RE :DRAWING AND LEARNING
zi...@interport.net
for more people. I have added more to it.
Dear Peter,
I don't know anything about you but I know a good deal about the
schools you learned to draw in. I have very little use for most of the
contemporary art schools. Sweeny was the big drawing man at Amherst
when I was last there. He is BU all the way. I would contend that the
BU grads. while they knew a lot about anatomy and rounded forms were
drawing the figure and everything else in their paintings as separate
objects without thinking about their relationships until it was too
late. They also lied a lot in their drawings. So I would call all of
them bad drawing teachers. More of the same at Smith. Depending on
when you went there. Was Stanley Lewis still teaching at Smith?
U. Mass. has been filled with the dregs of the failed art world for
many years. Some of the people there, even so, knew something. I think
they have all retired, perhaps except Dale Shleappi and Wardlaw. I
would contend that neither of them really understands drawing. Why is
this? The first was an industrial design major and that is how he
draws. The second was an artworld camp follower, and he has been too
busy all his life trying to catch up to learn how to draw.
Good drawing is a rarity in this world. The first starting point is
work from the motif and go to museums and galleries and see what moves
you. If you are a serious artist you will do this a lot. And you will
draw from the paintings in the museums and paint from them wherever it
is allowed. With the taste and understanding you have been cultivating
in yourself you should then go to several different summer schools
like that at Ox Bow in Michigan, the one in Ctatauqua, and others. You
should experience the teaching offered in small bits. Don't go for a
whole summer, anywheer. Then with your knowledge of their teaching
plus your understanding from the museums decide whether any of them
has anything to offer you. If you come up with a winner, try like hell
to go to a school where the winner teaches. If you don't, try a few
more plsaces until you are satisfied.
One of the false assumptions young artists make is that they can
recognize good teaching when they see it. Most high schools do a
terrible job of teaching art, if they have studio art classes at all.
Where does your knowledge come from?
The first thing is to prepare yourself to be a good critic of
teaching. Not only how the teaching is done, but what is being taught.
There is very bad strong teaching. That is teaching which is
charismatic and clear and intense about something which is nonsense. I
have seen that many times in my life. I once observed, officially,
Judy Pfaff teaching a begnning"design" class. She had a theatrical
concept of what was to be done. Every one dressed up in black and
white cloithes and painted themselves black and white. She was trying
to teach them that there was such a thing as positive and negative.
She did not believe that it was really possible to see it in nature,
but that you had to fake it, because it wasn't there. That was strong
bad teaching. I would rather the kids had a weak teacher than her.
A weak good teacher that many of you who would like who are trying to
return to some sort of realism is a man named Joe Groell, retired now
from a school in my town. He started as an abstract painter and when
he decided to be a classicizing painter it was through and through. He
studied neoplatonic philosophy, and is now a neoplatonist. But he also
studied the human body, made up his own simplification based on more
complex anatomiucal forms seen in the round than are now taught and
helped his srtudents to understand how to use them toconstruct figures
singly and in groups in action. He also studied spatial construction
in hisownworks and in the masters. He read through Piero's La
Prospettiva Pingendi [That is a book on perspective by Piero della
Francesca]. He was remarkable because he made his methods all up
himself. He gave out countless mimeographed sheets so that many of his
students who treach are still using them. For understanding the figure
he was probably the best teacher I knew of while I taught. I used to
give my students permission to take his classes in graduate school
because I knew his method and information was so solid. But he was
gentle and sweet, did no raise his voice and was very kind to his
students.[including those who had no hand and no head] He was a good
weak teacher. The very best at his time.
But to recognize TEACHERS as valuable and sift through until you can
get a good one is very hard, now. You have to be much smarter than I
was when I led an almost charmed life as a kid and kept on getting
great ones. I was very luvky. Now you have yto make your luck. You
have to be much smarter when you look around. You have to be be able
to tell the difference between the real thing and the fake. It isn't
easy.
As far as drawing is concerned, I used to think that one out of every
60 teachers was any good. Now I think the average is lower. But there
still are people around for you. You have to find them. And before you
look you have to know something so that you will recognize the real
thing when you see it.
Sincerely,
Gabriel
peter nelson
<36942ddc...@news.interport.net>...
>I just wrote this letter to Peter and thought it might have relevance
>for more people. I have added more to it.
>
>Dear Peter,
>
>I don't know anything about you but I know a good deal about the
>schools you learned to draw in. I have very little use for most of the
>contemporary art schools.
>. . . More of the same at Smith. Depending on when you went there.
> Was Stanley Lewis still teaching at Smith?
I have no idea. I wasn't an art major, just taking a few classes
for fun and this was back in the mid-70's.
> With the taste and understanding you have been cultivating
>in yourself you should then go to several different summer schools
>like that at Ox Bow in Michigan, the one in Ctatauqua, and others.
I'm just a would-be amateur (as I said in an earlier post,
"I aspire to be an amateur"). I try to be learning all
the time - currently I'm attending weekly life-drawing open
studios in New Hampshire while looking for a beginner's
painting class where the instructor knows acrylics in
greater Boston. But I have a full time job and in my field
I also have to be constantly taking coursework in the
latest technology (and I also chair a committee in local
town government).
>One of the false assumptions young artists make is that they can
>recognize good teaching when they see it.
I'd give anything to be a young artist. I'm 45.
>A weak good teacher that many of you who would like who are trying to
>return to some sort of realism is a man named Joe Groell,
I think my goal would be the same whether I was seeking
realism, abstraction, or complete nonrepresentationalism:
it would be to have the skills to put my vision on paper (or
canvas or whatever) THE WAY IT IS IN MY VISION.
People tell me I'm a good writer. I'm opinionated and have
had letters published in Newsweek, the New York Times,
the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the Atlantic
Monthly, and other publications. Often when writing I have
the experience of finishing a passage and thinking, "Yes!
This is EXACTLY what I mean to say. This PERFECTLY
expresses my thought or feeling."
I want to learn the skills to do this in art, too. If I'm drawing an
arm I want the result to be the arm I see - It may not be the arm
that's actually there. It could be an abstraction of that arm;
it could be a gesture of that arm. It could be twice and long
and half as thick as the real arm. But it should be the arm
I see. It should be the arm I MEANT to draw.
Skill in anything means achieving what you set out to do,
whether it's writing, computer programming or painting.
. . .
>As far as drawing is concerned, I used to think that one out of every
>60 teachers was any good. Now I think the average is lower. But there
>still are people around for you. You have to find them. And before you
>look you have to know something so that you will recognize the real
>thing when you see it.
But what do you look for? Good drawing doesn't necessarily
mean good teaching. Even though I work as an engineer I
struggled with math. One thing I discovered was that the
best mathematicians were the WORST teachers because it
came so easy to them they never head to work out how to
learn it. I discovered that the best teachers were often the
ones who had to struggle the most when they were learning.
---peter
zi...@interport.net
I cannot treat you any differently than I would treat a young artist.
In your own words you are one because you cannot get the things you
want to get. That means the your intentions are not realizable by your
abilities at this time. There have been first rate artists who did not
start out until they were older than you are.
Gauguin was lucky he found Pissarro to teach him.
One of the problems is that with age and success you believe you
should know what you want to do and how to recognize good instruction.
In that respect a kid is better off, after you get through the hard
crust of ignorance.
I stay by my advice. But now that I know where you are, try the
University of New Hampshire. I reccommend you to Langdon Quin who
teaches there, now.
In Boston, I am not sure who is teaching anywhere any more. On the one
hand there is Sweeny's former school, B.U. which contiunues a
conservative but not very knowledgable path. Then there is the Museum
School which is an ignorant place full of pseudo avantgaristes. The
Art Institute might have someon hidden in its bowels who knows
something,
If you are in a sketch class in Portsmouth, I may even know some of
the people who come to it. I remember many years ago when Lincoln
Perry and Bruno Civitico were there. But, unfortunately, both are
gone, and neither does much teaching.
I am trying to be useful.
In the art world up to some twentyfive years ago, an artist whose
reputation had not been fully made was always called a young artist
the others were not. Then with the proliferations ofpseudos with
respect for very young nonentities [like Basquiat], that phrase
couldnot longer be used. I still use it. It is not a mark of
disrespect.
Gabriel
On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 14:56:10 -0500, "peter nelson"
<pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>zi...@interport.net wrote in message
><36942ddc...@news.interport.net>...
>>I just wrote this letter to Peter and thought it might have relevance
>>for more people. I have added more to it.
>>
>>Dear Peter,
>>
>>I don't know anything about you but I know a good deal about the
>>schools you learned to draw in. I have very little use for most of the
>>contemporary art schools.
>. . .
>
>>. . . More of the same at Smith. Depending on when you went there.
>> Was Stanley Lewis still teaching at Smith?
>
>I have no idea. I wasn't an art major, just taking a few classes
>for fun and this was back in the mid-70's.
>
>
>> With the taste and understanding you have been cultivating
>>in yourself you should then go to several different summer schools
>>like that at Ox Bow in Michigan, the one in Ctatauqua, and others.
>
>I'm just a would-be amateur (as I said in an earlier post,
>"I aspire to be an amateur"). I try to be learning all
>the time - currently I'm attending weekly life-drawing open
>studios in New Hampshire while looking for a beginner's
>painting class where the instructor knows acrylics in
>greater Boston. But I have a full time job and in my field
>I also have to be constantly taking coursework in the
>latest technology (and I also chair a committee in local
>town government).
>
>
>>One of the false assumptions young artists make is that they can
>>recognize good teaching when they see it.
>
>I'd give anything to be a young artist. I'm 45.
>
>
>>A weak good teacher that many of you who would like who are trying to
>>return to some sort of realism is a man named Joe Groell,
>
>I think my goal would be the same whether I was seeking
>realism, abstraction, or complete nonrepresentationalism:
>it would be to have the skills to put my vision on paper (or
>canvas or whatever) THE WAY IT IS IN MY VISION.
>
>People tell me I'm a good writer. I'm opinionated and have
>had letters published in Newsweek, the New York Times,
>the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the Atlantic
>Monthly, and other publications. Often when writing I have
>the experience of finishing a passage and thinking, "Yes!
>This is EXACTLY what I mean to say. This PERFECTLY
>expresses my thought or feeling."
>
>I want to learn the skills to do this in art, too. If I'm drawing an
>arm I want the result to be the arm I see - It may not be the arm
>that's actually there. It could be an abstraction of that arm;
>it could be a gesture of that arm. It could be twice and long
>and half as thick as the real arm. But it should be the arm
>I see. It should be the arm I MEANT to draw.
>
>Skill in anything means achieving what you set out to do,
>whether it's writing, computer programming or painting.
>
>. . .
>
>>As far as drawing is concerned, I used to think that one out of every
>>60 teachers was any good. Now I think the average is lower. But there
>>still are people around for you. You have to find them. And before you
>>look you have to know something so that you will recognize the real
>>thing when you see it.
>