Is this Classical~~~~or~~~~~~~~~~~

[Thom Byrd]

class-less * There seems to be many variations of the terms~as it applies to subject ~ time line ~ method *
any how this was rough*trying to create foreshorting in just the tilt of the head dang*

Size 8"X10"
Canson paper
Venus pencil H~~~to~~~~6B
total time 7 hours

[artmom]

Thom, I don't know if this is "classical" or not, but I think it is well done! Really piercing gaze captured there.

Lyn

[Thom Byrd]

Really piercing gaze captured there.

Lyn


Thank you Lyn*the eyes is where I put most of my time nd effort :cool:

[bjs0704]

Congratulations. I can just imagine that it was tricky making sure that the angle of the head was correct. It has added a lot to the emotional quality of the face too. :clap: :clap:

There does seem to be overlap between what some call "fantasy" art and "classical" art. Both styles often use very traditional technique and strive to render there subjects as realistically as possible. "Fantasy" art often borrows heavily from the classical art of the past for inspiration for contemporary pieces.

Personally, I am not going to worry about divisions.

Thanks for letting us see your drawing.

Barb Solomon :cat:

[Thom Byrd]

Congratulations. I can just imagine that it was tricky making sure that the angle of the head was correct. It has added a lot to the emotional quality of the face too. :clap: :clap:


Personally, I am not going to worry about divisions.

Thanks for letting us see your drawing.

Barb Solomon :cat:
Thank you Barb for looking and your sensibilities ;)

[Classical Vince]

Hi Thom! I like the Renaissance feel of this. I agree with Barb, no need for divisions, please post anything you might want to share.

I have my own definition of classical and its more broad than most I think. To me, the classical style is one that considers the whole as well its parts. Now that said, you can think how it directly relates to perspective, proportion and light and shade. If you wish to depict these things in their natural form then you can consider it classical in style.

It need not be highly realistic or photorealistic but if you are drawing what you see it will most likely qualify as a classical style.

[Thom Byrd]

Hi Thom! I like the Renaissance feel of this. I agree with Barb, no need for divisions, please post anything you might want to share.

I have my own definition of classical and its more broad than most I think. To me, the classical style is one that considers the whole as well its parts. Now that said, you can think how it directly relates to perspective, proportion and light and shade. If you wish to depict these things in their natural form then you can consider it classical in style.

It need not be highly realistic or photorealistic but if you are drawing what you see it will most likely qualify as a classical style.


I have developed my own definition of classical art. I define it by all the the ISMS romanticism~impessionism~fauvism~~~~~~~~~that has challenged it*By comparing classical art to the other isms*You can determine what classical is and they aren't :confused:

[Lnelly]

Making a drawing of or from a photograph is not classical. It's rather insulting to all those who struggle to work from life to say that it is. There's no other way to say it.


Ln

[Thom Byrd]

Making a drawing of or from a photograph is not classical. It's rather insulting to all those who struggle to work from life to say that it is. There's no other way to say it.


Ln
:eek: I guess that answers my question :rolleyes:
However,even tho my opening salvo was posed as a question*It was not ;)
I know fully well what classical art is and is not*If it not old marble~Greek~Have a broken nose or missing an arm ~ it is not :D
This drawing was no more than a five finger exercise*I have not drawn from life since school but even then I never stuggled much*The hand and the eye were more adept than now :cool:

[Lnelly]

I know fully well what classical art is and is not*If it not old marble~Greek~Have a broken nose or missing an arm ~ it is not :D




I'm not saying that classical means we should be grinding our own paints and plucking the hair out of a boar's butt to make our own brushes. We have advantages in our time, and we can use them. But with photography and the incredible ease brought by the advent of digital photography and digital imaging software like Photoshop, where do you draw the line?

And why even bother drawing for that matter? Photoshop will take a picture you give it and turn it into a drawing, a drawing that in all likelihood will look better than anything you can do in your own hand; and it can do it in whatever style you want, too. And if you like what Photoshop can do for you when it comes to making a drawing, you won't believe what it can accomplish when it comes to making your picture look like an oil painting. So why bother making art at all with your own hand? Just get a digicam!

Or maybe you still want to draw but are tired of being human and want to pretend that you're some kind of a photocopying machine like ninety percent of the people in the Drawing and Sketching forum pretend they are (good luck ever finding anything done from life there). It's also so much easier having a photograph as your model. You don't have to pay it. It never needs breaks. It always holds still. And it has no trouble at all maintaining a big-goofy-grin for you if that's what you want.

Personally, I don't want to forsake my humanity so easily; either to digital imaging (whether it be as an aid or as an end) or to photographic copying. There have been some who have said that art is dead, and in my more cynical moments, I tend to agree with them. But when I want to fight such a notion, I fall back on what it is that is most fundamental about being human, and that is a mind using its available senses to have as purely as possible a full experience of an immediate reality. It's about a human experience of an actual reality. Whether it's being fully aware of a meal you're eating, or mindful of a walk you're taking, it's about being 'classically' human without twenty-first century distractions cluttering up your experience of reality, your experience of life.

And so I draw what I see, or better put, I draw what I experience. I setup a bit of reality before me and I draw it with a wholehearted sensual effort that's devoted to few other things in life. It's just me and a bit of actual reality that I've chosen to fully focus on, to fully experience.

Below is a detail of a cup from a drawing that I've made. I remember vividly when I was drawing that cup from life. I would be so keenly focused on it as I carefully observed and drew it that there would be moments where I could swear I was actually touching it. Even though it was only my vision giving me an experience of the cup, it was as if my sense of touch was being tapped as well to provide me with some kind of enhanced visual experience. It's hard to explain, but I can say with certainty that you'll never know this experience drawing from photographs.

In this advanced age of extraordinary technology that puts immense pressure on us to be less human, a full experience of reality by just your human faculties is..........................classical.


Ln

[Thom Byrd]

Dude I don't think your argument is with me or against me :angel: ~I don't think it is against or for classical art~ as I see your passion for ~ defense of ~ demand for life drawing and drawing from life*


"It's hard to explain, but I can say with certainty that you'll never know this experience drawing from photographs."Ln

May I explain something to you*When I am drawing a pair of eyes ,be it from a photo or looking directly into my wifes.There is something much more than manual dexterity that happens before it gets to the paper~ :confused: ~can you dig it ;) Sometimes I draw directly what comes from within * I visualise *Right now~without photo~or her physical presense in front of me *I could draw my wife*She and my children would know who it was*Others would feel the love of the drawer for the drawn*

AS you see I am not a true classist ~ I am a true Romantic*I definately prefer a Dlacroix over a David or Ingres and/or a Degas over a Pearlstien( sp)

[bjs0704]

Thom, I am not sure what brought that on, but I liked your response.

I am all to aware of some people's disapproval as an artistic tool. It has always struck as a bit curious when I see approve of some people's work even though it is from photo. Then, they turn around and condemn others for not working from life. It never seemed right to me. :rolleyes:

Currently, I have been trying very hard to improve my pencil drawings.I have been doing a lot of practice portraits. Thanks for letting us see your drawing.

Barb Solomon :cat:

[Thom Byrd]

Thom, I am not sure what brought that on, but I liked your response.

I am all to aware of some people's disapproval as an artistic tool. It has always struck as a bit curious when I see approve of some people's work even though it is from photo. Then, they turn around and condemn others for not working from life. It never seemed right to me. :rolleyes:

Currently, I have been trying very hard to improve my pencil drawings.I have been doing a lot of practice portraits. Thanks for letting us see your drawing.

Barb Solomon :cat:


Thanks Barb~where can I see some of these practice portraits?

[Lnelly]

Barb and Thom,

Maybe my point wasn't made clearly enough, for my personal passion may have obfuscated my message a bit. I was making a distinction between what can be loosely described as modern/postmodern realism (with it's heavy reliance on the use of modern imaging technology) and what I consider to be a classical experience of art. Although I do consider the latter a superior form of artistic experience to the former, I can often very much appreciate the former. My admiration of Chuck Close (if you've never seen one of his immense portraits in person, you really should) would be an example of this, for I understand that it would be next to impossible for him to do what he has done without the aid of photography. But is Close classical? Of course not. To say that he is is a practice in absurdity. He's a modern realist (an interesting one at that) which is an acceptable genre in the world of art, but he has not practiced a fundamentally classical experience of art, and that's fine, especially since it has worked so well for him.

And the same goes for everyone who likes to draw and paint from photos. Their work is often admirable and also an appropriate reflection of our times, and I will say helpfully kind things about their work when it's shown to me; but if I'm then told that these works are to be considered modern day examples of the practice of a classical artistic experience, a passionate refutation arises within me. I'm not sure why the insistence would be made that their work be considered classical (perhaps it has something to do with an underlying issue of self-esteem), but it is fundamentally and emphatically not.

It needs to be understood that my passion in this regard stems from a much larger view and understanding of things then just art. I've learned a lot from my study of history, and I've been very perceptive of current trends. It used to be as time went by that the things around us changed (with man remaining, essentially, as he always has), but now as time goes by it's going to be us who fundamentally change. Do you really think in a hundred years (probably sooner) these conversations in cyberspace are going to be dependent on one's ability to access a keyboard, monitor, and external hard drive? And do you really think the very nature of cyberspace will be anything like it currently is? Technology and biology are on an irreversible course of mergence that, in time, will make one indistinguishable from the other. The technology outside of us that so easily links us will eventually become us. An essential redefinition of humanity will occur, and the term 'homo sapiens' will no longer apply. There will be an unimaginable collective experience in this new version of humanity; but the 'classical' human experience will be gone. I'm sure some will doubt this and call it overly fantastic, but you should know that I didn't arrive at such a conclusion without an enormous amount of thought, thought that has taken this perceptiveness even further and with far more detail than I've described here.

So now you know why I make such a clear distinction between the classical experience of art and the ever growing technologically-aided experience of art. I understand and accept realistic art that relies on imaging technology for its production, for it's so much more efficient especially when it comes to meeting necessary deadlines for clients, galleries, and contests. All I'm suggesting is that there be a respectful division between that and a practice of art that relies on the direct human experience of an immediate reality, a human experience that may very well one day be gone.


This will be my last post.


Take care,

Lee

[Shehaub]

Many Classical artists use Bargue Drawings. Its all in recognizing shapes, be it from life or from 2D referances. In all honesty, moving back and forth, doing a bargue style drawing and then working from life works very well, since each has its educational merit. I won't argue too deep into a purist argument except to say that this does have a classical flavor to it, in my opinion.

You have very much captured an air of mystery with this gaze. This is a great pose. This is a beautiful girl. My only crit is that I am looking for some nice deep rich blacks in the hair and darker areas to contrast with the lights. How good is this scan?

[Classical Vince]

This will be my last post.


Sorry to see you leave the discussion Lee. When we first were rallying to get a classical forum started, a commonly stated objection had to do with members feeling that they didnt know if their work qualified to be posted in a classical forum. It concerned me that some people may feel that they could not participate. My definition is loose but inclusive.

With the exception of a recent self-portrait, I always work from life and I do post in d&s. I too have noticed the heavy reliance on grids, tracings and photographs. I've come to accept this postmodern-fact for other artists but I choose not to use them in my own work.

In a recent thread here on WC, a university art instructor stated that photographs were objective. Sadly, this is the modern misconception of 20th century photography and unless you understand the subjective limitations of a photograph you wont appreciate the freedom of working from life.

I appreciate you taking the time to post your views.

[Keith Russell]

And why even bother drawing for that matter? Photoshop will take a picture you give it and turn it into a drawing, a drawing that in all likelihood will look better than anything you can do in your own hand; and it can do it in whatever style you want, too. And if you like what Photoshop can do for you when it comes to making a drawing, you won't believe what it can accomplish when it comes to making your picture look like an oil painting. So why bother making art at all with your own hand? Just get a digicam!

I could disagree that Photoshop can draw better than me, but that is entirely beside the point. I don't draw in the attempt to outdo either a camera or a Photoshop engineer, but to learn to see.

Photoshop may render acceptable work, and quickly, but the ends do not justify the means. The means justify the ends.

If you want to truly learn to see, you must draw for yourself.

Or maybe you still want to draw but are tired of being human and want to pretend that you're some kind of a photocopying machine like ninety percent of the people in the Drawing and Sketching forum pretend they are (good luck ever finding anything done from life there). It's also so much easier having a photograph as your model. You don't have to pay it. It never needs breaks. It always holds still. And it has no trouble at all maintaining a big-goofy-grin for you if that's what you want.

Well, doesn't it depend on what you actually do want? There are advantages to drawing from life, and advantages from drawing from photographs, and (even greater) advantages to being able to draw from imagination (which is mastered by lots of drawing, period, regardless of source).

In the end, reality isn't good enough. To express my view of reality, my own unique perspective, I may begin by working from reality, but that is only the starting point.

Personally, I don't want to forsake my humanity so easily; either to digital imaging (whether it be as an aid or as an end) or to photographic copying. There have been some who have said that art is dead, and in my more cynical moments, I tend to agree with them.

The question isn't whether art is dead; the question is, for whom is art dead? If there is even one person for whom art is not dead, then it's not dead, period.

But when I want to fight such a notion, I fall back on what it is that is most fundamental about being human, and that is a mind using its available senses to have as purely as possible a full experience of an immediate reality. It's about a human experience of an actual reality. Whether it's being fully aware of a meal you're eating, or mindful of a walk you're taking, it's about being 'classically' human without twenty-first century distractions cluttering up your experience of reality, your experience of life.

You can have my CDs, my computer, and my synthesizers, when you pry them from my cold, dead, fingers.

In this advanced age of extraordinary technology that puts immense pressure on us to be less human, a full experience of reality by just your human faculties is...classical.

Advnaced technology, though, is human; it is a uniquely human achivement.

The 'problem' isn't technology, but the proper use of technology. Technology was created by human beings, for human beings to use. It is when we allow technology to use us, that problems arise.

K

[bjs0704]

Well, I guess I am just going to have to post something....:evil:

I have a charcoal brush drawing on the classical forum and some things that aren't pencil on some of the other forums.

Here is a link to my current pencil project.

http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2037401#post2037401

Barb Solomon :cat:

[SweetBabyJ]

" I'm not sure why the insistence would be made that their work be considered classical (perhaps it has something to do with an underlying issue of self-esteem), but it is fundamentally and emphatically not. "

Whoa! Hold up there, Pardner!

I believe you have a strong opinion about what classical art is, and isn't, but it is, still, just an opinon. Your "passionate response" indicates, psychologically, it is *you* who harbors a defensiveness, not others. To say "drawing from life" is the only part of "classical" artistic endeavour one has to employ to be considered a classicist, is equally absurd- if you're going to be a classicist, then by golly, why AREN'T you grinding your own pigments, plucking bristles out of a boar's butt and even squeezing your own linseed oil??? YOU drew a line on your definition: "I shall include this and exclude that", and yet you do not wish to allow others to do the same.

Do you really think the artists we now consider classic masters wouldn't be taking advantage of every single leap in technology available if they were still alive and creating today? Isn't that what an artist IS?? Someone who uses ANYTHING to get a vision from his/her head to a ground somewhere??

Focused views are necessary in an artist, but I think narrow-mindedness may get in the way of being a "master".

[Classical Vince]

Do you really think the artists we now consider classic masters wouldn't be taking advantage of every single leap in technology available if they were still alive and creating today?

As a sweeping generalization I have to disagree. To see what a classical master might do today I would point to artists like Nelson Shanks or Jacob Colins. Neither of them have embraced technology to the point of disattachment from life.


Isn't that what an artist IS?? Someone who uses ANYTHING to get a vision from his/her head to a ground somewhere??

I could draw with a burnt stick if I had to but I would still choose to work from life. I think Lnelly has a lot of good points, as do you. His posts have obviously got us all discussing this.

We could all benefit from stepping away from the camera to enjoy the reality of life. I could relate to the senses he experiences when drawing from life. They are very real to me too; touching something with your eyes is a beautiful experience.

Well, I guess I am just going to have to post something....

Oh sure, stir it up! ;)

[SweetBabyJ]

Oh I agree too, as far as not becoming a slave to some form of technique which *disengages* rather than engages- but, I disagree that using "tools" somehow makes any effort "not classical". I believe it's been discussed before all the little optical tricks classical artists used- little "technical" (for the time) tools to help them *see* what they needed to see. What would make someone think that is still not the case today??

My best works are those out of my head- I use from life what I can, but bottom line is, my works are from *me*- not a picture, not a vase with a flower in front of me- I'm not trying to capture a "thing", but a second of time from my mind. To me, that's what makes something "classical"- that when I view it, I don't see a "thing", but a whole second of time.

But, see, that's just MY opinion, and I welcome anyone else's opinion as equally valid.

[Keith Russell]

We could all benefit from stepping away from the camera to enjoy the reality of life. I could relate to the senses he experiences when drawing from life. They are very real to me too; touching something with your eyes is a beautiful experience.

Vince, you have offered a false dichotomy; life, or the camera.

There is another source for image generation, even images of a 'realistic' bent--

--imagination.

'Reality' (in the 'Realist' sense) is what is external to human consciousness. A work is 'art'--as Ayn Rand correctly noted--only when it expresses what is internal to human consciousness.

Art is the selective re-creation of reality, according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments.

'Selective' is the key...

K

[broken pencil]

what are we arguing about now?

...never mind me, just passing through...carry on...

[Classical Vince]

Hi Sweet. Its great that you can accept another opinion as valid. What would make me think it would be different today? I dont. I see artists all over the place tracing and using any means possible to get something in a frame. I admire any artist who has the guts to make statements such as Lnelly's. He is defensive because he knows he is in the minority.

Vince, you have offered a false dichotomy; life, or the camera.

There is another source for image generation, even images of a 'realistic' bent--

--imagination.

'Reality' (in the 'Realist' sense) is what is external to human consciousness. A work is 'art'--as Ayn Rand correctly noted--only when it expresses what is internal to human consciousness.

Art is the selective re-creation of reality, according to the artist's metaphysical value-judgments.

'Selective' is the key...

K

Good point K. I think we both agree on how valuable the knowledge of depicting reality is when it comes to painting from the imagination.

Your 'selective' quote supports Lnelly's views about human copy-machines. I feel like I dont know the artist underneath when I view some of the photocopies I see signed. Its almost like the difference between getting a hand-written letter and a word processed document. You lose the human-connection with the writer.

[Thom Byrd]

my little drawing really kicked it up :evil:
I am a carpenter by trade,and I believe in using any and every tool to make the task better and more efficient*You can drive a nail with a brick,but a hammer is much better~and nail gun is even better*
I can't see how people can condem the progress a craft makes~If the avancement is accomplished by humans ( camera ,grid. photoshop. whatever)Then it does not subtract from humanity it adds to it*(if you believe that humanity is niether all good :angel: ~ nor ~ all evil :evil: )
If all advancemet was rejected~The purist architects would still live in caves,and the purist painter would still be decorating the walls with burnt sticks*


do I need the butt icon there is a nekkid woman in this somewhere :D

[Classical Vince]

what are we arguing about now?

...never mind me, just passing through...carry on...

alright, give me that burnt stick! ;)

[Classical Vince]

my little drawing really kicked it up :evil:

Good. I felt a little bad for all of this being engaged in your artwork. Art does spark passion ;)


I am a carpenter by trade,and I believe in using any and every tool to make the task better and more efficient*You can drive a nail with a brick,but a hammer is much better~and nail gun is even better*

I think you might relate to this...I hate track-homes. Cant stand them. I grew up in a neighborhood where every 5th house was the same. Just because its a more efficient way to build a house now doesnt make them any better to look at.

I used to install drapes for a living. Older homes always had a stud to find easily whereas the newer homes seemed to be all drywall. You have to look beneath the surface to see the difference.


I can't see how people can condem the progress a craft makes~If the avancement is accomplished by humans ( camera ,grid. photoshop. whatever)Then it does not subtract from humanity it adds to it*(if you believe that humanity is niether all good :angel: ~ nor ~ all evil :evil: )

To some it is progress. Progress in this society translates to -> easier or more convenient...All this artistic human-convenience delivers us a generation of artists who dont know how to depict reality. Thats hardly progress.


If all advancemet was rejected~The purist architects would still live in caves,and the purist painter would still be decorating the walls with burnt sticks*


do I need the butt icon there is a nekkid woman in this somewhere :D
All architecture is derivative. Advancement isnt possible without knowledge of prior experience already proven to work.

How can you possibly say that photography is an advancement to art when it cripples the eye that uses it? Its not an advancement, its a downhill slide.

Ok, now Im itching to find me a stick ;)

[loulou]

All right, I won't comment on the arguments displayed here because I don't want to see flames all over my screen:evil:;):evil:

However, I'd like to ask Thom:cat:: What did you mean by your post's title ? Is this Classical or ???????? WHAT ? Did you have another suggestion to categorize your drawing ? Just curious.

I would tend to place it among fantasy art with a touch of surrealism ...
To me this is not classical in the 19th century sense. But that remains a debate of course.

To the main purpose of this reply: use of photographs

Sure, you might want to inspire yourselves from photos, especially when you live in such crazy parts of the world covered in snow half of the year (like where I live). Believe me, it gets depressing & frustrating to have to live in B&W. What I miss most is blue and green, from my West Coast days. But I digress again...:( forgive me...

However, only INSPIRE yourselves from pictures, do not copy, because whether these are Photoshop manipulated or not, the lenses (even on a digicam) distort human reality in shape, in bringing a background forward too much (ever seen a picture which has a waterfall so close it feels like it could be running all over the fisherman in the foreground of that picture ?), in colors, tone, light/shadow relationship, and more.

What most people who work from photographs do not realize or forget is that the proportions of a face get distorted. And that shows in the finished products unfortunately.

First and foremost you need to correct all of the distortion before working on values and mass. Look at the angles of buildings, build up proper perspective with multiple vanishing points (there may be 4 or 5 or more, you'd be surprised); the same for the human head, draw your guide lines down the middle and across center, then put in all of the subordinate guide lines, and so on.
Build up tone and mass while no longer looking at that photograph. Some artists put it away somewhere, far away, or even tear it up, in order to push themselves to use their knowledge and imagination, their science and feelings. They ensure they do not copy.

Just thought I'd relay a bit of info I gleaned over my readings and discussions with artists and art instructors. All are adamant: beware of photos!
Besides, photography is an art unto itself.

Loulou:angel:

[Keith Russell]

Good point K. I think we both agree on how valuable the knowledge of depicting reality is when it comes to painting from the imagination.

Your 'selective' quote supports Lnelly's views about human copy-machines. I feel like I dont know the artist underneath when I view some of the photocopies I see signed. Its almost like the difference between getting a hand-written letter and a word processed document. You lose the human-connection with the writer.

Vince, you have the opening line of Rand's The Fountainhead as your signature.

But, have you read Rand's The Romantic Manifesto? It offers her definition of art, as well as an explanation of what Rand felt her definition actually means.

I don't agree with many of her conclusions, but I agree with most of her premises...

K

[Thom Byrd]

However, I'd like to ask Thom:cat:: What did you mean by your post's title ? Is this Classical or ???????? WHAT ? Did you have another suggestion to categorize your drawing ? Just curious.

Loulou:angel:


My question was just a bait and hook to get folks to look at me drawin :angel: nothin more nothin less*The butt Icon works best.However I had no nudity to offer*

My drawings belong to no school of thought*I have a better than average knowledge of art history*I can define my own work*

I just draw :D But I can draw with the manual dexterity of the proudest monkey :cool:

[Thom Byrd]

OOOOOOOOH NOOOOOOOO :eek: Another selective objectivist :D


Vince, you have the opening line of Rand's The Fountainhead as your signature.

But, have you read Rand's The Romantic Manifesto? It offers her definition of art, as well as an explanation of what Rand felt her definition actually means.

I don't agree with many of her conclusions, but I agree with most of her premises...

K

[loulou]

My question was just a bait and hook to get folks to look at me drawin :angel: nothin more nothin less*The butt Icon works best.However I had no nudity to offer

Sure worked ! little :evil:

I have a better than average knowledge of art history
Let's see you at work in the MM of Art History channel ! :D :D

Loulou:angel:

[Classical Vince]

Vince, you have the opening line of Rand's The Fountainhead as your signature.

But, have you read Rand's The Romantic Manifesto? It offers her definition of art, as well as an explanation of what Rand felt her definition actually means.

I don't agree with many of her conclusions, but I agree with most of her premises...

K

Hi K. Boy do I have a reading list a mile long. lol. I havent had the opportunity to read it yet but it is certainly on my list.

I've heard more than a few objections before about her conclusions and now Im really curious!

[Keith Russell]

OOOOOOOOH NOOOOOOOO :eek: Another selective objectivist :D

Sorry, Thom, but I've excommunicated myself.

I was an Objectivist from 1988 through late 2002 (or early 2003, it didn't happen overnight)--

--but I am an Objectivist no longer.

K

[Thom Byrd]

Good. I felt a little bad for all of this being engaged in your artwork. Art does spark passion ;)

No problem I think it helped push the argument (about classicism not classical art which I still relagate to the old greeks :rolleyes:



I think you might relate to this...I hate track-homes. Cant stand them. I grew up in a neighborhood where every 5th house was the same. Just because its a more efficient way to build a house now doesnt make them any better to
look at.

I used to install drapes for a living. Older homes always had a stud to find easily whereas the newer homes seemed to be all drywall. You have to look beneath the surface to see the difference.


As far as track homes ~ If helps to get families out of apartments and into homes* that initself is a plus :D

When I frame in a header I place curtain blocks on the sides~even in prefaba~that way you rag haggers didn't have to look for studs~or tear up my drywall*



To some it is progress. Progress in this society translates to -> easier or more convenient...All this artistic human-convenience delivers us a generation of artists who dont know how to depict reality. Thats hardly
progress.

Even the challenged have a right to express temselves :D It does the soul could to create albeit circles and squares*


All architecture is derivative. Advancement isnt possible without knowledge of prior experience already proven to work.

that was my point*but once we derive~we must advance ~to arrive :confused: progress move on

How can you possibly say that photography is an advancement to art when it cripples the eye that uses it? Its not an advancement, its a downhill slide.
~Because I have seen and reaped its rewards~
there is no way that a untrained eye can take a good photo*
earlier you stated that the camera was non-objective * Niether is a piece of charcoal*they are objects ~ tools for the artist to use*then the results become objective ~ choose to focus or choose not to focus ~ correct the F-stop or leave the lense cap on ;) you see my point *

Ok, now Im itching to find me a stick ;)

[arlene]

give me a farkin break.

I've kept out of this so far.

would I like to be able to do my drawings strictly from life? you bet, but considering the one I'm working on right now will take me well over 200 hours, I'm not sure my family would appreciate the smell of the rotten eggs and the moldy oranges on the plate.

I'm also not rich enough to pay for a new set of flowers every few days, so I use a camera to set up and photograph my still life.

do i copy? some...but I mostly interpret...go have a look, and you'll see quite a few changes from the photo, most notably with the fabrics, and with my adding in flames and buildings. Yes I tried it in ps first, but trust me it will look different in rl...or should i have gone and made a mock up of the wtc burning again?

Arlene's Drawing (http://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166472)

so is my work less classical in feel? again give me a break...yes my medium certainly is (colored pencil) but not the feel.

I've had years of life drawing, and still do it for fun and to keep myself learning. And someone did bring up the bargue drawings which is the first thing I thought of. :D

Oh and let's not forget the camera obscura...or are we afraid to admit that too?

Thom, your work is classical in feel and is more then welcome in this forum whether drawn from life, or photos.

[Classical Vince]

give me a farkin break.

I've kept out of this so far.

Hi Arlene, quotes really help to know who/what you are referring to.


I would I like to be able to do my drawings strictly from life? you bet, but considering the one I'm working on right now will take me well over 200 hours, I'm not sure my family would appreciate the smell of the rotten eggs and the moldy oranges on the plate.


LOL! No, that wouldnt be the potpourri of my choice either! ;)


do i copy? some...but I mostly interpret...go have a look, and you'll see quite a few changes from the photo, most notably with the fabrics, and with my adding in flames and buildings. Yes I tried it in ps first, but trust me it will look different in rl...or should i have gone and made a mock up of the wtc burning again?

I think you did a fine job with the composition and lighting as I noted.


so is my work less classical in feel? again give me a break...yes my medium certainly is (colored pencil) but not the feel.

All artists working in all mediums should feel comfortable to post here.


I've had years of life drawing, and still do it for fun and to keep myself learning. And someone did bring up the bargue drawings which is the first thing I thought of. :D

I know you can relate to the sensitivities experienced when working from life. I wont always be able to work from life but it really is my preferance. The Bargue drawings are excellent tools for learning. In fact, I remember Verdaccio posting a classical drawing exercise that used photographs.

Photos arent entirely bad tools but like I said, I do prefer to work from life. Having the years of life drawing under your belt gave you experiences that show in your work. Namely, your edge-work.


Oh and let's not forget the camera obscura...or are we afraid to admit that too?

:eek: Dont go there ;)

[arlene]

Hi Arlene, quotes really help to know who/what you are referring to.

Anyone who summarly dismisses using photos.

I think you did a fine job with the composition and lighting as I noted.

I wasn't implying about the comp so much as making comment to lnelly and the comments about copying. An artist interprets, whether working from life or from photos.

All artists working in all mediums should feel comfortable to post here.

Yep. And it is attitudes of "there's only one true way" which was my one hesitation with this forum from the beginning as you recall...and no, I don't mean you Vince.

I know you can relate to the sensitivities experienced when working from life. I wont always be able to work from life but it really is my preferance. The Bargue drawings are excellent tools for learning. In fact, I remember Verdaccio posting a classical drawing exercise that used photographs.

Photos arent entirely bad tools but like I said, I do prefer to work from life. Having the years of life drawing under your belt gave you experiences that show in your work. Namely, your edge-work.

Absolutely true. And you'll always see me telling people new to art, draw from life. Learn how first. The difference shows. You can't always interpret a curve, an arm's musculature or edge of a cup in a photo, unless you've had lots of experience drawing the same from life.

:eek: Dont go there ;)

c'mon Vince, even you have to admit that if Leonardo were alive today he'd be using any tools possible, and he probably used the camera obscura...after all not only was he an artist but also a scientist.

[Seraph]

I was originally going to comment on your drawing, Thom, but as this thread seems to have lapsed into one of those "working from life vs. working from photographs" discussions, I guess Ill contribute my two cents there too. :rolleyes:

But first things first. Thom, when I first saw a version of this drawing youd posted at an earlier stage I would have sworn to anyone that would have listened that it was Amy Lee (or at least I hope thats her name, the girl from Evanescence). But looking at it now I wouldnt have guessed that at all. Of course, what that means is that youve managed to do two very difficult things in one drawing. First you captured a really good likeness (even if it was unintentional) and then you changed it in order to create a completely different work of art that has its own unique feel. That is so cool, I wish I could do that!!

And second (and yes I know this is getting long) working from life and working from photographs are two very valid ways of achieving an end. One is not necessarily better or worse than the other, they are two totally unique experiences and your work will be different based on which method you use. Sometimes one is better for certain pieces than the other, it just depends.

~Seraph

[Thom Byrd]

But first things first. Thom, when I first saw a version of this drawing youd posted at an earlier stage I would have sworn to anyone that would have listened that it was Amy Lee (or at least I hope thats her name, the girl from Evanescence). But looking at it now I wouldnt have guessed that at all. Of course, what that means is that youve managed to do two very difficult things in one drawing. First you captured a really good likeness (even if it was unintentional) and then you changed it in order to create a completely different work of art that has its own unique feel. That is so cool, I wish I could do that!!


~Seraph

Thank you for your comments*You are right the first three hours on this drawing was Amy Lee (luv her voice ~I just wish she would lighten up a little)Then I spent the next four hours making it a drawing of my vision of a sorceress*This displeased my daughter*She really likes that band , and wanted the first stage of the drawing for her room ~ she was not please with with the final results :crying: I am going to do another one in colored pencils and stop when its just a portrait*

[Thom Byrd]

give me a farkin break.

Thom, your work is classical in feel and is more then welcome in this forum whether drawn from life, or photos.


The lady of the house has spoken :clap: thanks Arlene

I am going to knock the dust off my CPs here soon :cool:

[bjs0704]

Thom - I am looking forward to seeing some more. Best of luck! :)

Barb Solomon :cat:

[bdswagger]

With the exception of a recent self-portrait, I always work from life and I do post in d&s. I too have noticed the heavy reliance on grids, tracings and photographs. I've come to accept this postmodern-fact for other artists but I choose not to use them in my own work.

Excuse me, but the grid system was being used by painters as far back as the renaissance. And photography was certainly used by many late 19th century artists.
Leigh

[bdswagger]

[QUOTE=Classical Vince]
I used to install drapes for a living. Older homes always had a stud to find easily whereas the newer homes seemed to be all drywall. You have to look beneath the surface to see the difference.[QUOTE]

Well, now, that depends. I used to work construction myself-2 different trades at different times, drywall and painting/glazing-and I can tell you right now, that trying to do remodeling/repair work on SOME reaaally old homes was a nightmare. Wall studs 6 feet apart or not there AT ALL. While some old homes were very well built, not all of them were. And yes, mass produced housing is horrid.

[QUOTE]How can you possibly say that photography is an advancement to art when it cripples the eye that uses it? Its not an advancement, its a downhill slide.[QUOTE]

It is another tool. It's what a person does with that tool that makes it a crutch or not.
Leigh

[Classical Vince]

Excuse me, but the grid system was being used by painters as far back as the renaissance. And photography was certainly used by many late 19th century artists.
Leigh

lol. Hey Tom, you trouble-maker! ;)

Leigh, you're exused. I simply stated my own work ethics in your selected quote. Get over it already, this thread is almost 2mos old.

[bdswagger]

lol. Hey Tom, you trouble-maker! ;)

Leigh, you're exused. I simply stated my own work ethics in your selected quote. Get over it already, this thread is almost 2mos old.

First, I didn't notice the date on the thread when I posted. Second, I wasn't aware there was a cut off date for comments on threads. I will be sure to keep that in mind.
Leigh

[Classical Vince]

First, I didn't notice the date on the thread when I posted. Second, I wasn't aware there was a cut off date for comments on threads. I will be sure to keep that in mind.
Leigh
Oh, theres no cut off date. I believe you missed my point. Why criticize my work ethics by means of the "Excuse me" in your post.

Theres no expiration date for taking a shot at me, keep that in mind.

[bdswagger]

Oh, theres no cut off date. I believe you missed my point. Why criticize my work ethics by means of the "Excuse me" in your post.

Theres no expiration date for taking a shot at me, keep that in mind.

I wasn't taking a shot at you, all I did was point out an historical fact. Nor was I criticizing your work ethic. If that's what it came across as, then I appologise. As far as work ethics-which I'm not sure that term fits here-to me, whatever works for the individual, in getting the end result they want, is what matters.

The 'excuse me' in my post should be read as... waving hand in air in classroom discussion 'uh, excuse me but...'.

And telling me to get over it was pretty rude.
Leigh

[Classical Vince]

I wasn't taking a shot at you, all I did was point out an historical fact. Nor was I criticizing your work ethic. If that's what it came across as, then I appologise.

No problem. Ive had plenty of debates over my work ethics OUTSIDE of the classical forum. I have enough respect for this forum to keep my opinions to myself most of the time. Thom here, (lol, you!) had fun with this thread as did I.


As far as work ethics-which I'm not sure that term fits here-to me, whatever works for the individual, in getting the end result they want, is what matters.

I agree. Whatever works for the individual. However, I dont agree that the end result is what matters. Art is a learning process and each piece should be an endeavor to improve on ones natural skills - or - staleness and formula will invade.

We disagree on this point but I think the mods as well as the rest of the forum would agree; this isnt the place for this.


The 'excuse me' in my post should be read as... waving hand in air in classroom discussion 'uh, excuse me but...'.

When you quoted me twice, well, that was more like waving your hand in my face.


And telling me to get over it was pretty rude.

Its in my nature to defend myself, lets save this for another thread, and another forum. Thanks.

[Termini.]

" whatever works for the individual, in getting the end result they want, is what matters."
Leigh


Hi Leigh,

I agree 100%. Some people never understand this.

Jim

[arlene]

This sniping is not allowed in this forum I'm closing the thread. Take it to debates.