During my painting lessons in Amsterdam, I take an approach that may be a bit longer, but more sure-footed than that of others.
Most of the time when we go to painting classes in Amsterdam or elsewhere, we expect to be given a canvas, a bunch of oil paint or acrylics, a few brushes and to start merrily painting away at some flowers, or a photograph of our choice. I have seen it time and again, and I have even fallen pray to such courses. There's nothing wrong or evil about this, but to the more serious student, or someone who is aiming high, going this route is full of disappointment.
If I would compare this approach of painting lessons, to learning to play the guitar, I would say this is 'playing by ear'. You're able to play songs you hear on the radio, as long as they're not too complex, and perhaps make some simple songs of your own. However, your style is likely to lack the clean characteristics of a learned musician. In their playing you can distinguish the knowledge of the instrument, and in the songs they make, you will recognize deep knowledge of tone, theory and harmony.
Playing by ear, is easier, often nicer and more relaxed. It never gave anyone a headache, and it will actually make you progress quicker at first. But in my opinion it handicaps you ever after, as I can attest by my mediocre guitar playing skills.
If we go back to the painting lessons, a more structured and academic approach, is to learn drawing first. This is to a musician like learning the scales, and becoming good at going up and down the instrument without making a blunder.
Learning to draw before you embark on a full on painting education works on many levels. First you get to master form and proportion, without which you will struggle endlessly in your painting attempts. Secondly you get to learn how to turn form with the use of value (tones). You will also learn to achieve a good use of edges, which is usually underrated, and most importantly, you will start to develop an understanding of composition, and how to use it to create a visual hierarchy in your work.
While all these points can be learned while painting, it proves a bit too much to handle if on top of that list, you have to deal with color mixing, chroma, hue, color temperature, color harmony and manipulation of the medium on the canvas. With these many plates in the air, one is likely to fall, and it usually is the most basic one: form.
Therefore, during my Amsterdam painting lessons, we don't start by painting, we start with drawing. The student needs to be comfortable being able to render any image with a pencil, convey it's proportions, turn form using values, achieve a mood or light situation, depict surfaces and do it all to a high degree of quality.
This is not to say that once you've done this, it will be smooth sailing as you start to paint, but it means you will be able to see if something is wrong, and correct it before you carry on forward, which is the sign of a good artist.
As you progress from drawing to painting lessons, you will have to unlearn some of the things you took for granted. Your approach will have to be almost completely tonal, and you will be able to turn form without having to change values, by using only color temperature. This will confuse the hell out of you at first and some artists choose not to do it, and to stick to the dramatic approach. However, the really good ones learn that conservation of values has a real impact on the quality of their work, and will push this when possible.
So the main point of today's entry, is that your drawing skills are the foundation of your artistic education, fail to take this seriously and your painting skills will miss the key element!
Monday, November 25, 2013
Monday, October 28, 2013
Drawing Classes Amsterdam, My 2 cents on Malevich
As part of my drawing classes in Amsterdam, I offer guided visits to museums in order to develop a good eye for how the masters achieved their impressive results. These visits are not historical, but purely analytical.
My last visit consisted on attending the Kazimir Malevich exhibition on the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. It claims to be the largest collection of the artist ever assembled and judging by the number of works on display, I'm inclined to believe them.
I still have mixed feelings about this art exhibition as it seems to me Malevich navigated a fine line between being a genius and a fraud. On the one hand he was able to produce exquisite drawings and paintings, the degree of finish of all his work was impeccable and it is obvious he invested an immense deal of time and energy in his life, exploring art and his concepts and ideas about it. He was in other words honestly and highly dedicated to his craft, and not just some nutter making weird stuff.
Thus far so good. So where does it go wrong for me?
Perhaps it's in putting too much value on the ideas at the expense of the art itself. All the isms that he came up with are interesting concepts, but the art they inspired was rarefied and distant. Of course, a modern art curator would take those words and at the flip of a hat, give them a spin and turn them into what makes his paintings brilliant, but I'm not convinced. Malevich started by heavily imitating Gaugin and Cezanne, and then went off into some tangent, from which only a Russian government prohibition on abstract art brought him back.
It is of course impossible to take art out of its historical context, so I would never venture saying that for a painting to be good, it would have to fend for itself anywhere and at any moment. I do believe though, that a painting should fend for itself regardless of who made it. Otherwise, we're appealing to authority, and making the piece itself second in line.
What I mean to say is that if Malevich's black square is so brilliant, it should be hailed as such regardless of whether he made it, or someone else did. Ironically my point was proven in the same exhibition, where some lesser artist also produced a black square, except nobody talked about this one. That sounds to me more like religion than being objective about whether the work is good or not.
The situation reminds me of the movie Vanilla Sky, where Tom Cruise plays a millionaire playboy who's face is disfigured. Since surgery was not possible he is offered the most advanced facial prostetic in the market, which adapts to his features, allows the skin underneath to heal better, and has plenty of other advantages.
In a fit of irony, Cruise appears impressed and pleased a the suggestion and says he's grateful that they tell him all about these features and benefits, because otherwise he would have thought they were trying to make him wear a f@#!ng mask!
Well, I feel the same about a lot of Malevich's work. It requires so much explanation, so many isms and conceptual framework, that it makes me wonder if we're not just being offered a bloody black square. Once again I don't question his dedication and honest pursuit of pushing the boundaries of art, but what resulted may not look outstanding, which is to me THE test of a visual piece.
Some of his work, and that of his followers is worthy of a 3 year old. However, if modern art has shown us something is that adults making 3 year old worthy art can come up with really good concepts and excuses to justify it.
My 2 cents...
My last visit consisted on attending the Kazimir Malevich exhibition on the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. It claims to be the largest collection of the artist ever assembled and judging by the number of works on display, I'm inclined to believe them.
I still have mixed feelings about this art exhibition as it seems to me Malevich navigated a fine line between being a genius and a fraud. On the one hand he was able to produce exquisite drawings and paintings, the degree of finish of all his work was impeccable and it is obvious he invested an immense deal of time and energy in his life, exploring art and his concepts and ideas about it. He was in other words honestly and highly dedicated to his craft, and not just some nutter making weird stuff.
Thus far so good. So where does it go wrong for me?
Perhaps it's in putting too much value on the ideas at the expense of the art itself. All the isms that he came up with are interesting concepts, but the art they inspired was rarefied and distant. Of course, a modern art curator would take those words and at the flip of a hat, give them a spin and turn them into what makes his paintings brilliant, but I'm not convinced. Malevich started by heavily imitating Gaugin and Cezanne, and then went off into some tangent, from which only a Russian government prohibition on abstract art brought him back.
It is of course impossible to take art out of its historical context, so I would never venture saying that for a painting to be good, it would have to fend for itself anywhere and at any moment. I do believe though, that a painting should fend for itself regardless of who made it. Otherwise, we're appealing to authority, and making the piece itself second in line.
What I mean to say is that if Malevich's black square is so brilliant, it should be hailed as such regardless of whether he made it, or someone else did. Ironically my point was proven in the same exhibition, where some lesser artist also produced a black square, except nobody talked about this one. That sounds to me more like religion than being objective about whether the work is good or not.
The situation reminds me of the movie Vanilla Sky, where Tom Cruise plays a millionaire playboy who's face is disfigured. Since surgery was not possible he is offered the most advanced facial prostetic in the market, which adapts to his features, allows the skin underneath to heal better, and has plenty of other advantages.
In a fit of irony, Cruise appears impressed and pleased a the suggestion and says he's grateful that they tell him all about these features and benefits, because otherwise he would have thought they were trying to make him wear a f@#!ng mask!
Well, I feel the same about a lot of Malevich's work. It requires so much explanation, so many isms and conceptual framework, that it makes me wonder if we're not just being offered a bloody black square. Once again I don't question his dedication and honest pursuit of pushing the boundaries of art, but what resulted may not look outstanding, which is to me THE test of a visual piece.
Some of his work, and that of his followers is worthy of a 3 year old. However, if modern art has shown us something is that adults making 3 year old worthy art can come up with really good concepts and excuses to justify it.
My 2 cents...
Monday, October 21, 2013
Drawing Classes in Amsterdam, the danger of dogmatic approaches to art
During my Amsterdam drawing classes I try to convey the classical approach to learning art as a near surefire method of learning the principles of the visual language. This is not to be confused with saying it is "the best way to make art" or even a guarantee that the art you produce when learning to draw with the old master's approach will be beautiful or compelling.
My point to this blog entry is to express my reluctance to believe in, and point out the pitfalls of certain assumptions or dogmatic views that certain teachers hold, or that the public has about making art.
When teaching a method of drawing, no matter how good, a proper teacher will tell you the downsides of this method, and must stress the fact that this is not the only way to do things.
Dogma 1: There is one best method of drawing
If we take the academic drawing method, it is very slow, focused on accuracy and precision and follows certain learning and execution steps which are well known. When drawing fast poses and quick gesture sketches, this approach is not practical, but in other circumstances it can create amazing results.
Take on the other hand the quick sketch illustrative approach. This creates beautiful flowing lines and plenty of expression, but the detail may be missing and accuracy is often sacrificed for the sake of a more organic and spontaneous result.
It is nonsense to say either approach to drawing is "better" than the other one. Each approach has it's place in art and you can choose to use them depending on the situation, the result you are looking for and the one you find more enjoyable.
Dogma 2: Painting and drawing must be kept separate
This one is a very damaging dogma that some art teachers spread and which make some practitioners struggle unnecessarily with their art. The dogma says that when painting, lines and drawing are not to be used. Painting must be done on a tone and mass kind of way and problems with proportions, alignment and form must be sorted out in the thick of things.
The problem with this, is that if the artist's drawing skills are weak, those problems can never be sorted out. It becomes an endless, frustrating struggle that produces nothing but weak results.
The basis for painting is drawing. No question about it. You can then use these drawing skills to make markers or drawings with your brush, or even with charcoal before starting to paint.
Some academic artists take this one step further by creating a full drawing study and then transfering it to the canvas so that they separate the drawing from the painting. Having tried this, it does feel a bit like painting by numbers, but with experience, the result can be made to look as natural and beautiful as any painting made in a tonal manner.
Dogma 3: Fresh art must be made in a careless way
This is one poorly conceived idea that I try to discredit as soon as possible in my Amsterdam drawing classes. The thinking is that to obtain results that appear loose and fresh, the piece must be created with a careless approach.
The reality is that to create a beautiful work of art, the artist must become a kind of criminal mastermind, plotting and scheming about composition, light color harmony and also brushwork and edges. These last two being largely responsible for the feeling of spontaneity in a finished piece.
Remember that loose results can only be good if they are deliberate. If you try to create art by acting carelessly and hoping it will come out right, you are stacking the odds badly against yourself.
Dogma 3: Good original art cannot look like any other before it
This is the kind of idea that has aspiring artists creating the most weird and peculiar things and more often than not, failing to strike a successful formula for aesthetic results. The reason is simple, it is easier to stand on the shoulders of giants and learn about principles that worked well for artists in the past.
No aspiring novelists sets out to write their work by first re-inventing language or trying to completely rework the structure of what a novel is. The possibilities are so endless within the given framework that we can benefit from exploring those before veering off in some awkward tangent.
This is not to say that pushing for originality is a bad thing, but we humans are original even when we're not trying. When you learn to draw and practice by making master copies, the impulse to make changes is almost unavoidable. In the end the fear of being like a parrot that only replicates the work of others gets in the way of learning the principles of art in order to make more educated choices on your own work.
Dogma 4: Art that is well executed is boring
This one is probably the worse art calumny that has been spread after the impressionists. These guys departed from the strict salon style looking to find true effects of light, which could only be captured in very short periods of time and outdoors. This meant drawing had to be sacrificed in favor of speed and color accuracy.
Unfortunately, the lesson taken from this was that something drawn and executed with exquisite finish was boring and not progressive enough, and ever since then, artists have tried to get away with ever diminishing levels of craftsmanship.
It's interesting, but painting seems to be the only art where something poorly made can still be called good. Fair to say that some cubist and postmodern works are good. They have interesting compositions, strong use of color and line, but a lot of them are total crap and we should be able to say that a specific Picasso or Mondrian is total crap.
When we hear a song in the radio that is poorly plaid or just bad, we call it bad no matter who it's from.
Hope this gives you some ideas of what to look out for. Don't be afraid to learn properly, and don't think that one single approach is the best one no matter how famous the teacher that conveys it!
My point to this blog entry is to express my reluctance to believe in, and point out the pitfalls of certain assumptions or dogmatic views that certain teachers hold, or that the public has about making art.
When teaching a method of drawing, no matter how good, a proper teacher will tell you the downsides of this method, and must stress the fact that this is not the only way to do things.
Dogma 1: There is one best method of drawing
If we take the academic drawing method, it is very slow, focused on accuracy and precision and follows certain learning and execution steps which are well known. When drawing fast poses and quick gesture sketches, this approach is not practical, but in other circumstances it can create amazing results.
Take on the other hand the quick sketch illustrative approach. This creates beautiful flowing lines and plenty of expression, but the detail may be missing and accuracy is often sacrificed for the sake of a more organic and spontaneous result.
It is nonsense to say either approach to drawing is "better" than the other one. Each approach has it's place in art and you can choose to use them depending on the situation, the result you are looking for and the one you find more enjoyable.
Dogma 2: Painting and drawing must be kept separate
This one is a very damaging dogma that some art teachers spread and which make some practitioners struggle unnecessarily with their art. The dogma says that when painting, lines and drawing are not to be used. Painting must be done on a tone and mass kind of way and problems with proportions, alignment and form must be sorted out in the thick of things.
The problem with this, is that if the artist's drawing skills are weak, those problems can never be sorted out. It becomes an endless, frustrating struggle that produces nothing but weak results.
The basis for painting is drawing. No question about it. You can then use these drawing skills to make markers or drawings with your brush, or even with charcoal before starting to paint.
Some academic artists take this one step further by creating a full drawing study and then transfering it to the canvas so that they separate the drawing from the painting. Having tried this, it does feel a bit like painting by numbers, but with experience, the result can be made to look as natural and beautiful as any painting made in a tonal manner.
Dogma 3: Fresh art must be made in a careless way
This is one poorly conceived idea that I try to discredit as soon as possible in my Amsterdam drawing classes. The thinking is that to obtain results that appear loose and fresh, the piece must be created with a careless approach.
The reality is that to create a beautiful work of art, the artist must become a kind of criminal mastermind, plotting and scheming about composition, light color harmony and also brushwork and edges. These last two being largely responsible for the feeling of spontaneity in a finished piece.
Remember that loose results can only be good if they are deliberate. If you try to create art by acting carelessly and hoping it will come out right, you are stacking the odds badly against yourself.
Dogma 3: Good original art cannot look like any other before it
This is the kind of idea that has aspiring artists creating the most weird and peculiar things and more often than not, failing to strike a successful formula for aesthetic results. The reason is simple, it is easier to stand on the shoulders of giants and learn about principles that worked well for artists in the past.
No aspiring novelists sets out to write their work by first re-inventing language or trying to completely rework the structure of what a novel is. The possibilities are so endless within the given framework that we can benefit from exploring those before veering off in some awkward tangent.
This is not to say that pushing for originality is a bad thing, but we humans are original even when we're not trying. When you learn to draw and practice by making master copies, the impulse to make changes is almost unavoidable. In the end the fear of being like a parrot that only replicates the work of others gets in the way of learning the principles of art in order to make more educated choices on your own work.
Dogma 4: Art that is well executed is boring
This one is probably the worse art calumny that has been spread after the impressionists. These guys departed from the strict salon style looking to find true effects of light, which could only be captured in very short periods of time and outdoors. This meant drawing had to be sacrificed in favor of speed and color accuracy.
Unfortunately, the lesson taken from this was that something drawn and executed with exquisite finish was boring and not progressive enough, and ever since then, artists have tried to get away with ever diminishing levels of craftsmanship.
It's interesting, but painting seems to be the only art where something poorly made can still be called good. Fair to say that some cubist and postmodern works are good. They have interesting compositions, strong use of color and line, but a lot of them are total crap and we should be able to say that a specific Picasso or Mondrian is total crap.
When we hear a song in the radio that is poorly plaid or just bad, we call it bad no matter who it's from.
Hope this gives you some ideas of what to look out for. Don't be afraid to learn properly, and don't think that one single approach is the best one no matter how famous the teacher that conveys it!
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Drawing classes Amsterdam, the Loomis Method
In my Amsterdam drawing classes I offer the possibility to learn creating portraits either from photos or from the live model.
Learning to draw from the live model is a demanding discipline, so it is perhaps a good idea to start by learning to draw faces from photos on the internet, since you can choose the level of difficulty and type of face, as well as enjoying a model that you can summon whenever you feel like and always stands still.
One of the cited methods to learning to draw the portrait is the Loomis Method. Andrew Loomis was an illustrator who could create faces and characters from his imagination thanks to the deep knowledge he had from the human skull and anatomy.
To illustrate the power of a method and knowledge of a subject, here are two portraits that I have created. This first one was created through pure practice and honing my powers of observation:
This was drawn from the live model during 3 sessions and it's a work of pencil on paper. As you can see, there is plenty of detail on this drawing, all the parts of the face seem to be in the right place, and there is knowledge of using the gray scale, called values, to achieve a sense of volume. However, from an academic perspective this is a fairly weak drawing as I will explain by pointing to the strengths of this next example.
This was done using academic knowledge and the Loomis Method:
You will argue the differences are small, but then again learning to draw is learning to understand the power that small details have on the whole. Notice the stronger knowledge of anatomy, which becomes apparent on the structure of the eyes, nose and lips. The skull structure is also well understood, which allows the values to more clearly show the different planes of the head. This all sounds almost too technical, but it gives the drawing a certain clarity of thought that the smooth and mooshy result of the previous one does not achieve.
Having a method and learning it through drawing classes also allows you to start doing the 'mechanical' part of the drawing in a more sure-footed way, and in turn focusing more of your attention on compositional touches and fancier expression. Notice the play of edges on the hair, which are sometimes diffuse and sometimes very hard or broken.
When learning to draw with a particular method, be aware that some of your first results will be even worse than the drawings you normally produce. This is OK, you're taking a step back in order to absorb the new method. Sometimes this feels terrible and its frustrating, because your eye is ahead of what your hands can do, and it's telling you the results are no good.
In this particular example, the first drawing though week bears a closer resemblance to the model, while in the second one, a good piece of art has been created, but resemblance has suffered, though not dramatically.
The Loomis Method focuses on thinking of the entire skull as a structure in space, with a very specific shape, which once grasped allows you to place the features in the correct position. This method proves something rather counter-intuitive for beginning artists, which is that the individual features can never help enhance resemblance when the correct structure of the skull has not been assessed correctly.
Stick with it and you will get there with method, practice and discipline. During my Amsterdam drawing classes I encourage students to only draw at a speed at which they can be accurate and not a second faster. Only frustration will come from rushing in and building on top of a shaky foundation.
Good luck!
Learning to draw from the live model is a demanding discipline, so it is perhaps a good idea to start by learning to draw faces from photos on the internet, since you can choose the level of difficulty and type of face, as well as enjoying a model that you can summon whenever you feel like and always stands still.
One of the cited methods to learning to draw the portrait is the Loomis Method. Andrew Loomis was an illustrator who could create faces and characters from his imagination thanks to the deep knowledge he had from the human skull and anatomy.
To illustrate the power of a method and knowledge of a subject, here are two portraits that I have created. This first one was created through pure practice and honing my powers of observation:
This was drawn from the live model during 3 sessions and it's a work of pencil on paper. As you can see, there is plenty of detail on this drawing, all the parts of the face seem to be in the right place, and there is knowledge of using the gray scale, called values, to achieve a sense of volume. However, from an academic perspective this is a fairly weak drawing as I will explain by pointing to the strengths of this next example.
This was done using academic knowledge and the Loomis Method:
You will argue the differences are small, but then again learning to draw is learning to understand the power that small details have on the whole. Notice the stronger knowledge of anatomy, which becomes apparent on the structure of the eyes, nose and lips. The skull structure is also well understood, which allows the values to more clearly show the different planes of the head. This all sounds almost too technical, but it gives the drawing a certain clarity of thought that the smooth and mooshy result of the previous one does not achieve.
Having a method and learning it through drawing classes also allows you to start doing the 'mechanical' part of the drawing in a more sure-footed way, and in turn focusing more of your attention on compositional touches and fancier expression. Notice the play of edges on the hair, which are sometimes diffuse and sometimes very hard or broken.
When learning to draw with a particular method, be aware that some of your first results will be even worse than the drawings you normally produce. This is OK, you're taking a step back in order to absorb the new method. Sometimes this feels terrible and its frustrating, because your eye is ahead of what your hands can do, and it's telling you the results are no good.
In this particular example, the first drawing though week bears a closer resemblance to the model, while in the second one, a good piece of art has been created, but resemblance has suffered, though not dramatically.
The Loomis Method focuses on thinking of the entire skull as a structure in space, with a very specific shape, which once grasped allows you to place the features in the correct position. This method proves something rather counter-intuitive for beginning artists, which is that the individual features can never help enhance resemblance when the correct structure of the skull has not been assessed correctly.
Stick with it and you will get there with method, practice and discipline. During my Amsterdam drawing classes I encourage students to only draw at a speed at which they can be accurate and not a second faster. Only frustration will come from rushing in and building on top of a shaky foundation.
Good luck!
Monday, October 7, 2013
Drawing Classes in Amsterdam, the portrait
During my drawing classes in Amsterdam, I give students the option to learn to create portraits. This is usually an important segment of a drawing lessons program and must be covered fairly extensively.
A good portrait consists of many layers of knowledge which come together to create great resemblance as well as a good piece of art.
As with everything else, good drawing is the basis, and once this is established, and a strong composition is found, the chances of a successful piece are greatly enhanced. Amsterdam offers a great option of small ateliers which bring live models in, for art students, professionals and hobbyists alike to draw and paint any way they like.
For aspiring artists who want to learn to draw the portrait, this should be a regular part of their artistic practice. However, lots of practice and a 'feel' for how to capture someone's likeness can never compete with strong knowledge of the anatomy of the skull, and a solid method of how to capture it. This is something I strongly emphasize during my Amsterdam drawing lessons.
The reason is simple. If you look at portraits made by amateurs, and even by the masters of the 17th century, you usually find that the face looks round and smooth. While this was highly appreciated back in those days, and will make you feel like you can draw a portrait, we have since then, found out that as it happens, it is better to draw certain areas as flat. A combination of roundness and angular sections makes for a far stronger statement on learning to draw a portrait.
During drawing classes, the only way to achieve such a result, is to have clear and solid knowledge of the planes of the head. This brings excellence of drawing and clarity of structure to the head you're drawing. You're no longer drawing the outline of a head and putting the features in it. You are instead drawing the volume of a skull, with its particular structure, and once you've captured it, the features fall into place almost automatically.
This is an approach that John Singer Sargent, the great master advocated, and which only started to make sense to me once I learned that, when drawing a portrait, you must assess the underlying structure in order to succeed. Features move and change, but the skull remains exactly the same, and this is what you're after.
During my Amsterdam drawing lessons I make use of great tools such as the Loomis method in order to bring structure to this understanding.
So in conclusion, lots of practice is very necessary to be a good portrait artist, but all the practice in the world will not get you to the peak of your abilities if it's not founded on sound knowledge.
Better to put in the practice hours while you are solidly informed of what you're doing than to blindly try to strike luck. Not doing this, you will risk being someone who after many years of attempting portraits, still runs into simple mistakes of alignment and proportion, and who's lukewarm art is surpassed by the crisp and beautiful art of a knowledgeable counterpart.
A good portrait consists of many layers of knowledge which come together to create great resemblance as well as a good piece of art.
As with everything else, good drawing is the basis, and once this is established, and a strong composition is found, the chances of a successful piece are greatly enhanced. Amsterdam offers a great option of small ateliers which bring live models in, for art students, professionals and hobbyists alike to draw and paint any way they like.
For aspiring artists who want to learn to draw the portrait, this should be a regular part of their artistic practice. However, lots of practice and a 'feel' for how to capture someone's likeness can never compete with strong knowledge of the anatomy of the skull, and a solid method of how to capture it. This is something I strongly emphasize during my Amsterdam drawing lessons.
The reason is simple. If you look at portraits made by amateurs, and even by the masters of the 17th century, you usually find that the face looks round and smooth. While this was highly appreciated back in those days, and will make you feel like you can draw a portrait, we have since then, found out that as it happens, it is better to draw certain areas as flat. A combination of roundness and angular sections makes for a far stronger statement on learning to draw a portrait.
During drawing classes, the only way to achieve such a result, is to have clear and solid knowledge of the planes of the head. This brings excellence of drawing and clarity of structure to the head you're drawing. You're no longer drawing the outline of a head and putting the features in it. You are instead drawing the volume of a skull, with its particular structure, and once you've captured it, the features fall into place almost automatically.
This is an approach that John Singer Sargent, the great master advocated, and which only started to make sense to me once I learned that, when drawing a portrait, you must assess the underlying structure in order to succeed. Features move and change, but the skull remains exactly the same, and this is what you're after.
During my Amsterdam drawing lessons I make use of great tools such as the Loomis method in order to bring structure to this understanding.
So in conclusion, lots of practice is very necessary to be a good portrait artist, but all the practice in the world will not get you to the peak of your abilities if it's not founded on sound knowledge.
Better to put in the practice hours while you are solidly informed of what you're doing than to blindly try to strike luck. Not doing this, you will risk being someone who after many years of attempting portraits, still runs into simple mistakes of alignment and proportion, and who's lukewarm art is surpassed by the crisp and beautiful art of a knowledgeable counterpart.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Drawing lessons in Amsterdam, The importance of Method
During this post about the drawing classes I offer in the center of Amsterdam, I would like to describe in very brief detail the importance of method in learning art, and describe the alternative results that can be obtained.
Perhaps I can relate to this closely not due to my drawing lessons, but because of another passion in my life, which is to play guitar.
I have been playing for a long time, and after over a decade I have certain dexterity with my fingers, as well as what seems to be a more or less innate ability to hear things correctly. This last factor made me never look for musical education or method. I would listen to songs I liked and learned to play them, having lots of fun in the process and laughing at friends of mine who would attend guitar lessons.
Proper art lessons back then seemed like the most boring and pointless thing. They took away the spontaneity and turned this fun hobby into a boring methodical activity. They introduced effort and consistency into something that I though should be loose and organic.
This is very often the felling we have about drawing lessons and how art should be done.
In fact for some time my natural ear and enthusiasm made it so that I was ahead of all these guys taking endless lessons and learning boring scales and other such things. But then something funny started to happen. The guys taking consistent lessons had built a huge strong foundation and when the time came, their skills skyrocketed, while my playing remained sloppy and repetitive.
It hurts me to say it but this was over 15 years ago, and though my guitar skills have improved dramatically since then, I cannot compete with someone who learned and mastered the principles such as scales, correct picking technique, etc.
Such is the case with drawing lessons and art education in general. You can wing it up to a certain level but unless you learn the principles and learn them well, you will plateau for lack of knowledge if nothing else.
As a concrete example of what this means during drawing and painting, we can take portraits. It is indeed possible to draw and paint faces without any knowledge of anatomy, and to be fair the results may end up quite OK. However, quite OK is not good enough and if you want your portraits to acquire that clean impressive result, learning anatomy and formal portraiture methods is the only way to go.
There is a distinct look and feel to a portrait made by someone with thorough academic drawing education. The knowledge of line, value, planes and anatomy is unmistakable. It simply comes through.
A lot of this has to do with the fact that, deep knowledge of your subject's construction will guide your eye into trying to find landmarks that are all but invisible to the untrained eye.
During art history the way drawing lessons has been approached has changed dramatically and shifted from masters who would argue you should be able to draw from knowledge as opposed to observation, and then back. The old masters would be able to construct bodies and faces due to their very deep knowledge of anatomy, while the John Singer Sargents of this world would argue that the less you knew about the subject, the better off you were, relying only on visual perception.
This last tendency probably arose from the realization that you could never deeply know all subjects you wanted to paint, and while old masters limited themselves to drawing few subject matters, the new ones wanted broader subjects. Hence reliance on principles of observation was a better base.
Nowadays things couldn't be more divided, with illustrators and digital concept artists relying on their knowledge and imagination, and classical atelier artists doing the opposite, and going visual, taking all their cues from the real world.
My personal take, and one I try to advocate during my Amsterdam drawing classes, is to learn the principles and then deepen your knowledge on subjects for which your time, interest or technical skills allow. The human face and body would be examples where your knowledge must be deep because of the innate ability we have at perceiving inaccuracies in these subjects. All others subjects can begin with observational approaches which may become deeper if you so choose.
For what it's worht!
Perhaps I can relate to this closely not due to my drawing lessons, but because of another passion in my life, which is to play guitar.
I have been playing for a long time, and after over a decade I have certain dexterity with my fingers, as well as what seems to be a more or less innate ability to hear things correctly. This last factor made me never look for musical education or method. I would listen to songs I liked and learned to play them, having lots of fun in the process and laughing at friends of mine who would attend guitar lessons.
Proper art lessons back then seemed like the most boring and pointless thing. They took away the spontaneity and turned this fun hobby into a boring methodical activity. They introduced effort and consistency into something that I though should be loose and organic.
This is very often the felling we have about drawing lessons and how art should be done.
In fact for some time my natural ear and enthusiasm made it so that I was ahead of all these guys taking endless lessons and learning boring scales and other such things. But then something funny started to happen. The guys taking consistent lessons had built a huge strong foundation and when the time came, their skills skyrocketed, while my playing remained sloppy and repetitive.
It hurts me to say it but this was over 15 years ago, and though my guitar skills have improved dramatically since then, I cannot compete with someone who learned and mastered the principles such as scales, correct picking technique, etc.
Such is the case with drawing lessons and art education in general. You can wing it up to a certain level but unless you learn the principles and learn them well, you will plateau for lack of knowledge if nothing else.
As a concrete example of what this means during drawing and painting, we can take portraits. It is indeed possible to draw and paint faces without any knowledge of anatomy, and to be fair the results may end up quite OK. However, quite OK is not good enough and if you want your portraits to acquire that clean impressive result, learning anatomy and formal portraiture methods is the only way to go.
There is a distinct look and feel to a portrait made by someone with thorough academic drawing education. The knowledge of line, value, planes and anatomy is unmistakable. It simply comes through.
A lot of this has to do with the fact that, deep knowledge of your subject's construction will guide your eye into trying to find landmarks that are all but invisible to the untrained eye.
During art history the way drawing lessons has been approached has changed dramatically and shifted from masters who would argue you should be able to draw from knowledge as opposed to observation, and then back. The old masters would be able to construct bodies and faces due to their very deep knowledge of anatomy, while the John Singer Sargents of this world would argue that the less you knew about the subject, the better off you were, relying only on visual perception.
This last tendency probably arose from the realization that you could never deeply know all subjects you wanted to paint, and while old masters limited themselves to drawing few subject matters, the new ones wanted broader subjects. Hence reliance on principles of observation was a better base.
Nowadays things couldn't be more divided, with illustrators and digital concept artists relying on their knowledge and imagination, and classical atelier artists doing the opposite, and going visual, taking all their cues from the real world.
My personal take, and one I try to advocate during my Amsterdam drawing classes, is to learn the principles and then deepen your knowledge on subjects for which your time, interest or technical skills allow. The human face and body would be examples where your knowledge must be deep because of the innate ability we have at perceiving inaccuracies in these subjects. All others subjects can begin with observational approaches which may become deeper if you so choose.
For what it's worht!
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Drawing Lessons in Amstedam, Visit to the MBA Lyon
During my last holiday to France I had the chance to visit the museum of beaux arts in Lyon France and had a look at some of the most amazing paintings and drawings I've seen before.
As I mentioned in some of my previous posts, part of your drawing lessons and painting lessons homework should always be to visit museums and develop an eye for the art you're observing. Learning to draw and paint is first of all learning to see. Once that part is covered you can then start to grapple with using the medium of your choice to show the world what you are personally perceiving.
So on the practical side, how it is that I try to see a work of art? First comes trying to absorb the whole. The big skeleton of the picture. I want to understand in very broad terms what the composition is doing. You can almost imagine you are looking at a black and white postage stamp instead of the full size picture. All the detail and color are gone and you're left with the most basic structure.
In drawing lessons and painting lessons, composition is usually a topic left for last, because of its great complexity. However I believe it's easier to break it down and start dealing with it's basics from the begining. This is something I try to do in my lessons in Amsterdam.
The second thing that interests me is the use of color and how they achieve harmony in the light. I don't memorize but constant looking begins to give you a feel for colors that create beautiful harmonies.
As this becomes clear and I have a grasp of the composition and color harmony, I want to then know how the execution was done. I want to see the kind of brushwork that the painter used, and especially how he or she handled the edges in the painting, which are a big element that separates the amateur from the professional.
As for what I found on the museum that caught my eye, the piece I was most impressed with, ironically was a wooden sculpture of a court jester that was so realistic in it's carvign and posture that you couldn't help but expect it to jump to life at any second.
On the painting side of things, there was a large canvas of two women reading in a darkened room by Fantin Latour which was for me the greatest masterpiece in the collection. The composition, execution and play with light where absolutely masterful.
As I mentioned in some of my previous posts, part of your drawing lessons and painting lessons homework should always be to visit museums and develop an eye for the art you're observing. Learning to draw and paint is first of all learning to see. Once that part is covered you can then start to grapple with using the medium of your choice to show the world what you are personally perceiving.
So on the practical side, how it is that I try to see a work of art? First comes trying to absorb the whole. The big skeleton of the picture. I want to understand in very broad terms what the composition is doing. You can almost imagine you are looking at a black and white postage stamp instead of the full size picture. All the detail and color are gone and you're left with the most basic structure.
In drawing lessons and painting lessons, composition is usually a topic left for last, because of its great complexity. However I believe it's easier to break it down and start dealing with it's basics from the begining. This is something I try to do in my lessons in Amsterdam.
The second thing that interests me is the use of color and how they achieve harmony in the light. I don't memorize but constant looking begins to give you a feel for colors that create beautiful harmonies.
As this becomes clear and I have a grasp of the composition and color harmony, I want to then know how the execution was done. I want to see the kind of brushwork that the painter used, and especially how he or she handled the edges in the painting, which are a big element that separates the amateur from the professional.
As for what I found on the museum that caught my eye, the piece I was most impressed with, ironically was a wooden sculpture of a court jester that was so realistic in it's carvign and posture that you couldn't help but expect it to jump to life at any second.
On the painting side of things, there was a large canvas of two women reading in a darkened room by Fantin Latour which was for me the greatest masterpiece in the collection. The composition, execution and play with light where absolutely masterful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)