[Les Watters]

Old thread, stuff out of Creative Illustration.

Is what Pyle says important or not vote and comment.

AS TO THE ELEMENTARY INSTRUCTION AS TO COLOR AND FORM

Light-All objects of nature are made visible to the sight by the light of the sun shinning upon them. The result is that by means of this we see the color and texture of various objects of nature.
From this it may be seen that color and texture are the property of light and that they do not enter the property of shadow. For shadow is darkness and in darkness there is neither form nor color.
Hence form and color belong distinctly to light. Shadow-As the object illuminated by the sun is more or less opaque, so when light of the sun is obscured by that object, the shadow which results is more or less black and opaque, being illuminated only by the light reflected into it by surrounding objects.
By virtue of shadow all objects of nature assume form and shape, for if there were no shadow all would be a flat glare of light, color and texture�but when the shadow appears, the object takes form and shape.
If the edges of an object are rounded, then the edges of the shadow become softened; if the edges of an object are sharp, then the shadow is correspondingly acute. So, by means of the softness or acuteness of the shadow, the roundness or sharpness of the solid object is made manifest.
Hence it would follow that the province of shadow is to produce form and shape, and that in itself it possesses no power of conveying an impression of color or texture.
I have tried to state these two facts because the are the foundation of all picture making; for in the corresponding mimic separation of light and dark, the mimic image of nature is made manifest. So the function of all art instruction should teach the pupil to analyze and to separate the lights from the darks, not technically but mentally. That which the pupil most needs in the beginning is not a system of arbitrary rules and methods for imitating the shape of the object, that which he needs to be taught is the habit of analyzing lights and shadows and representing them accordingly.



HALFTONES

1. Halftones that carry an impression of the texture and color should be relegated to the province of light, and should be made brighter than they appear to be.
2. Halftones that carry an impression of form should be relegated to the province of shadow, and should be much darker than they appear to be. This is the secret of simplicity in art. The equation might be represented thus:


LIGHT SHADOW
(i.e. Texture, quality, color) (i.e. form and solidity)

Highlight-Tint Halftone-Reflection
1 2 3 2
Halftone Shadow
3 1


This is, as I said , the foundation of technical art. And, until the pupil is entirely able to separate those two qualities of light and shadow from one another in his perception, he should not be advanced beyond the region of elementary instruction-no matter how clever and "fetching" his work may appear to be. And, during this progress of instruction the pupil should be constantly encouraged with the assurance that what he is doing is not mere drudgery but is necessary process by means of which-and only by means of which-he be able to manifest the beautiful thoughts that lie dormant in his imagination. I may say here, in this connection, that the pupils who come to me are always so confused as to those two qualities of light and shadow, and their habit of exaggerating the halftones has become so confirmed, that it takes oftentimes several years to teach them analysis and simplification, yet without this power of analysis and simplification, it is, as I say, impossible to produce and truly perfect any work of art. For that separation is fundamental to the law of Nature, and until it becomes habit of thought, no spontaneous work of art can be produced.

Howard Pyle
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[Les Watters]

My vote is yes.
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[YVerloc]

This Howard Pyle stuff is pretty interesting. I'm especially curious about a possible connection with Andrew Loomis. Those guys were the fathers of American Illustration!

[Socar MYLES]

Amassing as much knowledge as possible is important to artists, period. So, yes, of course it's important. Whether you're one of those people who think Pyle and Loomis are the be-all and end-all of illustrative technique or no, it's worth doing your reading.
_________________
Dignity isn't important. It's everything.

www.gorblimey.com - art

[Tinusch]

Do I think the information is important? To an extent, yes. Do I think this article is important? No. I don't think we need Pyle explaining to us that we need to understand light and shadow in order to render it, it's really more common sense than anything else. As Socar said, amassing knowledge is important to artists, period.

[Les Watters]

You don't think the wisdom of the Father of American Illustration is important for you to read? You believe it's common sens?

I assure you that it is not.
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[Tinusch]

Uh, sorry, I thought you were looking for a discussion, not just a bunch of people agreeing with you.

[ceenda]

Hehe.

But yeah, I think Pyle's essays should be viewed as a resource, not a religion.

[YVerloc]

Are you a pseudonym for Wayne Johnson?
I just deleted a big reply that assumed you were.
If you are not, in fact, Wayne Johnson in disguise, read his old posts and ask yourself: what more is there to say? Is there some facet of Pyle's precepts that Wayne failed to preach? If so, maybe we can cut right to the chase?
ak

[Les Watters]

I read most of what he said.

I'm just interested in if other artist think it is important or not. I believe it is.
Thats what the poll is about.

I'm interested in why the two people who voted it not important think that as well.

Pyle and Loomis are great inpiration to me as well as alot of people I know.
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[Matthew]

Too much Theory makes my head spin, I just look at things and trying to remember them and paint, maybe that is where I lack, I don�t know.
Is it really necessary to know that the shadow is 3 and that you have to divide 2/3 and 4/5 and that the highlight is 5 and...so ...on.
I think these discussions will continue forever.

see you
Matthew

[AndyT]

[Probustion]

it surely doesn't hurt if you know and understand it. though i think most of it speaks for itself. IMO the "rules" are there to be broken. but first you have to know them. just 1 thing though:


Highlight-Tint Halftone-Reflection
1 2 3 2
Halftone Shadow
3 1

do the numbers represent values? so i could have values of 1, 2, and 3 in my light and halftone, and 3 and 1 in my shadows? that doesn't seem to separate light and shadow and seems odd in comparison with Craig's words about this:
the lightest light in the dark is never as light as the darkest dark in the light.

or maybe i just misunderstood it. please help me so i get it
_________________
talent is overrated.

[Ragnarok]

How much theory did Van Gogh study before painting? Or while he was a painter?
_________________
"Ever forward, my darling wind." -Master Yuppa
Seigetsu

[iandredd]

Does every artist need to read Pyle to succeed? I think applying polls and binary questions to art is silly.

[Mari]

I say distributing what you think is right is important to artists. If they choose to believe what Pyle says, have them change their style and see if it works out.

Personally I don't agree with what Pyle says but it's still important. Whether or not someone agrees is up to the reader.

But please - do exchange views and ideas. Very important. It's what I got here for after all.

[Derek]

You can only trust your eyes and intuition to an extent, and not a great one at that unless you are very well along in your art and time put into it. When they fail you or you are backed into a corner, when you need to 'know what it i s that you see', then you need to turn to what you've learned through study and observation and to reading and absorbing writings like this. To think otherwise is foolish, arrogant, and is ultimately proof that you just aren't serious about your art, or think you know better than those who have dedicated their lives to a tradition of 500 years. Giving the benefit of the doubt, someone's understanding and work just may not be at the stage where they can see what's going on in front of them-maybe they know how excellent a piece is, but don't truly understand why it is so.
Is this important? Yes. Is the article important? Yes. It is written in a style and language that is clear and lucid and carries the weight the author intended. Unfortunately that style has become foreign to or is lost on most people today.

Since we're on the subject of American Illustrators, here are a few more to look for work and books by, though don't look much for writings by them:
Dean Cornwell
Norman Rockwell
Frank Schoonover (a lot of digital painters overlook his work)
Violet Oakley
Joseph Clement Coll
Burt Silverman (find and pay for Breaking the Rules of Watercolor)
James Bama
The list goes on much longer, but this is a good start.

Ragnarok-- van Gogh spent little time in academies, all totaled perhaps a year or two. He found the curriculum demands to be tedious, so instead he spent a great deal of time in museums and churches, in Holland and in Paris. He learnt his craft from his friends and from his numerous visits to museums. He practiced what he could on his own, but was greatly influenced, especially in his draftsmanship, unfortunately not as much in his painting, by his colleagues and friends. He could have been so much better than he was, especially as a painter, but his drawings and his studies show a great ability to lock into what his eyes told him, and how he chose to see the world. He could have used a deal of shoring up though.

Probustion-- you essentially got it right, but a better way to word it so others understand:
There should be, in essence, two realms of value in your work. One of light and one of dark or shadow. They can not cross over. So, the lightest light in your shadow areas must still be darker than the darkest dark in your light areas. If you stick to values of 1, 2 and 3, you will always only ever have high-key paintings. Do you want that? 1, 2, 3 an 4 in your lights... 6 through 10 in your darks... but don't cross over or get wishy washy unless you want a lot of emphasis and are good enough to get away with it. Even bounce and reflected light is darker than your main light, but optical illusions can fool your eye into thinking differently. This is where you have to get through on what you know, like Pyle's help here. At these edges is where the best of us can see if you really know your stuff. Edges and values are everything.
_________________
Anything one man can imagine, others can make real...

[Rubber Duck]

Knowing all scales and chords alone doesn't make you a good musician. The interesting people to listen to are those, who try to approach things differently than the rest does.. and the same goes for painting in my opinion. Knowing the theory won't hurt you, but you can get confined in it.

I have yet so see a single person who, by himself, found the absolute truth or "the one way" to do something in any area of knowledge, in so far..

"Is what (person X) said important?" Yes. As important as what every other person on the planet has to say to the subject matter; educated or not.

[spooge demon]

Probustion, that saying is not my invention; it is a common saying, really. Just setting the record straight.

There seems to be a political suspicion that if you don�t fall into blind acceptance of this as the basis for all legitimate illustration, you are somehow one of those evil ignorant Bolsheviks who want to tear down all that is Good and Right in the world. Kind of like if you are for the legalization of pot, you must be a user. I think I understand where this reactionary impulse comes from, and it isn�t pretty.

It does not help that it is written in Fofoo King James English, made manifest and such. I can see Charlton Heston as Moses reading this.

People want rules as a shortcut to work that is undeniably Great. Follow the rules and everyone will love you. Sorry it�s a lot tougher than that. I wish someone could boil it down to rules, but it is too complex, too caught up in expressing a lifetime of observations and thoughts and feelings. I have no doubt there are Rules, but our current understanding of the human animal is several orders of magnitude too crude to do this.

You have to realize that to be true to the artist in you, you might be out there all alone, with nobody else understanding you.

If you love that style of illustration, yes, it is very important. But to a lot of illustrators, it is not important at all. There are many ways to show form, and that is all he is talking about. And to those who would treat it as a Gospel, it is very dangerous. They will get trapped in the mannerisms of that time period. I have seen Loomis worshippers even draw eyebrows on women that look like that style of makeup from the 40�s. The brain shuts down, the shades get drawn, they go to sleep.

You are a person and an artist, your perceptions and who you are as individual take precedence over technique. Yes, learn all of it you can, but be so careful about coming to the conclusion that you can know Truth in easily expressed bromides. I have spent my professional life learning these academic rules, and I have learned to wear an asbestos suit and use fire tongs. I love them dearly, and have been a great help, but they can swallow you whole.

It�s a constant struggle between the need to explore, the need to learn what others have discovered, and the need to be who you are. You have to retain the freedom to evaluate what you learn about the past as valuable or not to you.

Van Gogh needed shoring up? Thankfully he did not have Art Renewal do a clockwork orange on him to �fix� him. I would rather have a Van Gogh on my wall than a Loomis, any day. And I like Loomis, I really do! I am making a point, is all.

And in this Spirit, put down the Loomis and pick up The Art Spirit, by Robert Henri. Good antidote.

[Al Ian]

My two cents:

There are two portions to art from what I can tell.

Technique and Passion/Insparation

With Technique and no Passion/Insparation you have nothing special but what somebody else has already done.

With Passion/Insparation and no Technique you still have a piece of work that can move you emotionaly.

My two cents has come to an end!
_________________

http://jmarkey77.home.bresnan.net/

[Pato]

These Loomis and Howard Pyle's afirmations makes the world so simple, so easy, so beautiful, so good to live...

[Tomasis]

Not always

[Probustion]

thanks derek for clearing that up. I've never really understood the high key thing and to be honest, i still don't, but i will get there. we can't have it all at once do we?

and sorry spooge, but i'm glad you brought that saying here.
_________________
talent is overrated.

[AliasMoze]

Art is a thing that advances, like any other technology, philoshophy, or discipline, so holding on to old ways could be considered, for lack of a better word, wrong. Ford was a great businessman and, in ways, engineer, but would a modern car designer be terribly interested in what the old master had to say about car design? Sure, we take what we want from old lessons, but we have to acknowledge progress. What to Pyle seemed like revelation is available to every ten-cent artist living in today's information-filled world. It comes off to me as what I've heard a trillion times about painting values. The idea's ubiquity doesn't invalidate the idea, but hear it, learn to use it, and move on.

As Spooge has said, becoming a disciple means forfeiting one's own ability to think. Is Pyle correct? Is any rule correct? Certainly it's there for a reason, but test it out, see if the rule holds up. Why do so many people benefit (or not benefit) from the varied kinds of fad diets? Because any system of belief will produce a change. It may be a small change, a large one, a success or a failure, but a person in a fad diet finds truth in the gospel of the diet's creator, at the expense of greater, deeper understanding. This happens not just in art, but in everything, which is the only reason I'd chime in after other, more experienced artists.

Spooge makes a good observation about being an artist and having a unique perspective. I'll go further and say that having a unique perspective is THE most important thing, if you ever want to do anything worth a crap. I think it's been said that you don't have to worry about people stealing your ideas; if your ideas are any good at all, you'll have to cram them down peoples' throats.

One more thing, and I'll finally shut up. I can think of artist movements, in any medium I can think of, that came as a result of directly challenging old RULES. In film, there's the French New Wave. In prose, the beat writers. In music, Jazz. They broke the rules deliberately, or, more accurately, they decided what rules they wanted and made up some of their own. It works, because rules themselves, even artistic rules, become part of the world that we observe. Therefore, the rules become a target of interpretation and variation.

[Les Watters]

I can agree with the need to be an individual. I also think that the lack of rules is what is wrong with fledgling artists. They go to art class and the instructor walks in and nails a rope to the wall and walks out of the room. The students wait for a while and he dosen't come back so they follow the rope. The follow it out of the room down the hall to the volly ball court and there he is, digging a hole. They gather around the hole to find the rope leads to the bottom. The instructor gets out and says "That is design" and he walks away, class over.

For a Professinal like Spooge to say you don't need them is one thing. He don't need them. His work is proof. But there are a lot of people out there who need some foundation to build the house on. Thats the problem. Put the creative person in a room with paint and canvase and leave him for a life time and he will not be the best painter he can be. Why, because he must reinvent the wheel. Give him a foundation and then he has something to build on.


"Oh these laws and principles of color, if only I had learned them in my youth."

Van Gogh

Resource, Big book of Watercolor. Jose Parrimon
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[Impaler]

Of course Pyle's teachings are important to an illustrator. To a critical thinker, all information (good and bad) is important, if not at least for the sake of foundation.

In that sense, the question becomes moot. Sure, his teachings are important. So are the lessons from Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. Niccolaides' The Natural Way to Draw is also important. That anecdotal design professor's (he doesn't REALLY exist, does he?) lessons are also important to the growing artist. The uninformed observer's comments are just as important. Basically, everything in an artist's life helps mold their artistic technique, expression and vision.

Now, have I just dodged the question with side-stepping fencesitting? Probably. However, I seriously doubt the validity of any value judgment of a teaching as an absolute. The pragmatist would have us know that absolute truths are inherently unknowable, ergo the only real truth is the relevant one.

In other words, Pyle's and Loomis' teachings may be enormously valuable to the Western illustrator, but learning to color inside the lines when you're 4 may be just as valuable.
_________________
QED, sort of.

[Les Watters]

Impaler wrote:

"I seriously doubt the validity of any value judgment of a teaching as an absolute. The pragmatist would have us know that absolute truths are inherently unknowable, ergo the only real truth is the relevant one.

In other words, Pyle's and Loomis' teachings may be enormously valuable to the Western illustrator, but learning to color inside the lines when you're 4 may be just as valuable."

That kind of Logical thinking is a new idea.

Truth is the synthesis of A=A and A doesn't = Non A so the answer is somewhere in the middle. Relativism is based on that idea. That is current thinking.

But for a few thousand years it has been Thesis, Antithesis.
A=A and A can't = NON A.

I believe in absolute truths, I'm not saying Pyle should be revered as the Word of God, but in the exploration of what he has said it is based on absolute truths.

P.S.

the instructor is real he teaches at MCAD in Minneapolis MN.
_________________
When in doubt, black it out.

Wally Wood

[Mon]

[spooge demon]

The test for an absolute truth is does it underlie all art? Clearly this is not the case in what Pyle said. I can talk here all day giving examples of art and illustration that do not follow these guidelines. Therefore it is not an absolute truth. Unless you have a razor of a razor thin definition of art.

And that teacher made a good point. He was trying to get people to think. I would thanks to him for the whack on the head that I probably needed and go off to head drawing class and learn how the jaw pivots under the skull. Both messages are vitally important. Instead there were probably orangutans who probably petitioned to get him fired.

I did NOT say you don�t need academic rules, or you should not know or study them. I am saying that you need to know as much as you can, but what I am saying is to not look at them as absolutes.

The true spirit of the scientist/artist is to look even more carefully at things that function outside the rules. That is how the rules evolve and grow and deepen. If you have the idea that present rules are Absolute, you have stopped everything.

The first step on the road to knowing anything is to acknowledge your own and our collective ignorance. This is as close to an absolute that I have ever been able to conjure.

For that Ayn Rand habit I recommend �With Charity Toward None� by William ONeill.

[Pato]