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.