Books on Art Instruction
Paul Mesken
(the how-to-do-certain-things books). I guess many of us have a great
many of such books and can recommend some (the advantage over reviews
of Amazon, for example, is that we can actually _discuss_ books and
ask questions about them).
Here are some of my favorites, I'll be doing some more recommendations
later on :
"Dynamic Wrinkles and Drapery" by Burne Hogarth, on the subject of
wrinkles (duh)
This book shows Hogarth's classification of different types of
wrinkles and where they show up and why. This is a good book to make
one more aware of what types of wrinkle patterns exist and under what
conditions they are formed. It has lots of clear pictures that Hogarth
made. One drawback is that this is only about the patterns. It doesn't
show much about certain textural effects and there is only a little
bit about how wrinkles are affected by the material itself (a wrinkle
in thin silk has a couple of different properties than the same
wrinkle in thick leather, although the overall pattern is the same).
This is not such a bad thing because such things can be easily
observed by oneself. No less than 9 different classes of wrinkles are
discussed in depth and shown by Hogarth. It's one of the better books
of his "dynamic series".
/*************************/
"Strength Training Anatomy" by Frederic Delavier, on the subject of
muscle anatomy.
I have a couple of books about anatomy but this is one that is not
intended for the art market (it's intended for bodybuilders). However,
this is one of the clearest books I have about muscles. The many
pictures are great. They show the human figure in action, drawn in
grey whereas the muscles that are used for this action are drawn in
red. Extremely clear book. It not only shows the muscles in great
detail but also for what actions they are used. This is something that
you don't see often in anatomy books for the art or medical market
which simply enumerate the different muscles and bones. Look it up at
amazon.com for some examples of what is in the book. I recommend it
full heartedly. Of course, it doesn't really discuss the skeleton but
I don't mind that. The skeleton is a quite rigid thing and, for me,
the difficulty is not in the skeleton but in the proper depiction of
the muscles.
/*************************/
"Perspective made Easy" by Ernest R. Norling, on the subject of linear
perspective.
This is an excellent introduction to perspective. It goes deep enough
on the subject (also the mystical "how to draw a circle in
perspective" is dealt with in depth). It's an extremely easy read and
very practical (3 mechanical ways to draw an ellipse are discussed,
for example). I have a couple of books about perspective but this one
is the best. Especially for beginners. It never ceases to amaze me
that a lot of artists don't control perspective well enough while it's
not such a hard subject. If you only buy a single book about
perspective then I'd suggest it should be this one.
/*************************/
"The Practice of Tempera Painting" by Daniel V. Thompson, on the
subject of tempera painting, gilding and making gesso.
This is a little gem. It's not only about tempera painting. It also
discusses methods to make and apply genuine gesso and gilding. It's a
very practical book in that it discusses methods (and materials, as
far as pigments and supports go). There are, of course, many recipes
and methods for making gesso and egg tempera but Thompson discusses
the ones that work for him. This is perhaps better than the "overall"
discussions like the ones in Mayer. I feel this book contains about
everything one needs to know about tempera painting although I don't
agree with all of Thompson's statements (like using primarily opaque
pigments, I feel certain transparent pigments can work very fine in
tempera). A little bit dated perhaps (from the 30s). There's also a
nice companion book from the same author titled "The Materials and
Techniques of Medieval Painting". This one focuses more on history but
also contains methods.
/*************************/
"The Human Figure in Motion" by Muybridge, source material for
postures.
I'm amazed that this book (and its animal companion "Animals in
Motion") never had a more contemporary version. It's from the 19th
century (at the dawn of photography). It contains slides of photos of
(nude) people performing some action in front of a grid (the interval
times between the photos are stated (between a tenth of a second to
half a second). It's also from several angles. This is indispensable
source material as it shows very clearly the postures people go
through during some action. Things like balance, thrust, weight
displacement, etc. are all clear from this. It's very systematic as
well. By watching a DVD frame by frame one can see similar things but
not so clear as in this book (and the book has the motions
categorized).
/*************************/
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>I though it was a nice idea to discuss some books on art instruction
>(the how-to-do-certain-things books). I guess many of us have a great
>many of such books and can recommend some (the advantage over reviews
>of Amazon, for example, is that we can actually _discuss_ books and
>ask questions about them).
>
Surprise surprise - I don't have any books to recommend - but rather -
highly suggest "The Artist's Magazine." (Does that count? Lol)
I *swear* to God - this magazine WAS my art bible. I um... (weirdness
warning) cut out parts of each issue and glued them to notebook paper, which
I then placed into one of about 10 or 12 binders dedicated to a particular
element of art. I had a separate binders for things like -composition-
to -style- and then to -marketing-.
So I guess I made my own books. Took about 4 years of subscriptions to fill
'em up.
King Rundzap
Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<dje3l0d0pnk9e283p...@4ax.com>...
> I though it was a nice idea to discuss some books on art instruction
> (the how-to-do-certain-things books). I guess many of us have a great
> many of such books and can recommend some (the advantage over reviews
> of Amazon, for example, is that we can actually _discuss_ books and
> ask questions about them).
> Here are some of my favorites, I'll be doing some more recommendations
> later on :
> "Dynamic Wrinkles and Drapery" by Burne Hogarth, on the subject of
> wrinkles (duh)
I have this one, too. Hogarth's work is excellent. In my opinion the
main drawback of the book is that it doesn't do so much explaining
verbally, in a way that might be a verbal systematization, as it just
shows you a lot of typical patterns under the different
classifications by way of drawings. Thus to learn it, you basically
have to spend a _lot_ of time copying the drawings (or the relevant
parts, anyway), and do some guesswork. On the other hand, a
systematization might be impossible, and it at least makes you much
more aware of wrinkle patterns and the various reasons they occur.
Here's one I think is great for perspective--Perspective for Comic
Book Artists by David Chelsea. This is written in a lengthy comic
book format, but explains the basics of perspective very easily (all
while giving a lot of great exercises to try) and humorously. It also
has good material on exaggerated comic book perspectives, unusual
angles, etc.--as you might guess from the title.
Human Anatomy Made Amazingly Easy by Christopher Hart is good and
self-explanatory by the title. It also has a bit of a bent towards
realistic comic-book styled art, but it's great for getting down all
of the basics, including various body parts, relations/proportions,
perspective, foreshortening, etc. It is a bit unusual for an artistic
anatomy book in that it basically ignored underlying structure and
focuses on the appearance of body parts (which I think is a good thing
for this level of book).
Two others that are more comic related than realist related, but
excellent at that (and they'll give you lots of very easy tips that
are applicable to realist art) are Cartooning The Head & Figure by
Jack Hamm and The Cartoonist's Workbook by Robin Hall. These both
have a very strong "anyone can draw" approach, and stress the benefits
of drawing a lot, all the time (without stressing realist dogma, of
course, since they're geared towards comic art). Both work up from
very simple figures and environmental elements, including hundreds of
ways to draw body parts and basic analyses of expressions, body
stances, etc.
--King Rundzap
Cham Pugh
>Took about 4 years of subscriptions to fill
>'em up.
Are you going to admit that in all that time you
never once clipped from AMERICAN ARTIST?
Electric Nachos
Cham Pugh wrote in message <4152...@nntp.zianet.com>...
Lol - Nope - That was Dad's mag. :-)
Oh I peeked at it, true enough - but at that time I don't think I was mature
enough to appreciate it(American Artist) - it was more "museum-ish" - and
did nothing but frustrate a "how-to" addict like moi.
Mani Deli
>
>One of the best books on drawing is How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way, if
>it's still available.
Gee, for once I agree with the Bimbo. I guess he can't be all bad. Its
available most everywhere.
Most of today's drawing instruction books were written by
no-skill-realists of the artzy kind and are based on Nicolaides' "The
natural way to draw", a compendium of slogans and idiocy which I have
criticized in detail here. Most art instruction books are starved for
technique and assume you know rote.
Books on rote, which include the theories behind three dimensional
drawing, perspective and light and shade, which aren't superficial,
are rare. Even when students see these they are too lazy and
indoctrinated to study them as this is a complex subject.
Before recommending any particular book it is imperative that the
student knows mechanical drawing, geometry and a bit of perspective.
This can be found in many books and titles needn't be mentioned.
I highly recommend "How to draw comics the marvel way," as the best
outline of what needs to be learned even though the book contains
little on actual detailed instruction. Take a look at page 11. When
you have the knowledge and skill to do a drawing like that you can
consider yourself a beginner. Remember its really only an outline.
I recommend the Texts of Andrew Loomis and B. Hogarth for a general
look at the technical aspects that concern the artist and some
detailed instruction. Loomis has the best outline for the use of
perspective although it doesn't contain the basics of perspective
which I consider totally necessary for anyone who wants to do art
professionally.
I would also strongly recommend the books for the "Famous Artists
Course." It is presently hard to find even in any art school library.
It is fairly thorough and strongly pooh poohed by artzy fartzy
teachers who have probably never seen it.
The majority of art students fall into two groups, those who complain
that they weren't taught to draw and those who happily schmier away
and offer long excuses for the misery of their output. The reason for
this is that most art students today are indoctrinated by their
failure teachers to imagine that if they learned the accumulated
knowledge of the past they will do nothing but repeat it. They rarely
notice that their teachers can do little more then repeat the failures
of Modern Academic Art.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote:
>
>
>One of the best books on drawing is How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way, if
>it's still available. Although the focus is on comic-book style, and the
>text is written for young people, the instruction is solid and applies to
>all types of art. (The fundamentals are always the same.) This one is
>worth looking for.
Interesting. Mani recommended it as well so it must be good :-)
As far as comics go, two books by Will Eisner (best known for being
author of the Spirit) are great as well :
"Comics and Sequential Art" and "Graphic Storytelling & Visual
Narrative".
These two books assume the reader already knows all of the basic stuff
like anatomy, perspective, etc. It's purely about how all these things
can be used as story telling devices (in comics). There's a slight
difference between the two books. "Comics and Sequential Art" focuses
a bit more on the graphical side of things whereas "Graphic
Storytelling & Visual Narrative" is a bit more on the story part (but
still about how the story is conveyed graphically, it's not a book for
writers). Both these books are great and go very deep into making
comics (framing, timing, the use of perspective, symbolism,
stereotypes, etc.). They're also very entertaining to read, given
Eisner's great sense of humour.
I definitely recommend them for comic making.
Paul Mesken
So, "Artist's Magazine" is more a how-to magazine than "American
Artist"? I looked at the websites and both seem to be concerned with
realist art ("high realism" I might add, looking at the galleries).
Is there any medium they focus on or is it all media? (oil, acrylics,
tempera, pastel, pencil, etc.). If I understand it correctly it is
mostly articles from artists telling about a certain technique
(lighting, drawing fur, etc.).
It isn't that expensive to subscribe to (30 U$ for surface mail,
international, about the price of a single art book).
Paul Mesken
>One final word - you can't just read these books any more than you can
>learn to swim by reading a good book on the subject. You have to draw
>every day and, in the nicolades book, do the exercises faithfully, if you
>want to progress.
Amen to that. If one has little time then here's an interesting
excercise :
Just put some DVD in your player, freeze frame on an interesting
posture and make a quick 5-10 minute sketch from it. Especially the
ability to see angles will develop. Nothing fancy, just quick
sketches, so that a dozen can be made in an hour. Here are some
examples :
http://www.paulmesken.net/temp/temp1/temp001.html
Don't try to make anything brilliant. I feel that the desire to make a
master piece every time the pencil or brush is put to the support
works against the artist.
Don't correct mistakes either. Just start over.
As Neville Chamberlain said : "If at first you don't succeed, try,
try, try again" (of course, he said this just before WW2 broke out
while trying to persuade Hitler to a more peacefull approach :-)
King Rundzap
--Further support to my belief that a _lot_ of artists have some
stripe of obsessive/compulsive disorder (including me).
As for "The Artist's Magazine", I haven't actually seen any of the
magazines, but I've checked out their website off and on (and it's one
good source for exhibitions/contests to submit work to).
Along the same lines, I've been impressed with the recent plethora of
Barnes & Noble painting (and some drawing) "step-by-step" instruction
books, some aimed at different media (oil, watercolor, acrylic, etc.)
and some aimed at different subject matter (landscapes, portraits,
etc.). Most seem to be pretty open-minded and offer a lot of ideas
for different techniques, approaches, handy tips for various things
you might be interested in doing, etc. Check them out if you have a
Barnes & Noble near you--they're usually in the Bargain Art Books
pile, and you can get most of them for $9.99 to $12.99 -- big
hardcover books, all color, glossy or semi-glossy stock, etc.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> (Biljo White) wrote:
> >One of the best books on drawing is How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way, if
> >it's still available.
> Gee, for once I agree with the Bimbo. I guess he can't be all bad. Its
> available most everywhere.
> Most of today's drawing instruction books were written by
> no-skill-realists of the artzy kind and are based on Nicolaides' "The
> natural way to draw", a compendium of slogans and idiocy which I have
> criticized in detail here. Most art instruction books are starved for
> technique and assume you know rote.
>
> Books on rote, which include the theories behind three dimensional
> drawing, perspective and light and shade, which aren't superficial,
> are rare. Even when students see these they are too lazy and
> indoctrinated to study them as this is a complex subject.
>
> Before recommending any particular book it is imperative that the
> student knows mechanical drawing, geometry and a bit of perspective.
> This can be found in many books and titles needn't be mentioned.
Oy, before you turn some lurker off of jumping into creating art, let
me say--no, you do not need to start with that stuff. There's nothing
wrong with learning it, but you can start wherever you like--whatever
seems like a good place to you to start, whether that's using a book
as an aid or not.
> I highly recommend "How to draw comics the marvel way," as the best
> outline of what needs to be learned even though the book contains
> little on actual detailed instruction. Take a look at page 11. When
> you have the knowledge and skill to do a drawing like that you can
> consider yourself a beginner. Remember its really only an outline.
The Marvel book is good, too, though. The best thing if you're just
starting out is to go to one of those mega-bookstores that has a huge
selection and spend time looking through a bunch of them. Does the
book look attractive to you? Does it look like you'd actually spend
the time working with it? Buy something that you answer "yes" to for
both of those questions. If you're not going to spend time working
with the book, it's a waste of money and it may help put you off of
making art, period.
> I recommend the Texts of Andrew Loomis and B. Hogarth for a general
> look at the technical aspects that concern the artist and some
> detailed instruction. Loomis has the best outline for the use of
> perspective although it doesn't contain the basics of perspective
> which I consider totally necessary for anyone who wants to do art
> professionally.
An awful lot of people don't want to do art professionally, and a lot
of them who do want to do it professionally aren't looking to do
work-for-hire. You can just do art for fun, you can make a living at
it doing your own thing--not work-for-hire, etc. Lots of
possibilities, none of them inherently better than another.
However, if you think you might eventually want to do it
professionally and you might want to to work-for-hire, then yes, at
some point you definitely need to learn traditional realist drawing,
and learn it extremely well, and it's preferable to start learning
that earlier than later.
> I would also strongly recommend the books for the "Famous Artists
> Course." It is presently hard to find even in any art school library.
> It is fairly thorough and strongly pooh poohed by artzy fartzy
> teachers who have probably never seen it.
> The majority of art students fall into two groups, those who complain
> that they weren't taught to draw and those who happily schmier away
> and offer long excuses for the misery of their output. The reason for
> this is that most art students today are indoctrinated by their
> failure teachers to imagine that if they learned the accumulated
> knowledge of the past they will do nothing but repeat it. They rarely
> notice that their teachers can do little more then repeat the failures
> of Modern Academic Art.
Not everyone who is interested in art is interested in going to art
school, of course. It's up to you whether you'd want to do that or
not. A lot of people start "hobbyist" painting at a later age and so
art school is about as far removed from their concerns as puberty is.
But if you are interested in art school, make sure you get a lot of
opinions about it other than just Mani de Li's, and other than just
the people in rec.arts.fine :-)
--King Rundzap
Mani Deli
>How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way is indeed one of the best drawing books.
>The lessons on perspective and gestural figure drawing are particularly
>fine.
It doesn't have lessons in perspective other than an outline showing
how its used. The book won't help beyond giving an excellent summery
as to what must be learned.
>
>The other great book is Nicolaides' "The natural way to draw" You should
>have both on your shelf.
>
>Don't take my or Mani's word for it -- look at the book in the library and
>decide for yourself.
Do that and look at the pages I mention.
Of course many art students love to repeat Nicolaidfes' famous
statement "THE SOONER YOU MAKE YOUR FIRST FIVE THOUSAND MISTAKES THE
SOONER YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CORRECT THEM. This tells were N's method
will get you. I presume Dan Fox is working on mistake number 3005. He
like most students will spend a lifetime at this and will need another
to correct them.
Imagine a math teacher telling you to figure out arithmetic and
assuring you that after 5000 adding mistakes you'll be able to correct
them. Is that what a student should expect from school?
This book is full of silly suggestions and a vestigial anecdotes. It
also contains many idiotic schedules which are designed to lead the
student to imagine he is making progress. I have to laugh at these. It
is like a music teacher who doesn't know the scales giving you a
schedule which starts with you figuring out how to play Jingle Bells
and ends with Mozart without having learned the scales.
I suggest a look at page 34 and the illustration called bulk. It shows
that the author knows nothing about drawing form and is an advocate
of art school sloppiness. I love page 43 as a perfect example of Art
school Garbage-can-ism. Page 79 shows watercolor as bad as can be. For
utter stupidity check out pages 200-202.
Well at least N allows you to compare the ignorant student crap with
Michaelangelo and Bruegel etc. Any student who has any brains and
compares will have an idea of what he doesn't know and will try to
learn the fundamentals that took generations to figure out.
To summarize a few of the books failures, it conveys no knowledge of:
the geometry of line. light and shade, perspective, how to draw solids
or technique. It does give good examples of how badly most art
students have been taught to draw for the past fifty years.
It essentially conveys the theory of learn by doing, but doing without
knowledge. The book is full of obvious results.
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>So, "Artist's Magazine" is more a how-to magazine than "American
>Artist"?
The last time I bothered to look - yes. Bear in mind however that I made
this little ensemble what... maybe 15 years ago?? Perhaps American Artist
has changed its slant since then.
>I looked at the websites and both seem to be concerned with
>realist art ("high realism" I might add, looking at the galleries).
Yes.
>Is there any medium they focus on or is it all media? (oil, acrylics,
>tempera, pastel, pencil, etc.).
In The Artist's Magazine: All media.
If I understand it correctly it is
>mostly articles from artists telling about a certain technique
>(lighting, drawing fur, etc.).
In The Artist's Magazine: Yes.
>It isn't that expensive to subscribe to (30 U$ for surface mail,
>international, about the price of a single art book).
In The Artist's Magazine: Yup.
Bob C
>
> Here are some of my favorites, I'll be doing some more recommendations
> later on :
>
Here's 2 favorites of my own:
"Figure Drawing" by Nathan Goldstein. Intended for people who already
have some drawing experience, the instruction is structured around the
idea that successful figure drawing is based on a combination of
structural, anatomical, organizational, and expressive elements. It has
loads of excellent illustrations and exercises.
"Painting Lessions from the Great Masters" by Hereward Lester Cooke. I
got this at a used book sale and it probably isn't still in print. The
instruction is pretty sparse but dead on target. Cooke was Curator of
Painting at the National Gallery of Art in DC and 2/3 of the book
contains full-page color reproductions of paintings paired with several
paragraphs describing the lesson to be learned from each and an
occasional suggested exercise. It doesn't teach the specifics of
techniques or handling of materials, so you'd have to get that elsewhere.
- Bob C.
NightMist
wrote:
>So, "Artist's Magazine" is more a how-to magazine than "American
>Artist"? I looked at the websites and both seem to be concerned with
>realist art ("high realism" I might add, looking at the galleries).
Realism or some degree thereof is mostly what they focus on. "Artist"
occasionaly runs an artist that does abstractions of real models, or
sometimes more expressionist work.
"American Artist" does tend to be a little less focused on realism.
"American Artist" is less how-to than "Artist" insofar as there are
more articles on the busness angles, perhaps a bit more depth on
materials as opposed to techniques as well.
>
>Is there any medium they focus on or is it all media? (oil, acrylics,
>tempera, pastel, pencil, etc.). If I understand it correctly it is
>mostly articles from artists telling about a certain technique
>(lighting, drawing fur, etc.).
They both cover a broad range of media, though there is a clear bias
in both magazines towards oils in particular, though "Artist" devotes
at least as much time to watercolors. Pastels are tagged in here and
there regularly, but it is clear that oils and watercolors are the
primary focus. On occasion there is an article featureing an artist
that works in acrylic or gouche, very occasionally one using egg
tempra or encaustic; about as often you get an article on sculpture or
installations. In "Artist" in particular there is a definite trend
toward articles focusing on colored pencils.
>It isn't that expensive to subscribe to (30 U$ for surface mail,
>international, about the price of a single art book).
>
I took "Artist" for three or four years, long enough that I started
seeing articles being recycled, and currently get "American Artist".
There is more show and competition information in "American Artist",
more articles on the artists in the shows and competions in "Artist".
I believe "Artist" does a yearly workshop guide as well.
Barbara
--
"It's such a gamble when you get a face"
- Richard Hell
Paul Mesken
<achm...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>In article <10l3jde...@corp.supernews.com>, aint_...@chew.foo
>says...
>>
>> Paul Mesken wrote in message ...
>> >I though it was a nice idea to discuss some books on art instruction
>> >(the how-to-do-certain-things books). I guess many of us have a great
>> >many of such books and can recommend some (the advantage over reviews
>> >of Amazon, for example, is that we can actually _discuss_ books and
>> >ask questions about them).
>> >
>>
>> Surprise surprise - I don't have any books to recommend - but rather -
>> highly suggest "The Artist's Magazine." (Does that count? Lol)
>
>I'll second that. I've been getting this magazine for about five years
>now. I've learned more from that than I ever did in all those years of
>art school. It's a true fount of forbidden knowledge.
Thank you for the feedback, and thank you too NerdGerl and Barbara.
I'll check it out.
Paul Mesken
>"Figure Drawing" by Nathan Goldstein.
Wow, already the 6th edition. Must be a good book then :-)
King Rundzap
> On 23 Sep 2004 12:03:12 GMT, danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
>
> >One final word - you can't just read these books any more than you can
> >learn to swim by reading a good book on the subject. You have to draw
> >every day and, in the nicolades book, do the exercises faithfully, if you
> >want to progress.
Yes, good point. The same goes for painting, in my opinion, or
whatever artwork it is you're working on. You should be doing it
regularly if you want to get better at whatever it is that you're
trying to do. The book by Robin Hall, The Cartoonist's Workbook,
stresses this strongly, also--that whatever you're drawing, do it a
lot--make it a part of your routine, and you'll keep progressing
(towards your personal goals).
--King Rundzap
Mani Deli
wrote:
You can (work) until you are blue in the face if you haven't learned
the craft forget it!
King Rundzap
> Of course many art students love to repeat Nicolaidfes' famous
> statement "THE SOONER YOU MAKE YOUR FIRST FIVE THOUSAND MISTAKES THE
> SOONER YOU WILL BE ABLE TO CORRECT THEM. This tells were N's method
> will get you. I presume Dan Fox is working on mistake number 3005. He
> like most students will spend a lifetime at this and will need another
> to correct them.
I don't know much about Dan Fox, but unless he's trying to make a
living doing work-for-hire, he probably doesn't have any reason to
worry about what you consider "mistakes". You keep forgetting that
people buy artwork that you think sucks.
> This book is full of silly suggestions and a vestigial anecdotes. It
> also contains many idiotic schedules which are designed to lead the
> student to imagine he is making progress. I have to laugh at these. It
> is like a music teacher who doesn't know the scales giving you a
> schedule which starts with you figuring out how to play Jingle Bells
> and ends with Mozart without having learned the scales.
That could easily be done. And that person could maybe play most work
in that vein, at least, that you put in front of them. George Crumb
or Milton Babbitt might be a bit hard for them, but scales wouldn't
help much for playing Crumb, either.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> On 24 Sep 2004 05:13:21 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
> wrote:
> >Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<tnf5l0pn4kifn4v40...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 23 Sep 2004 12:03:12 GMT, danf...@NOSPAMyahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
> >> >One final word - you can't just read these books any more than you can
> >> >learn to swim by reading a good book on the subject. You have to draw
> >> >every day and, in the nicolades book, do the exercises faithfully, if you
> >> >want to progress.
> >Yes, good point. The same goes for painting, in my opinion, or
> >whatever artwork it is you're working on. You should be doing it
> >regularly if you want to get better at whatever it is that you're
> >trying to do. The book by Robin Hall, The Cartoonist's Workbook,
> >stresses this strongly, also--that whatever you're drawing, do it a
> >lot--make it a part of your routine, and you'll keep progressing
> >(towards your personal goals).
> You can (work) until you are blue in the face if you haven't learned
> the craft forget it!
Painting or drawing _is_ the craft. There's not a "right" way to do
it--you just work towards whatever the particular goals are that you
have. So it's important to work towards that regularly.
--King Rundzap
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Painting or drawing _is_ the craft. There's not a "right" way to do
>it--you just work towards whatever the particular goals are that you
>have. So it's important to work towards that regularly.
>
I guess you are working towards failure.
Bob C
>>"Figure Drawing" by Nathan Goldstein.
>>
>
> Wow, already the 6th edition. Must be a good book then :-)
Gee, mine's only the 4th. I hope that rapid advancements in the
technology of figure drawing hasn't made my copy obsolete... ;)
- Bob C.
Gary Oblock
> I though it was a nice idea to discuss some books on art instruction
> (the how-to-do-certain-things books). I guess many of us have a great
> many of such books and can recommend some (the advantage over reviews
> of Amazon, for example, is that we can actually _discuss_ books and
> ask questions about them).
>
>
Deleted
>
>
> /*************************/
If you want to see my recommended books check out my website's section on learning
how to sculpt.
-- Gary Oblock
--
Bronze Dreams
Santa Clara, CA
http://www.bronzedreams.com
-------------- ad for the hosting service I use ---------------
Free Web Hosting with Domain Registration or transfer
http://freewebhosting.catalog.com/jump/mw...@earthlink.net
Paul Mesken
"In the eye of the Beholder" by Vicki Bruce and Andy Young, on the
subject of face perception
Not a book about painting faces but about the science of face
perception. Very usefull for the painter though. It answers questions
like what cues we use to determine the age of the face, the gender,
etc.
/*********************************/
"Unmasking the Face" by Paul Ekman and Wallace V. Friesen, on the
expression of emotions in the face.
Again, not a book on painting but one that deals with what muscle
actions in the face accompany certain emotions. It's out of print now
but used copies can be bought for a nice price. It contains lots of
photos showing the muscles actions. This is handy so that one doesn't
forget a certain action of the expression (a smile that restricts
itself only to the mouth, for example).
/*********************************/
"Principles of Two-Dimensional Design" by Wucius Wong on graphic
design.
This little book has an enormous amount of information about the
foundations of graphic design. It covers all of the basics and has the
merit that it makes one wonder what one can do with the knowledge
represented in the book. Another great thing is that it gives one a
vocabulary to express elements of composition. It also makes explicit
these elements. Geared towards graphic design but interesting from a
compositional point of view for the painter.
/*********************************/
"Drawing the Head and Figure", "How to draw Animals", "Drawing
Scenery" and "Cartooning the Head and Figure" by Jack Hamm, formula
drawing.
If there's any author that does "formula drawing" then it must be Jack
Hamm. The books contain enormous amounts of examples. It's all
formulas and schemata. If one prefers to draw from imagination then
Hamm's books might provide a framework. It really has a formula for
about everything (hands, faces, clouds, trees, general composition,
etc.).
/*********************************/
"Drawing Dynamic Hands" by Burne Hogarth, on the subject of hands.
I think it's fair to say that the hands are amongst the most difficult
parts of the human body to draw or paint. This book is solely about
the hand. What I especially like is that it also goes into the subject
of the aging hand (from baby hands till 70+ years old hands). The
drawing style of Hogarth might not be to anyone's tastes but the
illustrations are very clear.
Erik A. Mattila
Paul Mesken wrote:
I would add to the list:
"How to Read Donald Duck: Imperialist Ideology in the Disney Comic"
by Ariel Dorfman, Armand Mattelart
>
>