art classes
Anthony Myers usenet personality
just as much by drawing dressed people? Art related learning, I mean. I can see
how you might learn other non-art stuff.
..........
Thank you for not sodomizing me.
John Hatpin
>In art classes why do they have the students draw nudes? Couldn't you learn
>just as much by drawing dressed people? Art related learning, I mean. I can see
>how you might learn other non-art stuff.
It's in the curves and shapes, sinews and fat, the underlying form
that clothes hide.
I mean, do you want to draw people, or draw their clothes? To do
human representation properly, you need to be able to draw the people.
This is why Renaissance artists spent so much time in morgues,
studying corpses, before going out and painting portraits of
finely-clothed aristocrats. Those guys knew a bicep from a tricep.
--
John Hatpin
Rich Clancey
>In art classes why do they have the students draw nudes? Couldn't you learn
just as much by drawing dressed people? Art related learning, I mean. I can see
how you might learn other non-art stuff.
The human figure is one of the most difficult things to draw,
and, based on my experience so far, nearly impossible to paint. Every
time an artist begins to get confident in a medium, it's time to go
back to the nude and see how much you really know. Conversely,
depicting the nude for a few months of classes, even if the results
are not too impressive, will make everything else seem easy, so when
you go back home and draw architecture, or flowers or something, you
find you have made a lot of progress by tackling the more difficult
subject.
Many artists or artistical hobbiests, including myself, return
to life drawing or painting classes regularly to avoid overconfidence,
and keep that sense of struggling with the impossible alive.
I've also often contemplated the fact that life drawing has
been kept alive through many a Puritanical era when the body was
otherwise shunned and loathed (just think of those Victorian Bathing
Costumes). It's important for society as a whole that the distinction
between sex and nudity, which have no real relation to each other, be
kept alive by somebody, and the artists have performed this service.
Nowadays we don't think of artists as contributing to mental health,
but I think they have by celebrating the non-sexual aspects of the
beauty of the body, which tend to get overwhelmed and ignored in
people's minds due to the obsession with sex in Western culture.
>..........
>Thank you for not sodomizing me.
It was a pleasure. Let's get together and not do that again real soon.
--
rich clancey
The troublesome ones in a family are usually either
the wits or the idiots. -- George Eliot
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>Anthony Myers usenet personality done wrote:
>>In art classes why do they have the students draw nudes? Couldn't you learn
>just as much by drawing dressed people? Art related learning, I mean. I can
>see
>how you might learn other non-art stuff.
>
> The human figure is one of the most difficult things to draw,
>and, based on my experience so far, nearly impossible to paint. Every
>time an artist begins to get confident in a medium, it's time to go
>back to the nude and see how much you really know. Conversely,
>depicting the nude for a few months of classes, even if the results
>are not too impressive, will make everything else seem easy, so when
>you go back home and draw architecture, or flowers or something, you
>find you have made a lot of progress by tackling the more difficult
>subject.
>
> Many artists or artistical hobbiests, including myself, return
>to life drawing or painting classes regularly to avoid overconfidence,
>and keep that sense of struggling with the impossible alive.
Plus, you know, you get to see someone naked for a couple few hours.
Bob Ward
Rhyme Animal) wrote:
Not all of us have to pay for the experience.
Anthony Myers usenet personality
>> Plus, you know, you get to see someone naked for a couple few hours.
>
>
>Not all of us have to pay for the experience.
>
hostages, you mean?
Sean Houtman
>
>In art classes why do they have the students draw nudes? Couldn't you learn
>just as much by drawing dressed people? Art related learning, I mean. I can
>see
>how you might learn other non-art stuff.
>
Cause for some of us it was our first opportunity to see a nekkid woman ever?
Really, it is because you can see the muscles and joints and stuff better, it
allows you to pay attention to how things are put together, so you know where
lines and shadows go.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 03-16-04 with 42 pictures of Chaco Canyon.
Address mungled. To email, please spite my face.
Poppy
"Sean Houtman" <seanh...@aol.comnose> wrote in message
news:20040726161148...@mb-m10.aol.com...
> From: anthony...@wmconnect.comhormel (Anthony Myers usenet
personality)
>
> >
> >In art classes why do they have the students draw nudes? Couldn't you
learn
> >just as much by drawing dressed people? Art related learning, I mean. I
can
> >see
> >how you might learn other non-art stuff.
> >
>
> Cause for some of us it was our first opportunity to see a nekkid woman
ever?
>
> Really, it is because you can see the muscles and joints and stuff better,
it
> allows you to pay attention to how things are put together, so you know
where
> lines and shadows go.
>
> Sean
>
Many art colleges require their students to take an anatomy class for this
same reason.
--Poppy
Rich Clancey
> Plus, you know, you get to see someone naked for a couple few hours.
The hilarious thing is that you are actually required to stare
intently at them, and if you let yourself be distracted, you are not
doing your job.
Rich Clancey
>Many art colleges require their students to take an anatomy class for this
>same reason.
I've never really agreed with this. The more you know the
better, of course, but I think it's more important to learn to "see",
and draw based on your perception, rather than draw what's "supposed
to be there". Originally it was the artists who taught the scientists
anatomy, and I think historically the association got reversed.
John Hatpin
>Poppy done wrote:
>
>>Many art colleges require their students to take an anatomy class for this
>>same reason.
>
> I've never really agreed with this. The more you know the
>better, of course, but I think it's more important to learn to "see",
>and draw based on your perception, rather than draw what's "supposed
>to be there". Originally it was the artists who taught the scientists
>anatomy, and I think historically the association got reversed.
What sort of things did the artists teach the scientists about
anatomy?
--
John Hatpin
Blinky the Shark
>>Poppy done wrote:
Because there weren't any photographs, they illustrated the medical
literature.
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
An Important Health Reminder http://snipurl.com/healthyshark
artyw
> Poppy done wrote:
>
> >Many art colleges require their students to take an anatomy class for this
> >same reason.
>
> I've never really agreed with this. The more you know the
> better, of course, but I think it's more important to learn to "see",
> and draw based on your perception, rather than draw what's "supposed
> to be there". Originally it was the artists who taught the scientists
> anatomy, and I think historically the association got reversed.
Art Frahm could have used a few science lessons...
huey.c...@gmail.com
> Rich Clancey <r...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote:
> > Poppy done wrote:
> > > Many art colleges require their students to take an anatomy class
> > > for this same reason.
> > I've never really agreed with this. The more you know the
> > better, of course, but I think it's more important to learn to "see",
> > and draw based on your perception, rather than draw what's "supposed
> > to be there". Originally it was the artists who taught the scientists
> > anatomy, and I think historically the association got reversed.
> Art Frahm could have used a few science lessons...
How do you figure? Women really _do_ love celery.
--
Huey
E Brown
And, apparently, really loose panties. He and Dave Stevens can draw
some legs though. In fact, the fictional universe I'd pick to live in
would be drawn by Dave Stevens.
The anatomy question comes up all the time in art classes I've
taken. Lots of artists managed a good representation of the human form
in detail before Da Vinci started carving people up. Every teacher has
pointed out that the differences are subtle in some cases, but always
there. One figure drawing class I took, the artist that directed it
(pony-tailed 70s type, little full of himself but knowledgeable) had
favorite examples to show the differences.
Emanuel
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote:
>> Rich Clancey wrote:
>
>>>Poppy done wrote:
>
>>>>Many art colleges require their students to take an anatomy class for this
>>>>same reason.
>
>>> I've never really agreed with this. The more you know the
>>>better, of course, but I think it's more important to learn to "see",
>>>and draw based on your perception, rather than draw what's "supposed
>>>to be there". Originally it was the artists who taught the scientists
>>>anatomy, and I think historically the association got reversed.
>
>> What sort of things did the artists teach the scientists about
>> anatomy?
>
>Because there weren't any photographs, they illustrated the medical
>literature.
Well, and if we're talking about Leo da V being the first guy to wield
both a paintbrush and a scalpel, we're back in the times when the
concepts of"artist" and "scientist" were pretty much interchangeable.
--
John Hatpin
Blinky the Shark
>>>>Poppy done wrote:
If you wish. How about Gray's Anatomy (or Grey's - can't remember)?
Jerry Bauer
(in article <slrncgiqqt....@thurston.blinkynet.net>):
>
> If you wish. How about Gray's Anatomy (or Grey's - can't remember)?
The latter would be that execrable movie of the "alien autopsy".
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin wrote:
>> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>>>John Hatpin wrote:
>>>> Rich Clancey wrote:
>
>>>>>Poppy done wrote:
>
>>>>>>Many art colleges require their students to take an anatomy class for this
>>>>>>same reason.
>
>>>>> I've never really agreed with this. The more you know the
>>>>>better, of course, but I think it's more important to learn to "see",
>>>>>and draw based on your perception, rather than draw what's "supposed
>>>>>to be there". Originally it was the artists who taught the scientists
>>>>>anatomy, and I think historically the association got reversed.
>
>>>> What sort of things did the artists teach the scientists about
>>>> anatomy?
>
>>>Because there weren't any photographs, they illustrated the medical
>>>literature.
>
>> Well, and if we're talking about Leo da V being the first guy to wield
>> both a paintbrush and a scalpel, we're back in the times when the
>> concepts of"artist" and "scientist" were pretty much interchangeable.
>
>If you wish. How about Gray's Anatomy (or Grey's - can't remember)?
It's "Gray's", and that's not for scientists. It's mainly for
students.
Only when they'd read the book did they pick up the knives and do the
actual hacking apart of limbs, tissues and internal organs, draining
the blood into vast, bilge-like constructions beneath the floor, their
faces masked against the stench, their clothing spattered with various
bodily fluids they had yet to name, their arms flailing and wielding
sharpened steel.
Of course, this was before the days of keyhole surgery.
--
John Hatpin
Eric Boyd
"John Hatpin" <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ohoig09g426gea8oi...@4ax.com...
> Well, and if we're talking about Leo da V being the first guy to wield
> both a paintbrush and a scalpel, we're back in the times when the
> concepts of"artist" and "scientist" were pretty much interchangeable.
And in Ancient Greek they had the same word for both, "technetes".
-E
--
To reply, get the 5 out as if I were my own ISP.
Rich Clancey
>What sort of things did the artists teach the scientists about
>anatomy?
It was artists who began dissecting corpses and recording
their observations while scientists were arguing from first
principles. Leonardo da Vinci was a notable figure in this effort,
though probably not the first.
Rich Clancey
> The anatomy question comes up all the time in art classes I've
>taken. Lots of artists managed a good representation of the human form
>in detail before Da Vinci started carving people up. Every teacher has
>pointed out that the differences are subtle in some cases, but always
>there.
Michelangelo was notorious for anatomically incorrect
musculature.
In Leonardo's time, "Scientists" generally relied on argument
from authority, often Aristotle, but anything old would do. The
method of empirical observation was not valued by these "natural
history" guys. Medicine was still largely a matter of scholastic
argument, as depicted in a good deal of fiction, well into the 1800s.