Classical drawing
 

Hello Everyone,

I came across Sharon Knettell's post for the Oil Mona Lisa topic under the 'Old Master Copy Critiques' section, where she mentioned classical drawing.

I have never been to an art school and am a bit confused with that term. What does

Classical training
 

I asked Mai Ly to post this under techniques. She asked me a very good question, just what exactly is a classical training? I would like artists who have had access to this training to post their knowledge and experience.

Classical realism as it is practiced today came from such schools as L'Ecole des Beaux Arts (Degas, Sargent) and the Julian Academy (Mary Cassatt). The student first worked from casts of Greek and Roman sculpture. This would help them learn how to design and simplify the complex surfaces of the human body. They would also copy masterpieces in the museums. They would work sometimes just on drapery. All the work in the beginning would be monochromatic, no color until the teacher felt the student had grasped the basics of form. Then they would proceed to life drawing and painting.

Then there is a divergence of technique. Sargent, under the direction of Carolus Duran, taught to concentrate on the shapes and the play of light on the form. There was no pre-drawing, just the direct translation of what was perceived. Paint was directly applied in full color.

This was contra to true classical realism, (Poussin, Ingres) where a completely finished study, designed and perfected, was then transfered to the canvas. It was done in green, sepia, etc. undertones until the image was perfect, then it was glazed with color.

This is a basic explanation. I hope it sheds some light on the subject.

Thanks Sharon for the information! I have learned something new today :)

Mai

Mai,

As someone who has had access to what is now considered "classical training", I shall post my two cents-worth. Some of the aspects that have been involved in classical training have already been touched upon, but with respect, it is not all on-the-mark. Please forgive the length of my posting as I try to shed further light on it.

A good synopsis of an artist's training can be found in this quotation from Jean-Baptiste Chardin, when asked to recall the labour involved in his years of training: When we now talk of 19th century classical realists, we are really taking about "Academicians", which is how those artists are better-known. (The term "classical realist" is a modern term and one which I am personally not fond of. And, since it is contemporary, it doesn't properly apply to those painters of bygone eras although I know it is used as such.) As Sharon explained, the whole topic is much too broad to completely illuminate here. However, something that should be kept in mind about academic painters is that what they did, or at least, were expected to do, was to paint what is known as "history subjects". This involved designing pictures that depict either historical events, as the name suggests, or fictional events, or mythological and religious themes. In other words, things that could not possibly have been witnessed by the painter. Thus, painters such as Degas, Sargent, and Cassatt, are not today considered academic painters. I will say, though, that of the three, Sargent was the most thoroughly trained, and Cassatt, the least. Those painters were realists and took their subject matter directly from life. Probably the best examples of academic painters from the 19th century would be artists such as Bouguereau, Alma-Tadema, and Leighton, but there were hundreds of others. In any event, they were all direct painters.

Which brings me to the other issue (I realise it might better be discussed on a different thread, but I'll press on) and that is, of direct or alla prima painting versus glazing. This dichotomy always bothers me because it suggests that those are all there is. Contrary to popular belief (sorry, Sharon) the majority of painters who were not "Sargent-like" did not use a monochrome underpainting followed by a series of glazes. Most certainly, Ingres - one of the fathers of the 19th century French academy - did not paint in this manner. He painted opaquely, or mostly opaquely, as did all of the academicians.

The use of a monochrome underpainting, such as a verdaccio, followed by coloured glazes was abandoned as sound practice long before the 19th century. It is a somewhat primitive method that was largely adopted by oil painters at the time when the medium was not fully-known to all and was being used quite often by former egg-tempera painters.

Of course, the technique continued to be used by some, just as it is today, but was not the most common and was not taught in the 19th century ateliers. The idea that paintings made using that method was a fairly widespread practice probably has arisen for a couple of specific reasons. But, in the interest of space, I won't go into it.

The last thing I'll mention refers to the notion of studies and cartoons (by the way, the latter term comes from the Italian cartone, pronounced "car-tone-ay", which means simply, "big paper"). Two of the artists that Sharon mentions, Degas and Sargent (I don't know much about Cassatt's methods) often did numerous studies and preparatory drawings even of things they would be painting from life. But, one of the reasons they needn't have then made cartoons to transfer onto the canvas is the very fact that they chose subjects from everyday, contemporary life. Sargent often employed what is now known as the "sight-size" method. He definitely did do cartoons for his murals, though, which makes sense because these were more like the history subjects of classical academics, and it goes with the territory.

Finally (will it ever end?) I'll leave you with a couple of quotations from Degas: He also said, "Painting is easy, until you learn how."


All the best in your endeavors.

Juan

Sharon

By the way, I posted the lengthy essay before I looked at your web-portfolio. Your work is exquisite; beautifully-drawn. Brava.

Juan

Class act
 

Juan,

Your work is gorgeous. Powerful form! I thought I'd never see the day when young artists were interested in beautiful figurative work. When I was an art student the major art schools were teaching the uglier and the more novel the better. I was sneered at for being interested in such 'outmoded' art forms. I had to find, by trial and error, someone who could teach me something about figuratve work. Ateliers were scarce and I did not know anything like that existed.

I knew that there were probably many errors in my summation, but I thought it would be a good begining post. I want today's aspiring artists to know how much work goes into becoming a first rate figurative painter and I think you have given them some great information.

Sincerely,

Hi Juan,

Aren't you a student at Angel's atelier? I thought I saw your work on their website.

I may be wrong.

Minh

Thanks very much Sharon. There does seem to be a groundswell of interest today in figurative art, generally, and in the human figure, specifically. And, to answer Minh, yes you saw some of my work on the Angel Studios website. I was a student both at the Toronto and the Florence locations. Now, I go there (Angel Studios in Toronto) mostly for life drawing and painting. Must stay sharp and all that. As you say, Sharon, it is gratifying to see so many young people (I am not all that young, actually) entering the school and I'm sure it's the same all over the world wherever the opportunity exists. It saddens me that a few generations of artists and would-be artists were not exposed to high-quality teaching of figurative art. Those who were sufficiently motivated, during the period in the 20th century when the craft was most scarce, had to dig it out of the ground for themselves which takes a heck of a lot longer.

All the best.

Juan

Mai,

As you have no doubt seen rather quickly, there

Here's the same sort of charcoal, but with a full plaster bust instead of a smaller mask. In this progression, the point is to work even harder at creating depth with contrast and edges.

And finally, a bit later in the progression, my first pastel head study.

Oh NO! I can't see anything, but I'm following this post with enthusiasm! Gosh I really wish I was in school again, funny how I hated it so much! But I miss it so much now! A good lesson in not taking things for granted! :D

Ah ha! I can see it now - and it's beautiful! I don't understand pastel at all! All I do is create a big mess! Do you use pastel pencils or the real messy sticks? What paper do you use.. sorry about the questions...maybe this is for another topic.

Beautiful drawings, Steven, and I must say I'm beginning to see - value, edges, shapes, simplicity.

Carolyn,

If you use the "search messages" feature at the top of the Forum, you'll find much information already here regarding pastels.

Thank you, Cynthia.

I use the search messages all the time! Probably why I don't post so often. But when I actually try to use pastels it's a completely different story from the info posted. I think I am just a really messy artist! Pastels are really great for my ADD type personality, but I just don't quite understand them yet! :D

Hopefully soon though, I will have something of interest to post!

Steven,

After receiving so much valuable feedback from you it has been very nice to finally see your wonderful work Please post more and share your techniques.

Thanks Sharon, Juan and Steve for your patience in posting your detailed replies to my question. And Juan, Degas' quote: is exactly how I feel (and I 'love' all Degas' work!).

I have a very scientific/mathematical mind with a science background. Although I do not regret what I have chosen to do, I do wish I have started my art career much earlier in life. I would have loved to go to one of the schools mentioned (actually, I do plan on going!) and do all the fun stuff that you have described. I know it's hard work, but I am a firm believer in having a solid knowledge of the fundamentals in all areas that I choose to do (in order to succeed in longer run).

Having said all the above, I do strive to sketch and draw life objects, charcoal study with portraits for pastels. With oils, I do strive to understand the all the colours of my limited pallette, from opaque to transparent, how they mix with each other, and do monochrome study of portraits. I do try to do figures, but none of nudes, simply because I have not had the chance to do so. So, at least I am a fraction of the way to doing the right stuff :)

Sharon and Juan, your websites and works are really beautiful! I would love to have an opportunity to study under one of you (though maybe Sharon is closer to where I live), if you do teach.

And Steven, your charcoal studies (show how much I have to improve with my own charcoal studies :)) are really amazing! And I can see the forms and lines from your beautiful portrait.

Thanks again for your time to type up your 'in depth' replies.

Sincerely,
Mai

I was mistaken in thinking that I could not yet direct you to one more piece, the black and white (and umber) oil I mentioned earlier. In the "incremental" scheme of things, this is the transition from charcoal to paint, without introduction yet of a color palette.

Of workshops, cabbages and idle brushes
 

Mai, this has turned out to be a really interesting and informative thread. Thank-you for posting it.

There is The New England School of Classical Realism in Hancock, New Hampshire. Karin Wells studied there. Ask her for information about it. I was recently part of an exhibition in Boston of portraiture with Numael and Shirley Pulido. They head up the school. They are two lovely, talented and dedicated artists. Shirley does exquisite pastels.

I may give a workshop next summer as I get a lot of requests to teach. I'll let you know.

Steven, stop sitting on your brushes. I thought I was the champion of moody absences from work. Your old stuff is gorgeous. The wicked witch says, DO SOME MORE!

Sincerely

Thanks, Sharon, I'd been looking for them ... well, almost everywhere, I now realize. Your timing is good, as I'm wrapping up my first SOG stint and heading out to the easel. (P.S. I'm only moody when the meds wear off, or when I'm awake, or dreaming.)

Carolyn,

The messy pastels. Plain white Canson Mi-Tientes paper, smooth side. I would like to return to them someday, but at the time I was paying a lot of money to learn oil painting, so that's where I invested my efforts.

Enzie,

One of the "techniques" was very long, sharp pencils and charcoal sticks, shaped with sandpaper blocks, together with kneaded erasers molded to very fine points. Before you know it, eighty hours are gone and you've got yourself a drawing.

Classic
 

I, too have been following this thread with much interest. Thank you Mai, for starting it. Juan, your work is beautiful. And Steven, I wish you would post more of yours, it's wonderful.

Jean

A bit more for Mai
 

First, thanks to all for their compliments on my work. It is always gratifying and inspiring to hear that from fellow painters.

Mai, your scientific/mathematical mind is probably one of the best things you can have going for you. As you have been gathering, the craft of painting requires intense focus, an agile mind, and disciplined, diligent practice. The only danger -- and that may be too strong a word -- is that of getting bogged-down in the minutiae of things. The "big picture" and first principles, or, in other words, the fundamentals, are always the prime concern. When I find myself discouraged by one thing or another in any given project, I go back a few steps to the bigger picture. Almost always, I discover that my frustration was caused by my having overlooked or having made a mistake in some fundamental aspect or another. It's rarely the thing that is frustrating me that actually caused it. Know what I mean?

Regarding your search for training, here are a couple of things to keep in mind, if I may. First, there are many effective systems of painting out there. The best of them share certain similarities, but each has their differences and peculiarities. As such, I would be careful not to venture too far afield. That is, it's better to fully appropriate one system, which is hard enough, and then later to pick and choose elements of others from time to time and fit them into your own. I've met a number of artists who are frustrated with their progress and, when examined more carefully, it seems to boil down to their having "cherry-picked" over the years from this teacher and from that. At best, this leads to confusion.

Once you find a system that suits you (an artist whose work you admire is not a bad place to look) and a teacher/mentor/advisor whom you are in tune with, I would recommend that you stick with him/her for as long as possible until you've appropriated that system fully. As long as this process takes -- and it can be years -- it is still the fast-track.

Anyway, it sounds as if you are already doing many of the right things.

As the Italians say, "In boca lupo"

Juan

I just tripped over this! A superlative thread! Thank you Juan, Steven, Sharon, and any I might have missed.

Maybe Cynthia should post a "Best of SOG Forum ." Three of four of the best threads in a given month. Between trips, work, and life in general, it is easy to miss the more insightful, uplifting, and educational postings. I nominate this for the first entry!

Peggy

Thanks, Juan, for you advice and encouragement!

I will persevere!

Mai :)