[ZippZopp]

I just wanted to find out what everyone thought of the gridding method, especially when doing portraits. i did some self portraits (done traditionally, some done in front of mirror, others done from photos) a few that i did from photos i used the grid method to get the outline of the face, perspective and features correct. after lightly penciling in the outline and features i went ahead and did all my shading normally. i learned the gridding method from http://homepages.tesco.net/~p.wilkinson/Gridding.html

would u consider this method a cheap shortcut, or is it a credible way to get things done?

[Ian Jones]

Well, hmmmmmmmmm....

You can probably tell by my inital reaction that I don't really like the method. I think its great in some ways, but it is a crutch that you should not depend on. What happens when you want to draw something that is not copyable from a photo? You may well be able to make quite good pictures with this method, but over time it will damage you, because you wont be able to actually draw. By skipping the step of actually drawing the outlines yourself, you won't develop your skill, or an understanding of an objects form. The judgements you make when you translate something onto paper is a critical part of drawing. You need to sit down and draw the outlines, and shapes of the facial features yourself, rather than using a grid. You'll get better at it, but not if you use a grid everytime.

As for the shading, I don't see too much of a problem, because its pretty well all up to you (which means you'll actually learn more in the process).

If you want to be able to draw from imagination, and invent new angles and compositions from existing images, then you'll need to learn to draw properly without any crutches to lean on.

I hope you see my point. Did it make sense?

[strata]

and you won't be able to use reference for anything other then copying straight off... what I mean is, you can't look at a photo to see how a nose bends, and then draw it at a different angle... all you can do is draw THAT exact nose...

[Freddio]

I think it depends what your using it for, If it for something professional, sure go ahead whatever makes it look better, though if its for your own personal enjoyment and skill development Why bother

The ends justifies the means however, it won't help you improve.

[Gort]

When drawing/drafting from life, it is preferable, as Ian sugeests, to follow more traditional methods for establishing spacial placement and proportions. If you're just starting out as a beginner, grid drawing is a bad idea - you'll get the results you want but without the real foundations for doing so. If you really want to get it right, practice, practice and practice using the real thing - like a model.

With all due respects Ian, I wouldn't consider it a crutch but rather another tool for expediting processes. Do I use this tool? I do not, but if I were creating something on a massive scale, such as a wall mural, I certainly would.

[Mark Lockett]

Although I have used the grid method(and still do on occaision). I agree with the previous comments, much better to learn to measure the proportions of the various parts of your subject against their nieghbours i.e. how many nose lengths is this face? How do these eyes line up with this mouth? Etc. relate each part to the whole and it's fellow parts. At first this can seem a little daunting, but start off simply with basic shapes/masses and when you think you have them right add more and more detail using the same methods.

[c]

gridding, like tracing is a subject that always gets a lot of heat.

it's a valid technique, especially when deadlines are close and time is running low.

but as an artist, your only couldn't concern shouldn't be the end result, but rather the process inbetween.

there is something about obvservational drawing from scratch that is extremely fulfilling. the fun is in trying to tame the billions of things firing in your brain to produce something that goes beyond the mechanical in both journey and destination.

that said, everyone is different, and some artist dont even LIKE drawing. Some people will get all the drawing over with through grids and tracing, so they can move on to the fun part, the painting or shading or whatever.

i think tracing and gridding is fine for the accomplished artist who knows absolutely what he wants from art. but for the student, i can't see how it's anything but limiting. Often artists grapple to get as close to their art as possible, to be involved in the most complete matter. to me, tracing and gridding does more to seperate the art from the artist.

[eyewoo]

Agree with C...

Adding that using grids is just about as old as art give or take a few epochs of cave painting.

My rule of thumb when it comes to creating artworks is ... there are no rules. For some students, learning how to draw from life without any aids other than a good set of eyeballs is paramount. For other students who are not particularly interested in exact proportional reality, it's not really important. The final call is up to each individual. Do what you do, but do it well...

[TheRealT]

I think gridding is too much of a help. If yo uwant to grow you need to really challenge yourself. If you grid now, you'll just keep depending on it whenever you hit the slightest difficulty. ITS LIKE A DRUG I TELLZ YA! Heh. Just my opinion.

Wanna become better? Use NO guides or crutches. Then you'll really be satisfied in the end.

[turnip]

prolly won't hurt to do it just once...once and move on. I can be just for fun and exploration. (I've done it once when i was young, but screwed up =/, go fig).

I see it as training wheels on a tricycle. You don't need it to learn, and never should you rely on such a method.

[Ian Jones]

Interesting points everyone, I think we all generally agree. A very mature discussion, thx to everyone for contributing their thoughts.

Tom Carter: When I say crutch I mean it to be a ongoing dependecy. Depedency being the key word here. So I agree with you that certainly there is nothing wrong with doing it to speed up or whatever, certainly it is neccessary for murals, but I meant don't use it as a crutch (dependency) to draw accurately. Just wanted to clarify that point.

[Light]

Whatever works.. who cares.

I'm working to do more original works but the several top notch master fantasy artist trace photos including boris vallejo, julie bell, and sorayama hajime.

If tracing is ok then gridding is too.. just make a art.

[Derek]

It's too much of a crutch, and most people aren't really competent enough to make up for all of the errors a photo will throw at you. There's no way to get around having to take the time to learn to see and draw well. All gridding and tracing will do is delay your development. You won't get an accurate or good image out of it, and in the end, what have you learned from it?

[Light]

I don't grid or trace at this time because I'm working to do entirely original paintings based on methods I wish to employ.

However.. if you trace you will get an accurate image as you traced it. You can retrace it to change things. Surely, it would be easier to trace an image and make it accurate then to copy it. This is why so many artist are against gridding and copying as it is so easy. Copying is good practice as evidenced by the masters and is respectable among all educated artist.

Yet, if one is going to copy then one can usually do as good or better by tracing. And, again one could always trace and then change it to suite ones need.

Just re-read what I wrote about the master fantasy artist again. I'm sure they can draw quite well without photos and tracing but if it did not help them then they would not keep doing it.

So.. it basically boils down to if your going to copy works then you might as well do whatever works best for you. Nobody will care in the end provided the work is good and pref original.

How many people question Boris Vallejo, Julie Bells, and Sorayama Hajimes artistic authority?

Sure, there are reasons not to use these methods.

First, copying is excellent practice but unless you go the extra step and setup a studio (ie. take your own photos) then it will not in itself allow one to do good original paintings -- although -- the skills would be adequate for a lot of professional work.

Basically, the same rules apply for tracing, gridding, etc as copying.


It all depends on how YOU want to work. If you want to work by taking photographs, tracing them, making slight alterations, and painting then this is one method that countless professionals use.

If you however want to work out in the "field" like a sargent then you might be better off not working on tracing so much.

.. And if you want to work from your imagination like Brom then you will need diffrent skills.

I like the idea of being able to do great works from imagination partly for the originality factor but more because it would be a pain to take all the studies, photos, and make the proper tracings to make such pictures by copying.

But.. such a method would be more sure and get the results. So maybe I will go to such a method in the future.. who knows.

-- But basically your argument that most people wont be able to make up for the errors in a photo is not a good argument for NOT tracing photographs as these same people would probably do even worse when copying.

The argument the student would not learn from this is questionable but is probably a more valid argument to state that tracing, gridding, copying, and doing imaginative works are all needed to prepare the artist with experience in all of the tools he needs.

[Light]

There is another good argument against the negativity of tracing and gridding as some scholars state that master artist of old used the camera lucida(?) and other tracing methods. There is one who promotes almost all of the master paintings used some form of tracing even my favorite hals.

I personally dont care how they did it nor whether art has improved due to technological progresses or human innovation (or some combinations of both).

The master art is good and solid (and again I dont see a huge difference between copying and tracing).

Just tell people how you work and no one will care.. The only problem comes if you say you do this from your imagination and then it comes out you copied it.

But even this is not as simple as it seems for most artist working from their imagination are in my hypothesis using a form of photographic imagery and "tracing" or copying this. And many times this imagery is strongly influenced by other works.

See the book on Frazetta where he non consciensly used a ship painting for reference although his work is still pretty original.

It basically boils down to do what you wish to do and be honest about it. Do it all.

[bearsclover]

quote

Quote:

There is another good argument against the negativity of tracing and gridding as some scholars state that master artist of old used the camera lucida(?) and other tracing methods. There is one who promotes almost all of the master paintings used some form of tracing even my favorite hals.

Yes, David Hockney is trying to sell the idea that the old masters traced. I'm not really buying it. Not at least his version of it. This site debates the issue. The "dissenting" view convinced me. If these old masters were using optical devices, how could they draw rearing horses, or mythical creatures, or draw any pose that could not be held more than a few seconds? Yet they painted things like this all the time. Phooey. Hockney Shmokney!

I am leery of gridding myself. Though, I think it is fine for newbies, as long as they use it as a learning tool, and then go on to move past it. Betty Edwards discusses gridding a little bit in her book "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain", which is a good book to get people started on drawing.

I just have concerns about artists who grid everything, and think that this is all there is to drawing. I have a few little art tutorial pages, and I once got an email from a young man who told me (with great excitement) how he had "discovered" how he could draw accurately all the time. He used a grid. But...but...oh dear. He was just kidding himself. He hadn't really developed any new skills, he'd just found out a nifty new trick!

I wrote him back and told him that I thought it was time that he progress past that point. I never heard anything from him. I suppose he thought I was being a spoil-sport. Too bad.

I do agree, that for some artists, it probably doesn't matter. They are just pleasing themselves, they aren't trying to pass their work off as anything other than gridded (or traced, as the case may be). Or, they are a commercial artist, and just need to meet a deadline. No pretentions for them, just get the job done the quickest way possible. Fine.

But, if an artist is really serious about developing their skills, and if they actually love the process of being an artist, they really shouldn't take these kind of short cuts. They shouldn't think that learning how to draw well "doesn't matter" or isn't "necessary". It sure as hell does matter and it generally is "necessary", at least for many kinds of art (where, like, you draw).

I see this sort of thing a lot. I see artists who face limitations or brick walls, because their drawing skills are lacking. Because they didn't bother to take the time to learn properly. (Because they thought "who has time?" or whatever.) But they end up NOT being able to do things that they'd like to do, and that they see other artists (who can draw) doing. So what was the point of them "saving time" by not developing this skill? It's all a big shame.

I know I probably sound like a pontificating windbag, being really hard-nosed on drawing. I do realize, everyone's different, and that there are some really fabulous artists who can't draw at all, or can barely draw. But I think, all other things being equal, a solid drawing skill is a BIG asset. And that an artist who can draw welll is (all things being equal) definitely "better off" than an artist who can't draw very well.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: bearsclover ]

[Light]

I agree that Hockney is an annoying figure. It was known before Hockney came out and said artist used these devices -- that they used them.

It was probably much like tracing and the use of the camera is today. Many artist did use them but many did not. Many most likely used a mixture of techniques.

Who would doubt that someone like Leonardo would not know how to use these devices?

Probably, Hockneys biggest problem is that he asserts that they had to use them because the quality and this is not too strong. Any good artist who has reference can copy amazingly well.

Anyway, its not really that important as the work stands for itself. Most of the work could have been made by copying (the life model) anyway. Probably, Rubens was one of the fewer artist imo who really embraced the fantasy realm.

But uhm.. Yes I do agree that if one has a great drawing skill then one will not be "handicaped" as much in creating art. These skills are very valuable.

Yet, I guess where I disagree is that the importance is placed on drawing in books like "drawing on the right side of the brain". I think this is an excellent book (it helped me) but that the focus is not that much better then on some other book about gridding.

Because neither are really focused on creating art.

I recommend my own article, books on anatomy, and drawing on the right side of the brain for the beginner as well as recommend the study of the old masters.

I guess my point is that if you want to create art then create it anyway you can. Be honest about it and let it stand on its own merits. But few beginners are really interested in creating "great works of art" -- so it is understandable why their is so much confusion about the entire business.

But, basically I dont see a lot of difference between tracing and copying. I know copying requires more skill and time. I know it is harder but it is of the same "quality". I think gridding is a bit more painstaking then either tracing or copying but nothing is inherently wrong with it, either.

The important thing in my mind is to try to create art. If you do it by taking photographs and tracing them -- fine, if you do it from your imagination -- fine, if you do it by going outside and copying what is around you -- fine.

But.. oh well few beginners will understand this.

[Basse_Ex]

Sorry, this is a very long post, and it takes a while before it touches upon the original topic. It mostly deals with Bearsclovers link and the article by Gary Fagin. If you've read Fagins article, there are some important facts about the historical inaccuracies of his article. After a while this post deals with the different aids, or crutches, in art, and the belief in true art. Sorry for any misspelling and\or wrong wrong dates. I'm not english, and all this information was compiled from internet sites, and there may have occured errors both on their part, and on mine, due to my haste. Enjoy the read.

First of all, Hockney is a clown. Whatever he says, he says it in a very exagerated manner. He's a pop-artist for crying out loud. He's supposed to make some noise. And he is wrong. But not too wrong.

But... The idea that the old masters did what they did completly without mechanical aids is even more far-fetched than the misinterpreted Hockney claim that they did it completely with mechanical aids.

Gary Faigin, the writer of the counter argument against Hockney, shows his limited knowledge in many ways.

He mentions some buildings that are realistically presented in classic paintings, but don't actually exist, to illustrate how it was impossible for these artists to cheat. Well, first of all, has he ever heard of creative freedom? Add something here, remove something there, and you have a totally different building.
Not to mention the fact that houses don't tend to move very much, and the need to use lenses for them are, well... not very big.
And, in the reneiscance, the central perspective(Is that the correct word in english?) was developed. Accurate representations of perspective could be done by the power of schematics.

He mentions sculptures. Sculptures has nothing to do with this. Sculpures are 3D, and the transition from 3D to 3D, or 2D to 2D as a matter of fact, is completly different from the transition from 2D to 3D. It has absolutely nothing to do with the case.

He uses Bosch as an example of art that couldn't have been traced. Well, let me tell you something. The reneiscance, with it's perspective systems, and mechanical aids, hadn't come to the Netherlands yet. there isn't a single one of Bosch's painting that accuratly represent ANYTHING. He wasn't a realistic artist. Mentioning him in this context childish and ignorant at best.

It gets worse. He mentions that some of old masters didn't use models. But look closer at the names he mention:

Giotto - By no means a realistic artist, and born in the year 1266, died in 1337, alomst two centuries before the period Hockney describes. Madonna in Maest�(1310)

Masaccio - In no way a realistic artist, and lived from 1401-1428, still a bit before the period Hockney describes. Expulsion from Eden(1427)

Ucello(1397-1475) - Does not paint realistic human, but is one of the early innovators of perspective. But it's getting closer to the right time. Forest Hunt(After 1460)

Piero della Franscesca(1419-1492)- Not realistic. Ressurection(ca. 1463)

Fra Angelico(1400?-1455)- Not realistic. St.Anthony tempted by a Lump of gold(1430)

Mantegnas oculus(1431-1506) - Not exactly photorealistic. His other work is sometimes a bit more realistic, but they are based on models. His "St.Sebastian" with the arrows is often used as a an art historical example of the struggle that artists had to go through to be able to use nude models. And that picture is a looong way from the realism of Carravaggio.
Oculus(1471-74)
St. Sebastian(1480)

Boticelli(c. 1445-1510)'s Venus - Very idealized, as all his paintings. More realistic but almost completly devoid of realistic facial expressions and shadows(Look at the wind blower and his lady).
Birth of Venus

A common denominator for the above artists, is that none of them really lived in the period that Hockney places the spread of these technological innovations. Some of them touched upon the time Hockney describes as the birth of these innovations, but not the spread of them. And mostly, they were on their way out when these new marvels of science came into the picture. They were old school.

Fagin also mentions some other examples of things that couldn't have been done by tracing:

Rubens(1577-1640)'s animal paintings - Well they're nice animals, but they're a far cry from Rubens portraits. I also cannot find out where Hockney mentions Rubens, although I haven't read his book. Not to mention that they had stuffed animals back then.
Daniel in the Lion's Den (ca. 1615)
Portrait of Marchesa Brigida Spinola Doria(1606)
Old Woman with a Basket of Coal(1618-1620)

Caravaggio(1573-1610)'s Madonnas. Never his most realistic paintings. Always very idealized. And if I'm not mistaken he made her face from not one model, but by piecing together many models. Look at the difference between Madonna and child, and the other figures.
Madonna del Rosario(1607)

By Brueghal, I suppose he really means Bruegel(c. 1525-1569). Bruegel, like Bosch, didn't live in Italy, and is therefore largely unaffected by the discoveries of the reneiscance. Unlike Bosch, he does use the central perspective(?). His figures still ain't very realistic. Peasant wedding(ca.1568)

He also mentions that some of todays artists do sometimes hyper-realistic pieces without the any mechanical aids. This is at best an utter misunderstanding of the word technical aids, and at worst a complete and blatant lie.
Modern realistic artists use, throughout their studying days, and often throughout their whole career, things such as reference photos. A reference photo is a mechanical aid. It has already done half the job for you, since it has translated 3d space into 2d space, which was utterly impossible in the renneiscance except by, well, drawing. It is in effect not very different from the camera obscura.
Then there's the bit about "Copying the Masters"... Everybody talks about copying the masters. "Yes, of course I've copied the masters!". Copying the masters is a respectable thing to do. But, few people actually copy the masters. They copy reproductions of the masters. Reproductions are most of the time shrinked down heavily, which again is a way of making the eye see relations that it can't see in the original paintings. This is a mechanical aid.
A ruler is a mechanical aid. Some artist scoff at anyone who's ever touched a ruler. Triangles, templates, and french curves are mechanical aids.

All of these are examples of ways of seeing things the eye alone cannot see, and doing things the hand alone cannot do.

Also remember that the tons of reference illustrations, anatomy books, perspective book, tutorials, etc.etc. were not avaidable at the time of the old masters. Sure they'd have some things here and there, but most of their info was in their head, or in unedited(And therefore also often uncorrect) drawings and schematics by their teachers\masters. The ability to fine edit and mass-produce such aids, come from technological innovations(I still wont classify these books as mechanical aids, but they represent a wealth of knowledge and "easy solutions" not avaidable to the old masters).

The only conclusions I can draw from Fagins absurd little outburst, is that either he's stupid and ignorant beyond belief, or he's lying to cover his own ass and make himself look good.

Certainly, some exceptional individuals comes to a point where they don't need any sort of aid to do realism, even hyper-realism. But I doubt if any of them comes to this point without having used any mechanical aids, whether it be empty frames, grids, photoreference, tracing, or copying reproductions of the masters. And few concerned with accuracy of architecture do ever lay down the ruler(Or the scotch tape, as it can be used the same way).

Some of the artists that Hockney mentions have certainly used lenses, but clearly not all of them. And probably not for every picture.
But, at one point or another, they all have used different methods of making the eye or hand able to do things it couldn't otherwise have done. If tracing is cheating, then this is cheating!
There are countless of weird artifacts from way before the reneiscance that were used to aid artists to do things they otherwise couldn't do.
The reneiscance made it all into a science. Complex schematics for every part possible part of drawing. Almost all of these were developed through such things as lenses or grids. They couldn't have been figured out in any other way. This is science, not art.

The use of these aids make it possible for the brain, the eye, and the hand, to develop abilities to for perceiving and potraying the world that it other wise couldn't make. Aids, or crutches as some call them, is an essential part of the learning process. They teach of to see the world differently.

A grid is a most exceptional tool for seeing the relations of different objects to eachother, in an image that would otherwise be too large for the eye to comprehend. You learn a lot from the grid. That's why it was used as a learning tool for several hundreds of years. It still is used as a learning tool.

Of course, there are some poor sods who brag to others and themselves about how techincally excellent they are, while they know deep down that they couldn't draw anything without tracing or similar methods. But they're only cheating themselves, no one else.

The childish belief in the sanctitiy of "true art" is snobbery of the worst kind. It doesn't belong anywhere. Most often it is the crutch of those who paint technically well, but never managed to make a single interesting picture.

But why does this topic come up so often in a "digital art" forum?
Computers are, after all, the supreme "cheat-o-mat". Never before has there been a way of drawing or painting that has enabled the artist, with enough work, to totally hide the mistakes made through the proces. In that respect, the computer is "process-less", the computer is pure result.

I don't mean to offend anyone, or to say that anyones art is bad because of their belief in "true art". I'm actually in awe at most of the old-timer artists here. You are miles beyond my technical abilities, and each time anyone of you give comment on my pictures here, I get all giddy, because it's so great to be critiqued on the type of art I want to do, by someone who actually knows what they're talking about. You all have my greatest respect. But this thing about "true art" has to stop. It doesn't belong anywhere.
Sure, it's stupid and a little sneaky not to mention if you have traced or used reference, mostly because people will then comment and critique on false grounds. If you've traced a picture, you'll need comments on the line quality or composition, not how good your perspective is(Since it isn't your perspective).
The same goes for posting digital art that simulates traditional media, without saying it's digital(Which I've seen alot of over at "The Drawing Board"), because it's useless to get comments on how delicate your pencil lines are, or how to better mix oil paint, when it is in fact only pixels on a screen.

So... if you really want true art, the bite off your finger and paint the walls blindfolded with the bloody stubb.

THAT is true art.

All the rest is cheating.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Basse_Ex ]

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Basse_Ex ]

[ZippZopp]

a hard response to follow so i'm not even gonna try to argue with you Basse_Ex (i can't really come up with enough references to compete with that...good work i must say in researching all that!!!) but i'd just like to add in my quick little point. I think what it all boils down to is what works for you, what you want to accomplish. obviously the gridding method is not useful in some situations (aka Fantasy art etc) and there are times when to get the job done its a good method. I'm still a student and tried it out because i never have. I still have a lot of learning to do, but i think it shouldn't be totally taboo because it can, in the end, be a learning tool

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: ZippZopp ]

[Frog]

Just a quick response to Basse Ex, I agree in the most part with your argument, I just wanted to add that in every field there are people who get hung up on technique above all else - I've seen this in musicians and photographers as well as artists.

This is the camp that Faigin belongs to, and to people like him technique is the be all and end all of his craft, hence his position vis-a-vis Hockney and his argument. Drawing is is all about skill to him, everything else is secondary.

[Basse_Ex]

A (not-so-very)quick response to the quick responses:

ZippZopp: The researching came by itself once I recognized that a couple of the names he mentioned clearly had no relevance to the Hockney's thesis(Bosch, Bruegel, and Giotti). When I digged a little deeper I got so mad that everything went on a roll from there on.
Of course you must do what works for you, otherwise there is no point.

Frog: For the most part I agree with my argument too, but I'm pretty sure that I will find some things I disagree with if I look closely.
Some people always get hung up on technique. Personally I value technique very much, and consider it a prime element, if not THE prime element, of creating art. Some people seem to manage very fine without it(Charles Schultz and Gary Larson for example), but that is somewhat of a mystery to me, and some hide it(Like Stella, Warhol and Pollock), which is somewhat a mystery to me.
The problem with Faigin(Thanks for writing the name correctly. I thought there was something weird about the name "Fagin". I have to correct that sometime), is that he doesn't recognize what he himself does, and where his technique comes from. The realist art of today couldn't have existed if it weren't for the "cheating" of yesterday, and all those little "cheats" of today(Which he seems completly ignorant of, even though I'm sure he uses some of them, and have used more of them). He is history-less.

It's almost like a rock guitarist scoffing at people who play by notes, because they're not free or true enough, without the guitarist realising that his guitar is in fact build upon the same 12 keys that they use. History-less.

Faigin is not in a position to critisize, and when he then bends the truth, or lies, to a make his point, then it becomes a little bit disturbing. When the point he makes "accidentaly" puts him and his school in a much better light, then the whole thing is quite sickening to me.
If drawing is only a skill for him, then he should stop making those meticulous paintings of his, where you can easily hide most of your errors by painting over them, and start doing something like my background sketches, which are done directly on paper with ink, which is perhaps the ultimate and pure way of showing of\focusing on your hand\eye coordination skill(He would surely do it a 1000 times better than me, though).

But wouldn't the world be incredibly boring if all art was like that?

[Frog]

nice drawings

I'm not knocking technique by the way, I enjoy learning it and applying it. My point was that for some people there is nothing beyond technique, and I believe that Faigin is such a person. I think that is also where all the stuff that gets said about "true art" (as you said in your post) comes from, the same mindset where technique is everything. How hard the task is becomes a measure of how good the artist is, and people who don't work a certain way are "cheats".

[Basse_Ex]

Frog: Yeah... I think I understand your point very well, and I wholeheartedly agree.
I just want to stress the fact that Faigin builds upon all this "cheating".
And the way he tries to trick us to believe otherwise is just... well... fucking rotten.

Bearsclover: Wha?!? Did I say that?!?!?

Ohhh... Now I get it!... It's not a quote from me!

...(How can it be equally shocking each time I figure out that the world doesn't revolve around me)...

Anyhow, I think you're bending Lights words a little. I think(or hope) he referred to copying 2D images, and to drag in life-drawing is therefore besides the point.
I don't quite agree with him though, becuase there are substatial differences between copying and tracing, but... If one is "cheating", then the other one has to be cheating also.

Now... over to the parts actually addressed to me.

Google did most of the research for me, I just happened to notice that something was wrong(Fagin shouldn't have mentioned Bosch).

Now... no-one has tried to justify lack of skill by saying "The old masters did it!". Hockney is certainly not trying to say that.

Faigin, on the other hand, seems to be saying "The old masters did no such thing, and neither do me and my peers, and therefore we are as good as, if not better, than the old masters!". And if this was true, then Faigin and his peers would indeed be better than the old masters, since some of their paintings achieve much higher degrees of realism.
But the fact is that the old masters DID use mechanical aids, but perhaps not in the degree it seems Hockney wants us to believe(Keep in mind that I haven't read his book), and that the scientific and artistic discoveries made through these instruments, changed how we see the world.
And Faigin could in no way have done the paintings he does without these discoveries.
Nobody could draw a correct looking perspective before perspective was made into mathematics, which happened though the means of both lenses, grids, and other tools. Some were closer to capturing it, but NO-ONE made it before the central perspective was invented.
Not to mention the fact that Faigin probably uses\ and has used(And learned from) aids like rulers, reference photography, grids, and similar.
Remember, photography also changed how we see the world. Before the photography, nobody could draw a horse running, because nobody had actually seen how the horses feet moved. Look at pre-photography paintings of running horse, and you'll find that each pair of legs are sticking out in each their direction. It looks remarkably silly. Then look at a real running horse. Can you see how it moves it's feet? No, you can't, but you can imagine that you do, because you've seen photos of it.

And no, Hockney isn't in anyway furthering any theory that the masters couldn't draw very well, but again it seems like Faigin is trying to make us believe so, and again it seems he does so in order to look good himself.
Look at the old masters paintings. No-one can believe that they couldn't paint. I'm sure that Hockney has the deepest respect and admiration for them.
What Hockney is trying to do is to broaden the scope of the word "Drawing" in order for it to include things commonly thought of as "cheating", for instance photomanipulation and digital painting done by the mechanical aid of a computer.
In his own words:

quote

Quote:

What is called manipulation of photographs, I call drawing. What�s really happening is that we are beginning to draw through the camera, through the lens.

And I for one think that this is a just cause, and I would be a little perplexed if most people here didn't agree(It's a digital painting board after all).
Faigin on the other hand is just trying to make himself into a "master-painter demi-god" and make his school seems like the "demi-god academy", by means of trickery and lies. The more I think about it, the more I'm certain that he was fully aware that the painters he mentioned were totally outside what is the issue here, and that he knowingly used their names to present a false claim(He might believe his claim is true, in which case he's a ignorant sod suffering from delusions, but he must have known that he lied in order to make it appear true).
The whole mess just stinks. He a founder of a school gawd-dammit. He should at least show some dignity.

Boticelli... Giotti... Mantegna... Bosch... Bruegel... Those are big fucking names!

And finally.... yeah, sure. Drawing skill is isn't the alpha-omega, but it is very nice, in my opinion very important, to have, at least for artists. Feeling, vision, emotion or pure unadulterated funk is also important. If you have one, but not the other, your work will most likely suffer.
And yes, people who think they decide they can just trace instead of learning how to draw, are making a mistake. They are cheating themselves. At least it's really drawing they want to do.
The more skill the better, at least if you have the balls to back it up.

I'm sure Hockney would agree, too.

(PS: MY NAME AIN'T BASSX!!!!)

(PPS: It's Basse_Ex )

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Basse_Ex ]

[eyewoo]

This whole arguement is getting so bleeping tiresome... but why not my 2 cents... If people who feel drawing skills are the right of passage to artistry -- if they would just concentrate on drawing and not confuse the issue with painting - traditional or otherwise - then I think some definition might be possible. Yes, possible, though against my grain since I feel there are essentially no rules when it comes to creating artwork... but to play devils advocate to my position let me point out that there is a difference between drawing and painting and if there were rules they should go like so:

RULE 1: Drawing... draw free hand... don't trace.

RULE 2: Painting... draw your intial guidelines anyway you choose - freehand, grid, trace, whatever - and don't worry be happy -- no one is going to see the drawing anyway, it's going to be covered over with color. But when you start painting, use your eyeballs, experience and imagination to determine color, hue, shape, light and shade, etc.

[Torstein Nordstrand]

Most people are impatient. Like when I get inspired and start a creative process, I might wish the result to materialize in front of me. In such a situation it is tempting to rely on drawing aids (like overpainting reference pics) to speed it up, and make a better result than I am capable of producing on my own.

Since I started taking art seriously a year ago, I've been constantly apalled by the time it takes for me to finish my pictures. But I'm one of those who think it's worth doing it from scratch, taking time to investigate troublesome areas. Why? I'm not sure, really. But I think that if I just grid/trace a photo, the result will be better than I am. That would set a standard for my work that I do not want to strive in misery living up to.

After reading the earlier posts here, I think I have finally grasped why I feel cheated when somebody posts a picture in this forum, neglecting to tell me what 'crutches' they leaned on. This is of course no duelling arena, but I do compare my pieces to what others are conjuring, and when I feel I'm doing it a hard way, I want to compare myself to other learning artists who are dedicated to understanding rather than (re-)producing. When I'm 30, I'll probably do whatever it takes to get the result I need. Now, at 24, I'd rather spend time making sure I comprehend and master what I'm doing. In the future I want to be able to choose my work methods consciously, not be forced into them by now neglecting to work on difficulties. I am not good enough now. But I will be, goddammit!

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Torstein Nordstrand ]

[Light]

But, why do you feel cheated? If someone says do this freehand and they use grid then maybe you should feel in some way cheated as you were lied too. But, if someone does it their way and tells how they did it then who cares. Theres no real rules in art.. ahaha

The only rules the best artist use (Vallejo, Hajime, Bell) is not to be break copyright.

I think I cite with Eyewoo in making art anyway it takes.

Most arguments against the use of aides basically fall into two areas:

#1 You are cheating yourself as an artist. How can yuo be improving when you are merely copying, tracing, gridding, painting over, etc. You're not "growing" as artist. You will end up handicapped, lame, and smitten as an artist.

#2 Your art is fake. You're not a "real" aritst. You cheated and therefore your art is not as good.

Counter to Argument #1

Basically, goes something like how can one not be as good an "artist" when one is creating better artworks? The process is merely a means to an end. The end result justifies the means. Painting for one is not about process but about result and art.

Counter to Argument #2

If one who uses these aides are a fake then the best artist in the world from the past and present are fakes. What basis, past precedent can you use to say that I am cheating? I would expect that Boris Vallejo, Sorayama Hajime, Julie Bell, and masters from the past are more qualified to speak on what is or what is not cheating. So the basically for the cheating argument is that it is counter to the nature of things. It is counter to how many of the best artist in the world work. Also, if one DOES develope the skills to copy excellently then that "process" becomes irrelevant as far as the difficulty of the art is concerned.. It may be a great skill but if one CAN do it excellently then it is a TRANSPARENT process therefore one would expect the best artist to not want to rate art based soley on such an easy process although those who have excellent talent may be admired.

----------

Why is it beginners have such problems with the entire concepts? The reason is that beginners are not yet ready to try to create art so they want to "improve" as an artist.

One who does not have a lot of experience in drawing or copying or painting doesnt generally sit down and try to create art. They sit down and try to "learn something" that will eventually help them to create art.

This is why the beginners are generally more concerned about these things. I seriously doubt Boris would scoff at seeing a great painting upon learning that the artist took photos and traced them (of cuz he wouldnt as he does the same thing.. but he could it without the aides too).

There is one additional argument and that is "how can one enjoy painting or drawing this way". And, I have to admit this is probably one of my personal reasons for not using gridding (although I have practiced it). But, how can I be qualified to speak on what makes other artist happy? I can't be. Eyewoo uses a "painting" process that I can find a little bizarre with the lasso tool. I don't scoff and say "how can one enjoy painting this way". I think I have to try this as it is so different then what I know. =)

Of course, in the end when artist speak that one needs a good drawing skill to get to the top levels then they are speaking from experience and are very accurate in that not having these skills would make it hard to do what they do. But.. how many people really complain about these techniques because they are "concerned" for the other artist well being? Likewise, I can't argue on this matter because I find that being slightly narcissistic is in my best interest.

[bearsclover]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Basse_Ex:
Bearsclover: Wha?!? Did I say that?!?!?

Ohhh... Now I get it!... It's not a quote from me!

...(How can it be equally shocking each time I figure out that the world doesn't revolve around me)...

---

It's not ALL about you!!!

quote:

---

I think(or hope) he referred to copying 2D images, and to drag in life-drawing is therefore besides the point.
I don't quite agree with him though, becuase there are substatial differences between copying and tracing, but... If one is "cheating", then the other one has to be cheating also.

---

No...well, not really. I grew up using photos as reference. Of course, I drew from life a lot too, but I used A LOT of photos. And I can say without hesitation that the practice I got, even from those 2-D images, helped me learn how to draw from my imagination. I've never met someone who could only trace 2-D images come away with the ability to make up drawings. So, I see some benefit from copying photos, but not a whole lot of benefit from tracing. (Except as some minor exercise in shading, or something.)

quote

Quote:

Now... no-one has tried to justify lack of skill by saying "The old masters did it!". Hockney is certainly not trying to say that.

Good! But I will say, I have seen this justification made, or at least implied. I've seen more than a few web sites, articles, tutorials that say "It's OK to do it this way all the time (trace, grid) because the old masters did". The impression that is being given (at least they way I suspect most people will interpret it) is "I will trace/grid all of the time, because the old masters did". And some artists will do that. They won't digest the fact that the Old Masters could draw really well too, and did draw on their own often.

quote

Quote:

Faigin, on the other hand, seems to be saying "The old masters did no such thing, and neither do me and my peers, and therefore we are as good as, if not better, than the old masters!".

Ooh. I admit, I didn't quite pick up on that so much, but if indeed he tried to imply that, he's off his rocker.

quote:

---

But the fact is that the old masters DID use mechanical aids, but perhaps not in the degree it seems Hockney wants us to believe(Keep in mind that I haven't read his book),

---

Neither have I, but I do suspect that Hockney might be trying to play up the drawing aids a bit too much.

quote:

---

And Faigin could in no way have done the paintings he does without these discoveries.
Nobody could draw a correct looking perspective before perspective was made into mathematics, which happened though the means of both lenses, grids, and other tools. Some were closer to capturing it, but NO-ONE made it before the central perspective was invented.

---

You know, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate you educating all of us in this manner. Thank you so much. I hadn't thought if it that way. I guess in the back of my mind I knew this, but it just never occurred to me when I was reading the article.

quote

Quote:

Not to mention the fact that Faigin probably uses\ and has used(And learned from) aids like rulers, reference photography, grids, and similar.

Excellent point!

quote

Quote:

And no, Hockney isn't in anyway furthering any theory that the masters couldn't draw very well, but again it seems like Faigin is trying to make us believe so, and again it seems he does so in order to look good himself.

If that's what he's doing, phooey on him. Though I will say, people ARE interpreting Hockney's theory a little bit like that. At least I'm getting that impression. And some artists are using Hockney's theory as a way to tell themselves that they don't have to strive to learn how to draw, because exclusive use of drawing aids is OK. That's a shame, IMO.

quote

Quote:

What Hockney is trying to do is to broaden the scope of the word "Drawing" in order for it to include things commonly thought of as "cheating", for instance photomanipulation and digital painting done by the mechanical aid of a computer.

I have no problem with this - A lot of artists that have awesome skills sometimes use "aids". I just don't like the idea of the impression being given that aids are used 100% of the time. ('Cause they aren't, you know. They aren't!) I keep repeating that, don't I?

quote:

---

And yes, people who think they decide they can just trace instead of learning how to draw, are making a mistake. They are cheating themselves. At least it's really drawing they want to do.
The more skill the better, at least if you have the balls to back it up.

I'm sure Hockney would agree, too.

---

AMEN.

quote:

---

(PS: MY NAME AIN'T BASSX!!!!)

(PPS: It's Basse_Ex )

---

Oh dear! A terrible social gaffe I have made! Can you ever forgive me?!?!?! (It'll never happen again...I hope!)



[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: bearsclover ]

[bearsclover]

First off, I want to comment to this statement:

quote:

---

But, basically I dont see a lot of difference between tracing and copying.

---

Oh no, there can be a BIG difference. At least in my experience and observation there is. I have "copied" nude models in Life Drawing class, and have come away with a knowledge of the figure, and to some extent, anatomy. I was able to draw figures from my imagination. (But the anatomy classes I took helped more with anatomy.) I have "copied" model's faces, and now possess the ability to draw portraits and faces from my imagination. If I were never to draw ("copy") but instead traced everything, I doubt I would be able to come away with the ability to draw from my imagination. I mean, I know a lot of people who trace almost exclusively, and they certainly cannot make anything up from their imagination.

Re: the Fagin/Hockney article, interesting stuff BassX (sorry, I'm new here, and I can't see your name! I hope I got it right!) has brought up. I admit, I didn't research the whole thing too much, and I'm sure you bring up some very valid points.

But one thing that I still stand by (which may or may not be part of the Hockney/Fagin debate) is that to justify the lack of drawing skill by saying "The old masters did it" is a little misleading. Some of the old masters probably used drawing aids, no doubt. But I firmly believe many of them didn't have to use drawing aids for everything - because they possessed a solid drawing skill. And I don't care - drawing an animal from the imagination, even a mythical animal, takes a lot of drawing skill. Same goes for sculpting. If (and I say if) Hockney was trying to further the theory that the old masters really couldn't draw very well on their own, I remain unconvinced. But I don't know if that's what he's trying to say.

And, as far as drawing skill as the end-all and be-all, of course it isn't. There are some wonderful artists who don't really draw, and they have wonderful ideas, and wonderful paintings. It's better to have something to SAY, rather than to just be able to draw well, but have work that is dry and flat. I've seen artists who drew well, but their quality of line was stiff, and they looked like they struggled and suffered to get that drawing so accurate. But hey - it was accurate. Bleh. Give me a funky, loose, emotional (yet less accurate) drawing any day!

But, all other things being equal - a drawing skill is a great thing to have. It is liberating. It gives the artist so many more options, and choices. And I guess the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I've seen people decide they don't need to learn how to draw ("Why should I bother, when I can just trace it?") and then ended up bitterly regretting it later. The more skill we have, the better. Every time.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: bearsclover ]