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]

Originally Posted by artmom

Really piercing gaze captured there.

Lyn

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

[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.

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

[Thom Byrd]

Originally Posted by 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.


Personally, I am not going to worry about divisions.

Thanks for letting us see your drawing.

Barb Solomon

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

I guess that answers my question
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
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

[Lnelly]

Originally Posted by Thom Byrd

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

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 ~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~ ~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.

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

[Thom Byrd]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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?