Picasso & Modern Art

[Lon Haverly]

My question pertained to drawings by the masters. I really have not studied them much, but I cannot recall any drawings which were like the "photorealist" drawings which are so popular today.

With all due respect to the fabulous paintings which were 3D as you put it, and to your magnificent paintings which truly are to be admired, when it comes to drawing, as in pencil, I like to see the line work. Most drawings today just lack the line work. Most of the old masters drawings that I have seen utilized line work of some kind, not just the smoothed and polished painted look. I can admire the realist drawings, but personally, I like a drawing that looks drawn. Show me the lines. I can't help it. I like 'em.

[Jim Riley]

Drawing and the Modern Art debate

At first the drawing discussions seem to digress somewhat from the ongoing modern art thread but apparently familiar arguments continue. The suggestion that drawing education and training might lead to a different appreciation of realism (at the cost of modern art?) does not make very much sense to me. The cynical idea that that schools, teachers, museums, and galleries are not competent and self serving with some successful schemes that have favored a market for Modern Art is not apparent to me in any way. Have "they" stifled any scholarship that would indicate that this situation truly exists? And once again I have to ask: Where is the traditional heart and spirit of the young artist/students that I remember and who, as I recall, would have rebelled at any thought that new, old, better, or other ways of expression were not being pursued? And could it be that a worldwide public having far more access to books, fine prints, museums and galleries and knowledge of art than the handful of citizens alive during the classic art years have been so hoodwinked that they embrace Modern Art as well as realism?

Perhaps an argument would say that early education doesn't arm students with enough basic skills and enough understanding to challenge the art school or college and would be better off if more formal art and drawing course's were part of secondary education. I think the programs might be improved but again do not know how to measure just how broad and extensive art education programs are given nationwide but will say that locally I am impressed with the secondary and high school art. If you have scholastic art programs/competitions in your area it would be helpful to see student efforts at a local level as well as national winners if you find reports of same. (What percent of the world population had any Art Education/exposure in the nineteenth century?)

The question of drawing skills is interesting. My first year at the Cleveland Institute of Art was something of a struggle. I managed good grades but the only course where I felt competitive was life drawing. Otherwise the other students who attended high schools with dynamic art programs did wonderful things in a full range of media, techniques and subjects and I was in awe. With this recall I respond favorably to our local schools because they do a number of things in art in their art education programs. Most importantly, to my mind anyway, they get students excited about art. Having been a late blooming student (and with the help of my mothers prayers to the patron saint of lost causes) I am a firm believer that the biggest role of teachers/educational environment (whatever the subject) in the early developmental years is to excite the student about the subject and help them know and learn more once "turned on".

As much as drawing was and is one of my favorite subjects (I had one full day of life drawing each week for four years and continue to attend a life group locally) I must say that I do not share entirely the posts that suggest that having this skill and understanding will change the direction of art and art appreciation. It may be a large threat to those that worked so hard on specific skills and devastating to those that have such a big problem with modern art but it's influence will remain. It is part of the mix. In short, it would seem that the judgment of good drawing on this thread is that which would support the kind of art that us portrait artist are engaged in and not so much that which might lead to something that differs and shows no facility.

The definition of drawing is not as daunting as earlier attempts to define Art and the good/obvious/obvious is bad confusion but I would like to note that some of the posts suggest a narrow interpretation. I recognize that drawing can be a category of fine art to stand on it's own, a working tool for painters, sculptures, and a training tool for representational artist but it also suffers a narrow definition by many. "Draw with your brush" has been suggested by a lot of artist/teachers and artist in the orient have served as good examples of this advice. Having had the benefit of learning to write with a brush, they draw in a manner that captures realism often better than our outline and shadow approach. I think it also more than a coincidence that many good artist had their training as sign painters. A skill that requires an understanding of proportion, composition, and efficient application (they don't fill in outlines). Is bamboo less realistic when painted in two or three brush strokes than a carefully outlined drawing complete with shadows, reflected light and having some well defined light source?

I don't feel threatened by Modern Art and don't believe portraiture is threatened by it. Most of the art world, magazines, workshops and local art programs support it as strongly as other venues.

It also seems to me that a lot of what is believed and practiced by those sympathetic to Modern Art (Often referred to as "they") in this forum are defined by those that oppose it and do not represent the views of it's practitioners. Do we have considerable evidence that "they" are out to get us? I don't think I have lived with my head in the sand and my streets smarts gained as an urban youth have failed to reveal the hoax.

[Peter Garrett]

Marvin,

"You can't BS good drawing." Hear, hear!

But if the essence of good drawing involves conveying "the artist's full understanding of his/her subject matter to the viewer", then we have some variables to consider:

1. The artist's understanding.
2. The subject matter
3. The viewer

What I am trying to contribute here is a breaking of the circular "we all know what good drawing is" line of thought.

If an artist's understanding is on the traditional western perspectival model and refers to a visual world translated into two dimensions, we have one form of drawing. If the artist's understanding of the subject includes other visual possibilities, we have a second .....and so on. Is isonometric or axonometric technical drawing "bad" because it isn't "perspective"? Is an "exploded" view bad drawing for the same reason? And so on......

The subject matter: suppose the subject of a particular drawing is, say, space or form as such.Or suppose the subject is emotion, as such. What would then constitute a good drawing?

The viewer: we all of us bring to bear on any perception a set of preconceptions and experiences. Thus for a person raised in impenetrable jungle the idea that something looks tiny when seen from afar has no meaning. How would such a person interpret a landscape painting by an eighteenth or nineteenth century artist? The example is extreme but the principle still holds for more subtle differences.

I'd be interested to see what people think about this.

Lon,

Good to see someone actually mention line. Anyone care to comment on line with reference to "good drawing"?

Jim,

Interesting points about brush drawing.

Another line of inquiry: if drawing is illusionistic, then what is the nature of the illusion? Are Rembrandt's brush and pen drawings good drawing? Why? Or why not? Are they "accurate"?

[Marvin Mattelson]

A great book that covers the many varied aspects of drawing was written by Harold Speed. It has been republished by Dover Books and is called "The Science and Practice of Drawing."

[Timothy C. Tyler]

There has always been a "yeah but" group in nearly every human activity. It must be a personality type and I suppose these folks serve some place in society.

Most of us recognize a rightness at some level. For instance, when someone sings well. I don't appreciate all the nuiances, but some learned experts do. I also recognize when someone sings badly. It sounds silly if they say, "well, I was purposely aiming to get only close to the right note and pitch, I was being creative, did that on purpose!" Creative expression has been used for a long time as a catch-all to excuse work that couldn't stand up to serious scrutiny.

And while on the subject (or back onto the subject), I've seen Picasso's early works like his famous "blue period." I do not, and never have, thought he could paint "like Rubens" as he claimed. Those stilted figures looked like they should have been painted on black velvet...maybe they were?

[Peter Garrett]

Tim!

You're right, there's always a "yeah but" group. There's also a "let's be clear what we're talking about" group.

Guess I feel we might all learn something if we clarify what we mean, rather than making assertions and going round in circles.

What do YOU think are the elements of successful drawing?

I'd say we need to talk about more than "getting it right" What about quality of line, use of medium, deliberate alterations. Have you looked at Botticelli's Venus lately? Is it anatomically correct? Does that matter or not?

Is it worth being as ruthless with the "great masters" as we might be with more recent painters?Or are certain people immune from all analysis? Did El Greco make a terrible blunder when he elongated bodies? Are the eyes in Leonardo's paintings "wrong", or did people look like that in the fifteenth century? Think about it. You might be surprised what happens.

Just out of interest, could Giacometti draw? Henry Moore? Rodin? Were their drawings done for a purpose? What was it?

Incidentally, I worked in an opera house for four years and I can tell you that singing deliberately off the note is one of the hardest things of all to do, for a trained singer. There is in fact a scene in "Der Rosenkavalier" where exactly that is required, and its successful accomplishment draws generous applause, because it is known to be so difficult.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

I appreciate your reply and I think discussing this in depth would be a good new thread. It will be a long discussion, but you're right, no one should be exempt. I'll post a new thread now. I hope it's what you had in mind (or it may turn into that anyway).