tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post3732134911105483897..comments2023-06-13T08:29:39.914+00:00Comments on MAKING A MARK: The Big Painting Challenge - Episode 2Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-76082967317474026732015-03-05T20:14:22.760+00:002015-03-05T20:14:22.760+00:00Brilliant comment Coral!
Thank you - to both you...Brilliant comment Coral! <br /><br />Thank you - to both you and Philip - for your contributionsMaking A Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13509483023337008890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-35601528365225300222015-03-05T16:10:03.717+00:002015-03-05T16:10:03.717+00:00To add to what Philip has described so well, its w...To add to what Philip has described so well, its worth looking at drawings by Picasso, Monet, and Matisse, who all used the photographic image as inspiration and as an artistic spring board.<br /><br />Perhaps not surprisingly, their drawings are not hyper realistic, rather they have an expressive and dynamic quality that is spontaneous in its nature.<br /><br />This issue can be reduced down to the fact that these artists learnt to draw from observation at an early age, developing their ability to 'see', and thereby transcend, the attachment to realism.<br /><br />Everyone knows that Picasso's father was a drawing tutor, and that his son could draw like Constable by the time he was 12 years old. <br /><br />Because of this, Picasso's ability to utilize photography was superlative, as he could already think outside the camera box and was therefore not limited by, or tied to, copying the photographic image. Instead he took advantage of it because he was capable of doing so. <br /><br />In the end, the natural fear of failure that an artist experiences when they draw direct from observation, is vastly diminished by copying a photograph.<br /><br />This is perhaps why copying photos is so popular with the amateur artist, who maybe has not learnt yet to 'see' but is in love with the glamour of the photographic image and hyper realism.<br /> <br />When a realistic drawing or painting is the result of only copying a photograph, the result is, for better or for worse, something that the public absolutely love looking at. <br /><br />Its is only the most able draughts person who is willing and able to discard copying in favour of notional expression through seeking a deeper meaning in their work. <br /><br />Surely it is better that people learn to draw and paint by copying photographs, than not learn at all? <br /><br />This is the kind of argument that was very prevalent in art colleges in the late 1950's, and it was resolved then in the Photo Realist movement came along in the 70's. <br /><br />So lets accept the artists who simply want to copy photos. As to not accept them is probably making them feel bad about themselves. Copying photos is not harming anyone and there are far worse things to be preoccupied with. <br /><br />The option to learn to draw and to 'see' from observation will always be there for those who value it and photography is no threat to its presence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-75562765488651506042015-03-04T16:35:59.795+00:002015-03-04T16:35:59.795+00:00If you haven't done so already, reading a copy...If you haven't done so already, reading a copy of Betty Edwards "Drawing on the right side of the brain" can teach you that anyone can draw and everyone can be taught to draw.<br />The problem is not about skill, technique or talent, but central to the problem is perception. It may seem deceptively simple, but draw what you see not what you know.<br />However the brain is a complex thing and constantly feeds us lies which is why drawing the figure provides us with the most challenges, as we all know what figures look like don't we?<br />Edwards provides us with some great ideas to alter our perception, to draw the figure in such a way that we yet this avert our attention away from the object and focus on shapes and their relationship to each other, whether that be linear, tonal or colour.<br />Ruskin in his "elements of drawing" said something similar. If we could only draw the coloured patterns we saw on the back of our retina.<br />Drawing from life presents an enormous set of challenges. We have to try to convert our knowledge of the three-dimensional form into a two-dimensional shape. We have to ignore the fact that we see with two eyes two different viewpoints of the same thing. We have to work to a scale to fit the paper and both ourselves and the model and move subtly changing everything.<br />There are some tools to help: measurement (sight sized, proportional, relational ) a plumb line, a gridded viewfinder, but all of these still present new challenges. <br />When you work from a two dimensional image the challenges have significantly reduced. Your image is flat and unmoving. Your image can be gridded and transcribed square by square or projected onto a support to be drawn out. You can turn the image upside down or trace it. <br />So with all of these benefits what are the pitfalls? <br />If you only ever draw from photos you only ever see what is in the photos but you never know what information is missing from the photos. <br />Photos deceive, form can be lost highlights bleached out, shadows can become a black mass. Without an understanding of form and structure (knowledge gained from the three-dimensional experience) the results can be flat and lifeless, at worse colouring in.<br />In the hands of artists who have drawn from life the photograph becomes a jumping off point, and experience plays its hand. Sickert and Degas both used photography, Vuillard too, but did more than slavishly copy the photographic image.<br />I work from photographs, I have to given the limitation of my family and teaching commitments, but I have made over 24,000 drawings from life. A daily drawing (at least one) on the train of a sleepy commuter or drawings made alongside my students from the life model. The challenge from life is an infinitely fascinating one and one that compels me to do more.<br />My book on painting the nude should be out later in the year and may provide some further insight in the the problems and pitfalls of this completely all consuming and engaging task.<br /><br />Phil Tyler. Artist and educatorPhilip Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18379568031250350846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-61241770229680453512015-03-04T16:34:47.498+00:002015-03-04T16:34:47.498+00:00If you haven't done so already, reading a copy...If you haven't done so already, reading a copy of Betty Edwards "Drawing on the right side of the brain" can teach you that anyone can draw and everyone can be taught to draw.<br />The problem is not about skill, technique or talent, but central to the problem is perception. It may seem deceptively simple, but draw what you see not what you know.<br />However the brain is a complex thing and constantly feeds us lies which is why drawing the figure provides us with the most challenges, as we all know what figures look like don't we?<br />Edwards provides us with some great ideas to alter our perception, to draw the figure in such a way that we yet this avert our attention away from the object and focus on shapes and their relationship to each other, whether that be linear, tonal or colour.<br />Ruskin in his "elements of drawing" said something similar. If we could only draw the coloured patterns we saw on the back of our retina.<br />Drawing from life presents an enormous set of challenges. We have to try to convert our knowledge of the three-dimensional form into a two-dimensional shape. We have to ignore the fact that we see with two eyes two different viewpoints of the same thing. We have to work to a scale to fit the paper and both ourselves and the model and move subtly changing everything.<br />There are some tools to help: measurement (sight sized, proportional, relational ) a plumb line, a gridded viewfinder, but all of these still present new challenges. <br />When you work from a two dimensional image the challenges have significantly reduced. Your image is flat and unmoving. Your image can be gridded and transcribed square by square or projected onto a support to be drawn out. You can turn the image upside down or trace it. <br />So with all of these benefits what are the pitfalls? <br />If you only ever draw from photos you only ever see what is in the photos but you never know what information is missing from the photos. <br />Photos deceive, form can be lost highlights bleached out, shadows can become a black mass. Without an understanding of form and structure (knowledge gained from the three-dimensional experience) the results can be flat and lifeless, at worse colouring in.<br />In the hands of artists who have drawn from life the photograph becomes a jumping off point, and experience plays its hand. Sickert and Degas both used photography, Vuillard too, but did more than slavishly copy the photographic image.<br />I work from photographs, I have to given the limitation of my family and teaching commitments, but I have made over 24,000 drawings from life. A daily drawing (at least one) on the train of a sleepy commuter or drawings made alongside my students from the life model. The challenge from life is an infinitely fascinating one and one that compels me to do more.<br />My book on painting the nude should be out later in the year and may provide some further insight in the the problems and pitfalls of this completely all consuming and engaging task.<br /><br />Phil Tyler. Artist and educatorPhilip Tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18379568031250350846noreply@blogger.com