You know I like expressive line but recently I have been looking into academic methods of drawing. I came across Richard’s post and I found it sums up my feelings about the academic method. I have his permission to post his comments from the thread in the Classical forum, ‘Textbook of Ateliers? Is this it?’ https://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226851 post # 14.
I thought it might be of interest to us in the figure forum.
The atelier system relies on the sight size method of producing a recognizable image. It requires the percieved size of the model to be the same height and width as the size of the drawing or painting that you are making and proportions are transferred from the model’s image to the drawing directly with rulers, plumbbobs or other straight edged tools. The student then breaks the image down to the largest straight lines that can be made as a means of simplifying the model’s image for the first, initial outline. This is then corrected and improved upon as the drawing progresses with all parts of the drawing being worked on equally so that no part is left far behind the others. (Just imagine how a sculptor would rough cut a statue out of stone and refine it as time went on.)
This system can produce very accurate images that anyone can learn with proficiency, given enough time, and is good as a beginning method of training the eye for shape as it is foolproof for getting the image down. It is also easier to see where your drawing is off, when the model image and the drawing are of the same size. I use it occaisionally, sans plumbbobs or rulers, to check proportion and many established artists in history have used it to one degree or another. I suspect that its origins may go back to the renaissance, perhaps, but examination of rennaissance figure drawings don’t suggest its common use that I am aware of. Their figures drawings are not as precise, more “expressive” and are more unified in the line flow, both within the figure and within the painting.
While sight size can be a useful tool for any artist, beginning or otherwise,the problem with it for many is that while it is mechanically accurate, it is not always as successful at increasing the line flow or rhythms within the figures or throughout the composition. The connected flow of line (real or implied) is one of the means that renaissance painters used to naturally move the eye about the painting and to create the necessary unity. Without it, you sometimes get paintings that are simply a collection of individual, unrelated objects that are put into the picture and not a simple, unified mass(es) that is designed as one from the start. Look at renaissance figure drawings and at 19th or 20th century atelier figure drawings and you will see a difference. They can both be beautiful as studies or finished paintings but for many, there is a difference in the “life” and the beauty of composition between the two.
The other difficulty is that it is more difficult to use in many plein air or outdoor drawing or painting situations as it requires more time and you must be more particular about where you stand to produce the same sized images, ie model and drawing. This is usually not possible in the field (city or country) and in many real life situations where you have to draw something in motion or where space is limited. The renaissance painters seemed to rely on their knowledge of anatomy and drawing to produce a greater prortion of their figure drawings and were not dependent so much on painting or drawing from life to the extent that the 19th century academic painters appeared to be.
Learn all that you can of sight size and use it proficiently. But remember, that there are other tools in the artist’s toolbox that can be brought to bear on any artistic endeavor and each can have a different effect on your final product.
.
