques.
>
Hope your working to improve your "exstasis," in order to liberate
your creativity. It might help improve the third rate work on your
web page. And then again it might not.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
(snip)
> It might help improve the third rate work on your
> web page. And then again it might not.
Thanks Mani, for the compliment.
Knowing your criteria, third grade
is not so far from artworks.
- lauri
Barbara Craig
I have FAC books. It is old and was given to be 2 years agon by an uncle.
I am teaching myself art.
Just a not to say I have a set of 4.
> (Steve Lieber) wrote:
>
> >In article <368a4b5e...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
> >(mdeli) wrote:
> >
> >> By the way another excellent source is the manuals of the "Famous
> >> Artists Course." You won't find them in most art school libraries as
> >> these are run by artzy-fartzies who make sure anything that hints at
> >> illustration is carefully kept from the Modern Academic student.
> >> Perusing this sort of heresy might get some students to figure out
> >> what idiots their teachers really are.
> >
> >Heh. I don't know if I'd put it that harshly,
>
> So how would you put it?
>
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
>
>
Peace and Prosperity
Saavik
Barb
mdeli
>>Howard Pyle for instance, suggests that he was opposed to teaching academic
>>technique, yet one can hardly claim that his work, or that of his students,
>>suffered for it.
>>
>He did. I find his work second rate.
>
Many top artists and illustrators of this time studied at the Academy
Julian. Speaking of drawing instruction books, they divide into two
categories: actual drawing instruction and sample drawings. Most
drawing present day instruction books are realty sets of lousey sample
drawings with very little of instructional value.
The Julian Academy issued a lithograph set to academic sample
drawings. I believe they were done by Cognier (I'm sure the spelling
is incorrect)
They are hauntingly beautiful. They are often used on book covers and
illustration. The only copy of these plates I have ever seen were in
the NY Public Library 42nd st.
I wish all those who think that Picasso Cezanne or Matisse were good
draftsman on the basis of their academic skills could see these
lithographs and compare. You will never see anything like this
reproduced by our present day books written
make-believe-art-historians.