Realism vs construction(a guide to choosing the right art education)

[hummel1dane]

Regarding fine art. (Figure drawing/painting, still life)

Today it is extremly confusing to choose what kind of art school to attend - but it seems like all schools and ateliers in general can be grouped into two categories -

* Those with emphasis on construction

* Those with emphasis on realism

(this will be a general guide, NOT 100% correct, feel free to debate or add)

The schools with emphasis on realism

Angel academy of art(Florence) (www.angelartschool.com)
Florence academy(Florence) (www.florenceacademyofart.com)
Charles Cecil(Florence) (http://www.charlescecilstudios.com/)
Academy of realist art(Toronto) (www.academyofrealistart.com)

and so forth, many more are listed on http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/atelier_list.asp (I will add more to the list when I have more time)

The schools with emphasis on construction

Ashland academy of art (Ashland, USA) (http://www.ashlandacademyofart.com/)
Glenn Vilppu's school of drawing (around the world, plus books and dvds) (http://www.vilppustudio.com/)
Art academy(Florence or Skt. Petersburg)(www.artac.ru)
Bridgeview school of fine art(New York) (http://www.academicart.com/index.htm
Repin institute(Skt. Petersburg)
The drawing academy (Viborg, Denmark)(http://www.animwork.dk/Default.asp?ID=655)
Art school(Bulgaria) (www.nha.bg)
Otis college of Art and Design (http://otis.edu/academics/foundation/life_drawing.html)
Max the mutt (Toronto, Canada) http://www.maxthemutt.com/default.asp
Farigh Ghaderi (part time classes and summer workshops, Florence) (http://farighghaderi.com/academicdrawingfirenze.html)
Mentler(Conceptart) (dunno where he is teaching? - and something about a dvd comming soon?)
Classes and workshops with Rebecca Alzofon (http://academicfigure.com/skill_clinics.html#dwg1)

Schools that offer classes of both systems :

Art student legaue of New York (http://www.theartstudentsleague.org/)
Grand central academy of New York http://grandcentralacademy.classicist.org/index.html
Los Angeles Academy of Figurative Art http://www.laafa.org/

And if you know of any other schools or classes, please reply with an URL in this thread and I'll add it to the list. (if I am able to catagorize the school)

-- About the schools that emphasise realism --

The schools that emphasise realism are built on the system of Bargue and partly on the system of the french academy. Their method is optical - they start by copying shadow shapes rather than constructing a figure.
They emphasise technical mastery of the materials(paper, paints, colors, glazing, varnish) and completeness of a work of art. And of course realism(realistic skin color studies and realistic rendering, perfection of still life paintings).

Weaknesses are a lack of focus on structural anatomy, construction, form, big form movement, perspective, and imaginary drawing.
These subjects might be taught as seperate lectures, but they are more or less not taught in everyday drawing.

The method is to copy in 2 dimension, make a 2-value graphical image, and then add the 3rd dimension with shading.

Sight size is in general taught for copy of drawings(bargues) and drawing/painting the plastercasts. At some schools/ateliers they also use sight size for drawing the figure.

--

-- About the schools that emphasise construction --

The constructional schools are built on the sculptural drawing techniques invented in the renaissance.(Leonardo, Michelangelo, Raphael

The method is to built the figure or still life in 3 dimensions - using perspective. Crosshatch and planar rendering.
(I will post the basic renaissance system later, as it was taught by the russian master Boris B. Kazakov)
Then after this the focus move a bit more towards value and realism.
(Help appreciated from people studying at Ashland or in any other russian system containing value studie from life, could be nice to have the russian academical system outlined!!)

Strength :
Understanding of 3 dimensions, (perspective) and mass. Structural anatomy, construction, big form movement, gesture, drawing and shading from imagination, preperation for clay or computer sculpting. As well as animation.

Weaknesses :
Time!!! (it takes years alone to master anatomy and figure construction) so it will not be possible to draw or paint realistically within a few years.
Works thus won't have the same completeness as in the realist system(will look constructed). Not possible to get the same technical mastery over paint and colors within few years.

-- Final thoughts --

Where to go pretty much depends on what you want the most. In general you'd need both realism and construction to be a perfectly trained artist, but we all have different artistic preferences. And unfortunately time and money is everybodies problem, so choose wisely.

One more thing,
I honestly don't know exactly how much is contained in the russian academical system, all I know is that they start out with a strong emphasis on construction, then move towards realism.

--

Books regarding figure construction :

Die Gestalt des Menchen, Gottfried Bammes (yep it's German, but you don't have to read the text to get the point) http://www.amazon.com/Die-Gestalt-Menschen-Gottfried-Bammes/dp/3332016539/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246308721&sr=8-1 (you might wanna check out amazon.de as well - it's probably a lot cheaper!
Drawing lessons from the great masters, Robert Beverly Hale http://www.amazon.com/Drawing-Lessons-Great-Masters-Practical/dp/0823014010/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246308783&sr=1-1
Vilppu Drawing Manual, Glenn Vilppu http://www.amazon.com/Vilppu-Drawing-Manual-Glenn/dp/1892053039/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246308812&sr=1-1
The artist's complete guide to facial expression, Gary Faigin (the most complete book regarding human emotions related to facial anatomy) http://www.amazon.com/Artists-Complete-Guide-Facial-Expression/dp/0823004325/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246311296&sr=8-1
The Frank Reilly School of Art http://www.amazon.com/Frank-Reilly-School-Art/dp/1602640319/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246386164&sr=8-1

Free online books(can be downloaded as pdf) :

Bridgman's complete guide to drawing from life, Bridgman (http://www.scribd.com/doc/6692986/bridgmans-complete-guide-to-drawing-from-life)
Constructive anatomy, Bridgeman (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4461737/Constructive-Anatomy-by-George-Bridgman)
The human machine, Bridgeman (http://www.scribd.com/doc/4461582/The-Human-Machine-by-George-Brigman)
Figure drawing for all it's worth, Andrew Loomis (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2433658/Andrew-Loomis-Figure-Drawing-For-All-its-Worth)
Drawing the human head, Burne Hogarth (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2580517/vivl2185Burne-Hogarth-Drawing-the-Human-head-eng)
Dynamic anatomy, Burne Hogarth (http://www.scribd.com/doc/9561347/Burne-Hogarth-Dynamic-Anatomy-in-English)
Dynamic wrinkles and drapery, Burne Hogarth (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2176759/Burne-Hogarth-Dynamic-Wrinkles-and-Drapery)
Drawing dynamic hands, Burne Hogarth (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2883561/Burne-Hogarth-Drawing-Dynamic-Hands)
Vilppu figure drawing setup (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2968567/Vilppu-Figure-Drawing)
Human anatomy for artists (http://www.scribd.com/doc/8567500/Human-Anatomy-for-Artists)

E-books that costs money....

The Sculptor and Art Student's Guide to the Proportions of the Human Form By Dr. Johann Gottfried Schadow(http://figure-drawings.com/artstudentsguide.html)
The Art Student's Guide to the Bones and Muscles of the Human Body and Lessons on Foreshortening By Dr. Johann Gottfried Schadow (http://figure-drawings.com/bones-and-muscles.html)

Books regarding realism.

"The human figure" by Vanderpoel. (http://www.amazon.com/Human-Figure-John-H-Vanderpoel/dp/0486204324)
Academy of Realist Art has made a dvd of the system - (http://store.arc-store.com/drfrfiv.html)
Cast drawing using the sight size approach, Darren R. Rousar (http://www.amazon.com/Cast-Drawing-Using-Sight-Size-Approach/dp/0980045401/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245179772&sr=1-1)
Classical drawing atelier, Juliette Aristides (http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Drawing-Atelier-Contemporary-Traditional/dp/0823006573/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b)
Classical painting atelier, Juliette Aristides (http://www.amazon.com/Classical-Painting-Atelier-Contemporary-Traditional/dp/0823006581/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b)

Free online tutorials :

Tutorial/explanation of Prudhon's technique (http://www.art.net/Studios/visual/Rebecca/OnPrudon1a.html)
Tutorial about gesture (with animations) http://www.art.net/Studios/visual/Rebecca/LifeDrawing1.html
Tutorial about Bargue measuring (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=113729)
Tutorial about Bargue drawing(page1) and a tutorial about cast painting(page4) from a conceptart sketchbook, Dorian from Angel Academy of Art(http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?p=725824)
Tutorial about Charcoal drawing(Angel academy, also from Dorian, God bless him!!) http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=95605&page=2
Tutorial about painting at Angel Academy of Art(Michael John Angel, head of Angel Academy of Art) (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2009/PaintingMethod/Angel-Painting-Method.pdf)
Some stuff from Frank Reilly's school of drawing. http://www.dhfa.net/Artiststatement2.html

Books about the old academies and stuff :

Life Class: The Academic Male Nude 1820-1920 (Paperback) by Stephen Boyd (Author), Edward Lucie-Smith (Author) (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Class-Academic-Male-1820-1920/dp/0854491031/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)
The Nude in French Art and Culture, 1870-1910 (Hardcover) by Heather Dawkins(Author) (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521807557?tag=figuredrawing-20&link_code=as3&creativeASIN=0521807557&creative=373489&camp=211189)
The French neoclassic and academic tradition, 1800-1900 : figurative and compositional paintings, oil sketches, and works on paper : winter exhibition, 1984 Shepherd Gallery.
French oil sketches and the academic tradition Barnes, Joanna.
The invention of the model : artists and models in Paris, 1830-1870 Waller, Susan
The artist's model from Etty to Spencer Postle, Martin
Strictly academic; life drawing in the nineteenth century State University of New York at Binghamton. University Art Gallery
The Academy and French Painting in the 19th Century, (Albert Boime http://www.amazon.com/Academy-French-Painting-19th-Century/dp/0300037325/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246348913&sr=1-4)
The Lure of Paris: Nineteenth-Century American Painters and Their French Teachers, Helene Barbara Weinberg (http://www.amazon.com/Lure-Paris-Nineteenth-Century-American-Painters/dp/1558590188/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246348976&sr=1-1)
Figures du Corps (review, http://www.beardedroman.com/?p=447) (don't know were you can get this book, perhaps in Paris)

Articles about academical education :

La Academia dei Desidorosi: A Pre-cursor to the Nineteenth-Century Academy (http://beardedroman.com/?p=342)
Léon Bonnat (French, 1833-1922): The First Classical Realist? (http://beardedroman.com/?p=367)

List of web galleries containing academical drawings and paintings :

Spanish academic :
http://alfama.sim.ucm.es/greco/bbaa-digital.php

French academic :
Most of Bouguereau's work. Including pencil drawings and compositional studies (http://www.xs4all.nl/~frqnc23/framesen.html)

Russian academic :
http://veda3d.com/edu/anatomy_drawing_book.htm
http://academart.com/ARTSHOP/art_shop_drawings.htm
http://cgi.ebay.com.my/RUSSIAN-OLD-ALBUM-DRAWINGS-RUSSIAN-ACADEMY-ARTISTS-1949_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQitemZ300299030913
Kramskoy paintings (http://www.tretyakovgallery.ru/ru/collection/_show/image/_id/196) (http://www.kramskoy.info/component/option,com_datsogallery/Itemid,29/func,detail/id,14/catid,1/)

Supplies for the artist

Models of human anatomy (http://www.3bscientific.com/)
Models of human anatomy (https://www.biovere.com/)
Real animal bones for animal drawing (highly recommended) (www.animalskeletons.net)
Online version of Gray's anatomy(not for download) (http://www.scribd.com/doc/2536371/Anatomy-of-the-Human-Body)

Acland's anatomy dvds (HIGHLY recommended anatomy dissection dvds, offers a complete view of the human body, all muscles, functions, bones, origins of muscles on bones, veins, joints (how they really look and work) and A LOT of other valuable information.
Dvd 1 upper extremity (http://www.amazon.com/Aclands-DVD-Atlas-Human-Anatomy/dp/0781740630/ref=pd_sim_b_3)
Dvd 2 lower extremity (http://www.amazon.com/Aclands-DVD-Atlas-Human-Anatomy/dp/0781740649/ref=pd_sim_b_2)
Dvd 3 trunk (http://www.amazon.com/Aclands-DVD-Atlas-Human-Anatomy/dp/0781740657/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c)
Dvd 4 Head and neck part 1 (http://www.amazon.com/Aclands-DVD-Atlas-Human-Anatomy/dp/0781740665/ref=pd_sim_b_2)
Dvd 5 Head and neck part 2 (http://www.amazon.com/Aclands-DVD-Atlas-Human-Anatomy/dp/0781741939/ref=pd_sim_b_7)



ONE FINAL THING - INFORMATION ABOUT THE RUSSIAN SYSTEM OF VALUE STUDY IS NEEDED. IF YOU KNOW THE RUSSIAN SYSTEM OF VALUE STUDY IN FIGURE DRAWING - POST A TUTORIAL!
IF YOU KNOW SOMEONE WHO KNOWS IT - HAVE THEM POST A TUTORIAL!

[Maxine Schacker]

Where is your life drawing? Quick sketches? Concept roughs?

PS I don't know of any art that takes less than 10 years of study.

Max the Mutt actually stresses both observation and the ability to draw without reference. Sight sizing is not the only approach to observational drawing and is not the only way to "see."

We teach: finding base lines, height lines, using point to point measurement, accurately observing and drawing positive and negative shapes, and training the eye to and draw silhouettes, exact matching of values and color, letting accurate shapes of color create illusion. This leads to very highly realistic work and is part of basic education. It gives he artist the freedom to scale his work, the than have to paint or draw everything to sight size. I think speaking about "realism" must include more than the sight sizing approach.

[Justin.]

You are also leaving out other types of art education (the 2 you listed are only life studies). Where is Illustration? Industrial Design? Animation? Photography? These are all art educations as well. I appreciate the effort to bring to light a particular division between schools, but IMO a student had better do enough research about not only the school, but themselves, to make sure they are going to the right place for them.

[forsaken dreams]

Thanks, that's an informative list! I've definitely found there are usually those two styles of instruction. And it can be difficult to find a place that offers a balance of both.

Still life and figure drawing form the basis of many areas of art, whether it is illustration, industrial design or animation. So even for any of those fields it is good to know which of the approaches is more important, for example construction in animation and ID vs realism in certain areas of illustration.

Maxine's refrain gets rather tiring at times.

[panchosimpson]

He's talking about basic education for a painter, independently of things like ID, etc.

The debate isn't between "realism" and "construction"....it's between an optical and a sculptural approach to drawing. The method taught in most ateliers is visual....it depends on copying the shapes of objects as they appear in the visual field of the retina....like a jigsaw puzzle of shapes.

The sculptural method is largely focused on capturing the physical, tactile aspects of the subject....and understanding it three dimensionally.

Also, the ateliers have a fraction of the teachings of the french academy. The french did not use sight size systematically, and they understood the planes/structure a lot better....that's why they could produce those huge history paintings, and the ateliers can't. Bridgman studied with Gerome, and I believe Vanderpoel studied with Boulanger...both advocate construction in their books.

Also, the current crop of ateliers come from the Boston painters lineage. They didn't care for imaginative paintings (think Veronese, or Tiepolo) and were very much focused on painting the visual field.

Like you said, you need both sides to have complete training. I'm a student of Vilppu, but am also looking to study with a Florence trained painter to get both sides.

I look forward to future posts in this thread, this is a promising discussion.

-Ramon

[Meloncov]

So would it be correct to say that concept artists and animators would be better served by a program emphasizing construction?

[panchosimpson]

Animators, yes. Understanding the form is more important than copying pretty shadows and matching angles just so. Likewise, a concept artist is inventing more often than not and would benefit from very analytical drawing. However, I would say that because concept art more closely mimics the appearance of every day reality (less stylized than animation), they would also benefit from the optical training.

These types of education are not mutually exclusive. Everyone uses both to some extent...they just lean more heavily towards one side or another. It's merely a matter of degrees....all form and no good 2d placement is useless. All 2d and no sense of form equally so. The important factor is that everything must be based on analysis. Passive copying doesn't lead to great artistic heights.

[hummel1dane]

Thank you panchosimpson,
Yep I'm talking about fine art. Yes you can call it Optical vs. sculptural. Perhaps that's better!

It's a very interesting debate - Unfortunately we don't know entirely what they did in the french academies. (do you know of any good books?, Eakins rediscovered is a great one!)
Yes Gerome did emphasise planar understanding - he told his students to study clay sculpting as well, to become better painters!! - He said that "Painting and sculpting is the same thing"
And I didn't know that Bridgman studied with Gerome! Thanks!!

I don't think they ever start out with 2d copying of shapes in the russian academy, and they draw from life and do value studies as well.
I wonder if they did 2d outline and shadow shapes from the model in the french academy.
Whatever they did at the french academy, doing the shadow shape copying seems to be the fastest way of getting a realistic looking result.

About sight size , some classical realist schools seem to be abanding it partly. They keep it for the Bargues, plastercasts, and still-life - but not for figure drawing.

[Maxine Schacker]

I started painting following Hawthorne. This is NOT sight sizing, but calls for total focus, concentration and, really, an almost abstract approach of seeing what you are painting as if it IS the painting ( a mosaic of shapes of color), exact matching the colors..and..voila!
You will get everything- color, texture, space, personality. I think it's a formidable approach and a great way to get people to start painting (not just color) and learn to SEE.

However, to fully liberate your artistic vision, you need more. Knowledge is power.
Have any of you seen the Boime book about the French atelier system? It was not the "sight sizing" system.

Sorry if I'm boring anyone...but as Hale once said to me in class, "there are about 10 things you have to learn and you spend your whole life refining them."

For me, the problem with the classical ateliers is that they produce work that is almost indistinguishable. It has a kind of cool beauty, but no sense of the human being behind the painting. It seems to work better for still life than for anything with people or animals.

There is not doubt that to paint complex forms you need to understand perspective, form, anatomy and movement. You may paint what you see, but quite amazingly you see what you know. The more you know the more you see things in many paintings that make you queasy.
For example, knees that look like pudding (to draw or paint a knee well you must understand the underlying structure and make good choices), collar bones that don't "read" and arms that don't attach properly.

In the end, we are not just an "eye." The artist who is knowledgeable selects what is essential, emphasizes what is necessary and does this on many levels. In my view, art is about expression. When I look at a Velasquez, a Rembrandt, a Degas, I'm seeing the world through that artist's eyes. Art is not about surface perfection. We try to master composition, color, anatomy- all the stuff of our craft- so that we will have the tools to express our deepest feelings and reactions to life.

Later:

I left out Nicolaides and why he's so revered. I think a major reason is that he asks you to be fully engaged using all your senses, and this too is what one feels in the really great artists. He also stresses unity of the whole. This applies to figure studies, but it is also critical in painting. There is what we can term a 'gesture" through the whole painting: instead of a flow from one part of the body to the next, we are feeling the flow from one object, into the drapery, into the next object. Pulling the passage of light, the passage of middle tone, the passage of dark through the painting are building blocks of composition and design. We do the same with color, and, if you introduce texture, texture. You are weaving the painting into a unity.

In my view first year training can, and should, include both sides of the coin. Go step by step. Look for developmental training. Learning to use a straight edge to measure will lead eventually to being able to see well enough not to need to go through that step, but when something goes wrong its good to know how to check yourself. Learning to se the set up as if it IS the painting or drawing help us to see positive and negative shapes. There is so much to learn! You are looking at an intensive study best dealt with in a group of courses. Sometime in second semester the pieces start to come together and the work starts to have real quality. The curriculum we suggest is: Life Drawing ( a combo of Nicolaides, Bridgman and Hale),
Perspective, Structural Drawing, Principles of Drawing (using still life to learn basic concepts), Design and Composition, Representational Painting (Hawthorne), Color and Water-based media.

We are not born with an artist's eye- it's trained, and we get the skill through repetition.

By the way, Nicolaides cross contour exercise is a good first step towards understanding cross hatching.

The best art is a combination of right and left brain working together.

Don't judge yourself. Judge the integrity with which you do each exercise...and give yourselves time to develop. Enjoy the trip! The beginning is hard work, but so rewarding in the end.

It takes time!

[hummel1dane]

This will be an attempt to outline and describe the basic renaissance system of construction, as it was taught by the russian master Boris B. Kazakov.

I thought this thread could be a good way of students of different schools to share their ideas and perhaps outline aspects of their system.

I spent one year in a school that only had this basic renaissance system. My instructors were all students of Boris.
http://www.animwork.dk/Default.asp?ID=655 - (it's in English)
and please judge student works lightly - they were done by ½ to 1 year students.
I have images of work done by more advanced students who whent on to study with Boris in Skt. Petersburg. I might post a few of those in another thread -

The difference between this system, and the system of say Vilppu, Bridgman, etc, is in the rendering. It is not just a system of construction - but a refined tonal system as well that was used most notably by Michelangelo in his figure studies, possibly in his paintings as well.
The model studies done in this system are from anywhere between 2min - 50hours.
More or less.

---

Perspective and construction.

In the basic renaissance system you immediately set up perspective - you work in 3 dimensions right away! This is done to get the understanding of mass, construction, gesture. You idialize as well - that is, you construct a sort of idialized version of the model - you will be using your constructed perspective lines rather than the model(you can even exaggerate perspective if you prefer!!) You will have to look at the model from different angles - especially the side! If you look at the model from the side, you will see where the up planes are located - you will be constructing the main light from above and any direction you choose. Sometimes from the side, front, and most rarely - below. Except from the back. (you do NOT set up any lightsources, you simply imagine where the light is comming from)

You will be modelling the edges - work on the edges to show the turning of planes. (Most shade on edges)
In this system an edge is the meeting of two planes.

You will be controlling the direction of the eye by using atmospheric perspective - what is most in the front - the highest contrast. (the difference in tone between what is in front and in the back might be extremely subtle. )


Crosshatch :
You will be using completely free lines, that are supposed to follow the 3d form of the model. Like the pen sketches of Michelangelo. The most important is loosenes and freedom! with time you'll get to draw like Michelangelo, that is, when you start to understand the form and perspective.
Your lines will automaticaly turn into shade as you work in layers, multiple lines. (layers explained later)

You'll use flow through lines, especially as a way to get good proportions and working with the figure as a whole.

You won't use eraser except later, when you are doing the light planes. You will be using your kneded eraser as a white pencil.

You won't measure, never(except in your mind). You have to understand mass and sort of feel the proportions. In the beginning your result will be horrible. But when you get the feeling of mass and perspective down as a 6th sense, it will be easy. The proportions will get better and better.

You never have to draw something exactly the way it looks. So in the beginning your horrible result is ok. Also it will take some time before you understand how to work in layers. Check out Michelangelos pen drawings. He is the ideal.

Your instructor will sometimes tell you to erase part of the drawing and start all over with this part.... You can have completed a whole leg, and then you have to move it, this happens if you have lost the feeling of the whole - focused too much on a specific part.

Draw transparent in the beginning - if one leg crosses the other - complete the behind leg. NEVER break a line that is going behind another form.

You want a mess of lines. When you decide which one is correct you just give it a darker tone - you don't have to erase the other lines. You will erase them only if they are on a light plane. If not you will probably shade over them anyways.

Use complete constructions. Complete all forms. Draw them through - continue them on the other side, like if you had x-ray eyes. (and always construct perspective)

Often the old masters made a complete sketch of something that would acually be behind something else. This was necessary in order to think in terms of complete forms.
I think Michelangelo is seen as the one who achieved the most advanced results.

You will be using anatomy right away - constructional anatomy - 3d anatomy.

Draw bones - allways. When you look at the model - you'll be drawing the underlining bones. If you don't have them in mind and you are drawing, lets say an arm - just pick up the corresponding armbone, look at it in the same perspective as the arm on the model - and in this way figure out the bonal structure of the model.

About light and shade on planes - you will be using a guiding cube that you can put next to your drawing. One plane is 100% shade, another 100% light another 50% of each. This is Michelangelos school! (I think Leonardo suggests more softness, also Raphael is more soft)
But in the beginning all you care about is form!!!!! The other stuff is a later study.

Drawing is a communication of form. Therefore, DO NOT CONSTRUCT CAST SHADOWS YET. Learn to think ONLY in terms of planes. (when you master form you'll start to do cast shadows)
But cast shadows aren't neccesary to show form - so at least if you do anatomical sketches - dont use cast shadows!

Subdivide tone in the different planes (this is where the russian school differs the most from the american constructional system)
Study Michelangelo - he uses the most amount of subdivision.
In your light planes you will be lightly subdividing, in the shaded planes you will be subdividing with stronger tones.

In the beginning, treat everything as if it was made of the same material, draw only form - A person with black skin will be drawn the same as a person with white skin. Form is the only thing truly important in this system!
This is the beginning - later you will learn to work with and master the different skin tones etc. But first your understanding of form, planes, construction and perspective must be perfect.

---

How to work in layers.

Working in layers is the way the crosshatch technique is taught, you just work your way into the figure(because you have no actual tonal reference, other than your tonal guiding cube) - you can do this method with pen as well...

There are two different layers - tonal and anatomical.

Anatomical

First layer is the overall anatomical structure of the big forms, the box of the pelvis and the open box/egg of the ribcage and so on.. - And the flow of the middle lines(spinal column, sternum, linea alba...) You'll use the x-ray vision and constructed perspective . Always keep both the sternum and spinal column in mind(draw it or think it - whatever works for you)
And the feet are the most important because they determine the weight and pose of the figure - force yourself to see them in perspective right away, get a feel of the plane they are standing on.

Second anatomical layer is the inner skeletal structure of all the bones and muscles.
You want to see the big anatomical picture, and then break this down into smaller forms, and break the smaller forms down into even smaller forms... and so forth(you'll even break bones down into different structural shapes...). But you always keep a strong feeling of connection. - all small forms belongs to a bigger form.
For example, the phalanges belongs to the finger, the finger to the hand, The hand, lower arm and upper arm belongs to the whole arm. The shoulder connects the arm to the body, and so forth. You will be drawing the bones first, then draw the muscles on top.
In the beginning a disconnected look of bones and muscles is normal - this is just untill you figure out the anatomical and structural connections.

--

The tonal layers.

The reason you do tonal layers are in order to explain general form and plane changes. An edge is a line between two planes. In general you model the edges to explain the change in direction of form.
Your goal is to communicate the form independently of light(sculptural). So you will create your own light source and sometimes move it around a bit freely to enhance the visual communication.

First layer

3 basic tones.(light values - you will make them darker later...)

Make your own light source in your head! Think in terms of the big masses - crosshatch or tone down first the side and down planes(on a figure constructed in these basic shapes/planes)

Second layer

When you start to move into the detailed anatomical layer, you will also move into the detailed layer of different light intensity. So that if you have decided to tone down the side plane 50% - you model the planes located on the side plane in similar values - like 30-70%
So all up planes located on the side planes would have like 30% and all down planes located on the side plane would have like 70% and planes turned in other direction will have other values in between the two, or something like that. (this is a VERY general idea, do whatever explains form)
And on the down planes you'll model in even darker tones...
And on the light planes you'll model in lighter tones.
In this way you'll keep the strongest feeling of the big boxes (about 3 basic planes, each subdivided into different tones). Because you can clearly distinguise the big planes, and the small planes located on these big planes. This is called the sculptural approach. And my understanding of it is very limited! (but just study Michelangelo and you'll figure it out :D)
But there are other principles that change the amount of tone you'll use - like atmospheric lighting, atmospheric perspective, reflected lighting, constructed cast shadows. and so forth.

---

How to copy a master drawing ::

First understand the reason for doing a master copy - you want to learn how this master thought about the figure(a drawing is thoughts).
Remember he worked in layers!!!!!!!!!
You will be drawing it as if it were an actual 3d object in front of you!!!(use persepctive construction right away)
Sometimes his constructional lines wont be obvious. They are there none the less. Sometimes you will see these x-ray lines, sometimes you wont!
In order to do a perfect copy of a master drawing you'll need the same amount of anatomical knowledge and skill as the master. If your skill and knowledge is higher - you should be able to improve the master drawing. If your skill and knowledge is worse, you'll make it worse.
IN SHORT - you can't draw properly that which you do not understand.

--

All right, I hope this is at least partly understandable.

[hummel1dane]

Hey Maxine,

I have the book about the french academy, quite interesting, but I don't think it explains so well exactly what methods they were using. It mentions cast drawing, but not much about "building the model". It does however mention that the french did use cross hatching as late as the 1830's.
But they seemed to be more into copying other paintings and drawings in those days. Maybe they invented the shadow shape method for this reason. Faster copying.
But it is a very good book, no doubt about it.

And yes, sight size wasn't taught academical before the later part of the 20th century.
However Eakins does mention it as a good way of sketching a portrait, not having to worry about proportion, and thus being able to capture personality(painting fast!!).
But that is the opposite of what people do today with sight size. And of course he already knew construction and anatomy.

Oh yes - the deadness of paintings today are also due to the use of photos.

I don't know about Howthorne, I'll check him out.

[Maxine Schacker]

Many aspects of this system are very close, if not identical, to Nicolaides "The Natural Way To Draw" combined with classical rendering. If you get a chance, take a look at our 2009 galleries when they are posted (we are redoing the website and new galleries won't be up until mid July).

We are not teaching pure Nicolaides in life drawing ( as I said in my last post, we introduce elements of Bridgman and Hale), and our students have other classes besides the figure ( as listed above), but we have a great deal in common. However, we don't really go into anatomy until year two, and animation and illustration students don't get sustained figure drawing (only year one is entirely fine art). Concept Art students get advanced drawing and many painting courses (oil) as well as illustration.

If the curriculum you list is all first year you are going much faster than we do!

PS I'm glad I didn't bore you.

[panchosimpson]

hummel1dane, Maxine: thanks for your contributions, this aspect of the philosophy or art and perception is very interesting to me, since it' something I've researched and given a lot of thought to.

I've read the Boime book as well, very interesting stuff, but again it's approached from an historian's point of view, he probably wouldn't know what a plane was if his life depended on it.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Kazakov's teaching sounds VERY similar to what we learned in Vilppu's class. Glenn bases his teaching on his intensive study with Michelangelo, Pontormo, Greuze and others. In addition to the concepts of understanding gestural flow (energy from one limb to the next, but also in the whole figure, and throughout the composition), seeing through, 3D thinking, perspective and construction, he teaches us to use tone as a tool to further define and clarify the form.

So it's not about copying, rather it's about communicating the form in the clearest, most effective manner (which sometimes includes eliminating cast shadows). To be honest, I feel like most people (including his students) never get a full grasp of what Glenn is teaching, and see his instruction more as training "for animators". His classes generally have shorter poses (the longest we had was 1 hour) but it doesn't mean that his approach can't be followed for longer drawings.

In rendering, he encourages us to think logically and use lines that go over the form, trying to feel every bump and hollow in the surface, but he expects to study anatomy and know why each bump is there. I'm not the best example of Glenn's approach, but I have learned a lot and have tried to follow it as far as my skills have allowed for now. If you're curious you can see them at
http://highonturpentine.blogspot.com/search/label/drawing

Some work by Glenn
http://s39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/panchosimpson/glenn/

and some by my other teacher and mentor, Will Weston, who studied with Glenn
http://www.willwestonstudio.com/teachingdownloads.html

Regarding the change in drawing (which did in fact occur around 1830)...it is a common thread in the European academies. You will notice certain key differences in drawings produced before and after this time. In the 18th century, and early 19th, drawing with understanding of the form was institutionalized and probably at its peak as a whole. The drawings of Brullov in Russian, Louis Cheron in France, and numerous artists in Spain attest to this. Drawings were generally done with a pointed instrument, which lends itself to more dimensional thinking, in the sense that "shading" was done with crosshatching and feeling/experiencing the form. I think David's power grab in France has something to do with the change in European art education. He obviously was trained in the old traditions of painting, much like Greuze or Boucher, but he rejected some of their methods, like the transparent shadow, opaque lights approach...in favor of solid painting all over...and painting one bit at a time i.e. windowshading. He still drew in a primarily linear way, but I think he set the stage for the changes that occurred later.

Students at this time also spent more time in front of the model. I believe the figure was something like 6 hours for a figure drawing in the 18th century (3 x 2 hr sessions), while in the newly formed institutions, it was upped to like twice that or more. (I'll post the name of the book that I got this from later)

At this time, the academies started preferring charcoal as the medium for academies, like today. This is important, because charcoal is generally a broad, tonal medium, it's not particularly suited for drawing through and doing linear construction. This might mean that draftsmen had different goals in drawing and picked a tool more appropriate to their task.

Moreover, photography was being developed and brought to full operation at the same time that these changes occurred!

"Photography as a usable process goes back to the 1820s with the development of chemical photography. The first permanent photograph was an image produced in 1825 by the French inventor Nicéphore Niépce. However, because his photographs took so long to expose, he sought to find a new process. Working in conjunction with Louis Daguerre, they experimented with silver compounds based on a Johann Heinrich Schultz discovery in 1724 that a silver and chalk mixture darkens when exposed to light. Niépce died in 1833, but Daguerre continued the work, eventually culminating with the development of the daguerreotype in 1837. " (wikipedia)

I imagine seeing photography for the first time made people re-evaluate how they drew, especially those who were dedicated to the precise imitation of the visual aspects of nature. The idea that flat shapes could be copied like a jigsaw puzzle probably came from this. That is basically drawing the visual field.

The question might have also been...what is reality? is it the world as we see it with our eyes? or is it the way we experience it with our sense of touch?

In a widely circulated writing about Sargent, we can find further evidence

"Mr. George Moore, in one of the most illuminating essays in Modern Painting, said: "In 1830 values came
upon France like a religion. Rembrandt was the new Messiah, Holland was the Holly Land, and disciples
were busy dispensing the propaganda in every studio." The religion had no more ardent apostle than
Carolus Duran." -http://www.goodbrush.com/misc/painting_lessons/sargent_notes.pdf

Recently, a whole series of 18th century drawings from the Spanish academy were posted online. The difference between late 19th century drawing and it's earlier predecessor is very clear and it's interesting because they're from the same institution.

18th century drawing
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3174/3068048269_570ea2b402_o.jpg

late 19th century drawing
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3014/3068914058_d21fa2ab40_o.jpg

Note that the first one has a more sculptural feel...appealing to the sense of touch. In the sense that it feels tangible, it's more real.

The second one is more visually real...from the standpoint of sight, it's more real than the other one.

However, because of the intensive anatomy training at the academies, even the 2nd drawing has strong sense of form. That is what we've lost in most ateliers of today. A lot of figure drawings are basically rendering exercises, which get precise values, but no knowledge of structure. I think the figure drawings of today are also the longest ever. In the 19th century, I believe drawings took at most 40 hours, the norm was more like 15-20. Today, some places have 75 hour poses (FAA). In the ateliers of 19th century France (Bonnat, Gerome, Duran) the norm was a week-long pose, usually 3 hours with the model if I'm not mistaken.

Julian Alden Weir's study from Gerome's atelier
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/panchosimpson/alden-weir--geromesclass.jpg

Albert Edelfeldt, atelier Bonnat
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/panchosimpson/edelfelt6.jpg

Notice how these still feel structural (in a planar sense)

Compare with current atelier work (Angel)
http://www.angelartschool.com/images/gall_figure/18.Tish-Antonio550.jpg
http://www.angelartschool.com/images/gall_figure/12Marty-Samuel550.jpg

Angel is actually one of the best ateliers, and these studies are good, but in my opinion, they lack the clear articulation and knowledge of structure of times past.

I should be bringing this to a close now, so I'll just put up some more examples as food for thought. On the questions of whether the ecole des beaux arts taught 2d shape copying. I think by the late 19th century, yes they did to some degree (see below)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/3625440115_38e94e37fc_b.jpg

But these were school studies. A mature artist like Cabanel drew much like a Renaissance draftsman
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3299/3626254388_0cd1120a4c_o.jpg

Random drawing I found from the Ecole in the 19th century....look at that box!
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3615/3626254084_b031a20f46_o.jpg

And the British draftsmen like Leighton and Poynter always drew with the point, following the form and understanding structure.

Poynter
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3321/3626283064_40b2d19aa5_o.jpg

Leighton
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3297/3625465213_c9b091e5c4_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3619/3626281674_3261803bdb_o.jpg

Anyway, I'm really enjoying this discussion. I think most art students (like most people) passively accept information given to them by their teachers, without researching on their own and questioning why things are taught the way they are. Like all the claims about ateliers being "classical" or, "in the manner of the old masters"...look that stuff up, they're not.

Hope this was of some use to someone!

-Ramon

[Aaron Death]

very interesting discussion. Though about ateliers, I think that the majority of the sessions classes in LAAFA(www.laafa.org) are pretty analytical(or constructional) instead of visual.

I don't know much about the atelier program though.

[hummel1dane]

Damn! Thanks!

I'm just about to finish first trimester at Angels - I ask about gesture and form and all the fun stuff - and the answer :
"sure, we'll get to that - after some years!!!"
Even perspective isn't taught untill 2nd year.
But the main instructor Jered has a very good understanding of form.

About the change in the academies - Prudhons earlier drawings were much less realistic as well. Though totally cool and perfect regarding planar and anatomical understanding!

All right, please tell me what book you got those images from? And where to find the spanish drawings online?

I got a huge collection of russian academical 20th century drawings, and some from the High art school of Bulgaria. I wonder if I should make a new thread and just post all of them there.

Ok, I'll post a few here :

The first three are russian academic drawings - first and third are unknown artists. Second one is by Harmalov.
The last two drawings are from Boris Kazakov's school in Skt. Petersburg
The draftsman of the last drawing is now a teacher at "the drawing academy"
http://www.animwork.dk/Default.asp?ID=655

[Hyskoa]

What if you like both and have money for neither? :p

[panchosimpson]

hummel1dane YES! please put those up! That is true draftsmanship. I love Harlamoff's portraits, but I had no clue he was such a great figure draftsman.

You have one of recent Chinese books on Russian drawing correct? Anyway, I have a huge file of high res American paintings (including my favorite, Dean Cornwell), plus a lot of academic and old master drawings that are hard to find online. If you put yours up I'll put mine up :)

Most of the images can be found online, I just rummaged a lot to find them. Some are from artstor.org, a huge internet library service that can only be accessed through a participating public institution. (like my university).

When I mentioned the book, I meant that I got certain information from it (like model time for students).

Here are some volumes of interest though.

The French neoclassic and academic tradition, 1800-1900 : figurative and compositional paintings, oil sketches, and works on paper : winter exhibition, 1984 Shepherd Gallery.

French oil sketches and the academic tradition Barnes, Joanna.

The invention of the model : artists and models in Paris, 1830-1870 Waller, Susan

The artist's model from Etty to Spencer Postle, Martin

Strictly academic; life drawing in the nineteenth century State University of New York at Binghamton. University Art Gallery

Thanks again man!

Ps:

Hyskoa if that's your situation you
A) stop complaining and
B) find as many examples of fine draftsmanship and copy copy copy.
C) work from life a lot...a lot a lot...
D) try to relocate if you can.

[panchosimpson]

Spanish drawings are here
http://alfama.sim.ucm.es/greco/bbaa-digital.php

[Rebeccak]

This is such a great discussion which I am really enjoying. The differences between different approaches and styles to drawing have tormented me for at least a decade :) and it's nice to see them aired and discussed here.

I guess I've always felt that there was really no one particular school where you could learn the 'whole enchilada' if you were really interested in the kind of Renaissance approach to drawing with the exemplars of Michelangelo, Pontormo, et al. I agree with Ramon's assessment of the weaknesses of the Florentine ateliers - the drawings coming out of there are *amazing*, but they are missing that special something / spark of life which comes from a Renaissance style drawing which the 'Art Center' style sort of mimics in a watered down, stylized, and animation influenced way. If you are interested in Barque drawing (which I think is fantastic) that's one valid approach, but I agree that you probably need both approaches to get the ultimate in a drawing education. I'd like to note that Otis College of Art (http://otis.edu/academics/foundation/life_drawing.html), where I teach, teaches somewhat similarly to the Denmark drawing academy, in that it is primarily based on Gottfried Bammes, and layers of analytical, analogy based drawing using the point of the pencil or charcoal, and not shading. Teaching in this style has definitely informed my personal understanding of drawing, but of course I love the more emotionally responsive, gestural style of Art Center / Vilppu as well. I really should take a class with Will, his work looks great. :)

But really, is there a school out there which teaches the Renaissance style? I have never come across anything like this.

Edit: here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/16558178@N00/sets/72157617959961521/?page=3) are some examples of Otis style construction drawings. (These are photos I took from the Otis Senior Show 2009).

[panchosimpson]

Hi Rebecca, nice to see you in here! I can't say that I've been grappling with these approaches for nearly as long, but I have spent a LOT of time mulling it over in the past 2 years :) I think avoiding confusion and finding an approach that works is largely contingent on understand the philosophical grounds/outlook that gives rise to particular ways of drawing.

It is almost impossible to find a school that teaches "the whole enchilada", because no school like that has ever existed. The studios of the Renaissance didn't teach the same level of visual verisimilitude as the late 19th century ateliers, the ateliers never had the same understanding of form or the penchant for the kind of decorative, grand scale imaginative work as the earlier painters.

Each group of artists, either individually or as a school, zeroes in on the artistic problems that are most important to that age and develop artistic approaches to solve these problems. In the renaissance, the primary concern was to use the human figure as a vehicle for the expression of the universal. Because of this, the replication of reality in its commonplace aspect was rejected, as was the rendering of individualized features (even in portraiture things were idealized to a degree).

The drawing approaches employed in the Renaissance had to meet the demands of creating work from the imagination, in which they weren't depicting a man but Man.

By the same token, with the rise of individualism in European societies, artistic concerns changed as well. The 19th century was an age that showed greater concern for the individual and his/her needs. Because of this, more attention was paid to rendering the particular. Church commissions were not longer as important, and the depiction of everyday reality was paramount. Thus, a new way of rendering the particularities of reality was developed.

The Florence figure drawings are remarkable as renderings of values and the visual field. But they might as well be drawings of anything in the field. That is, they're not drawing people, they're drawing how light falls on them, or the shapes that are created on the retina. So it's the same approach whether it's a person, or still life. The form based, tactile approach demands particular knowledge of the thing being represented.

Because these aims of representation are different and at times opposed to one another, it is impossible to find a school that focuses on both. Moreover, logistics are part of it too. The schools that teach construction often don't have the time or resources to hold long poses, and the number of committed students, willing to take years and years to learn it all are scarce. On the other hand, ateliers would be hard-pressed to find many instructors well schooled enough in the sculptural approach to really teach it effectively. Plus, having that specialized knowledge of human and animal anatomy, etc, puts a steeper learning curve on a program, making it take longer....thus making it improbable that students will go through the whole thing.

I'd like to make a distinction between Glenn's approach and that taught at Art Center. The average drawings I've seen from Art Center are a little more stiff, and not quite as systematic in their exploration of the form as Glenn's. They're generally less organic, the planes are rendered but in a more mechanical, less supple fashion. Glenn's approach is really sophisticated and about as close to Renaissance figure drawing as anything I've seen. It's just that he can only go so far into his teaching in the short classes we had.

Also, I think it's a little unfair to expect this level of instruction from ACCD, since the school at this point is primarily geared for Visual Development and Entertainment Design, both of which are respectable disciplines and require good structural drawing, but not even close to the level of the artists we are discussing here. There's no way to expect someone like Karl Brullov or Harlamov to emerge from Art Center, because 2 or even 4 years of drawing isn't enough to attain that level of mastery. These artists were probably schooled in drawing since they were age 10 or so, until their 20s. What's missing here is the infrastructure. Will is one of the main instructors at ACCD and he is exceedingly good. I also consider him to be Glenn's best student...he's really a remarkable teacher.

Again, drawing approached do not exist in a vacuum, they are methods developed to solve specific problems.

Best,

-Ramon

EDIT: I forgot to mention this...pursued to their ultimate conclusion by individuals with superb skills and good training, both approaches sculptural and optical, can arrive at very similar results when drawing the stationary model.

PS. Those Otis drawings look nice :)
hummel1dane, check this out!
http://farighghaderi.com/academicdrawingfirenze.html
This guy apparently studied both at FAA and at the Repin. Looks like he teaches Russian Academic drawing in Florence, you might want to check that out :)

[panchosimpson]

Just found this online, good repros of some Russian drawings on ebay
http://cgi.ebay.com.my/RUSSIAN-OLD-ALBUM-DRAWINGS-RUSSIAN-ACADEMY-ARTISTS-1949_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQitemZ300299030913

[forsaken dreams]

Ramon, I find that wealth of information fascinating! I have also been pursing on and off for a number of years instructors/classes from both approaches.

Glenn's approach is definitely geared more towards animation and drawing the figure from imagination. For him, the model becomes more of a guide to understanding and a source of inspiration - at the core of which lies gesture and construction.
His instructors are the dead masters of the renaissance and medical books on cadavers, and he probably still manages to unearth a new one weekly. I doubt I will ever grasp his approach to tone and modeling, but I'm hoping to take a shot at it with the videos from one of his students.

Sometimes it seems tough for me to jump between all the different approaches and I've yet figured out how to integrate them all together.

Currently I'm very interested in the approach by CAI/Watts and the type of training coming out of China. And I wonder where on the spectrum they fall.

[Maidith]

Great information in here! hummel1dane, very precise and clear distinction between the systems, it makes things clearer for me.
It's interesting to think of a school that teaches both approaches, but it seems that the full course of study at such a school would take about 10 years... hence the focus on a particular system.

I think most art students (like most people) passively accept information given to them by their teachers, without researching on their own and questioning why things are taught the way they are.

good point. Personally I believe that an artist who truly wants to learn and become great will do so. No matter if they're learning in only one system, or both, or are completely self taught. Teachers are extremely important but so is the skill of learning things for yourself - as an artist you're learning a lifetime long after all.

[Maxine Schacker]

Don't forget that Rembrandt and other Dutch/Flemish painters were involved with portraying daily life. They were NOT idealists. Check out Rembrandt's Adam and Eve!

While we all deal with visual language, our sense of what art is about and what we are trying to express definitely shapes how and what we study in depth, what we work on, how we choose mediums, surfaces and processes.

These are the questions that fine artists of any depth must ask themselves.

Monet produced some of the greatest art I've ever experienced. I can't put into words what I felt and where those paintings took me. It was transcendent. I'm sure Monet couldn't have produced some of the work you've shown here - and he didn't need to. He was on a different path. His best work manages to convey his consciousness perceiving living, moving moments of time.

It's the absolute opposite of trying to stop time and show something constant, still, absolute.

Again: we all are using the same language and basic visual literacy is necessary for all of us, but we will develop profound understanding of those things that obsess us and are most needed to express our particular vision. Many of the artists whose drawings you are showing didn't understood light and color the way Monet did, nor did they want to. They wanted to paint the antithesis of transience.

Mozart and Louis Armstrong both created music. Ballet and modern dance and tap all have basics in common. Art is no different.

This subject won't be so overwhelming if we first decide what we are trying to do, what compels us, what we feel art should be and do...or as commercial artists, what we NEED to be able to do to get hired.

You will not be able to be DaVinci, Rembrandt and Degas in one lifetime.




John Angel, who I knew in Toronto before he painted with oils and hired to teach anatomy to my class when he returned from NY, definitely respected studying anatomy.
The current atelier in Toronto does not teach anatomy but they are moving in that direction and do see it's value.

[Aaron Death]

You will not be able to be DaVinci, Rembrandt and Degas in one lifetime.



Very well said.

[hummel1dane]

Thanks Rebeccak, I will definetely include OTIS in the list of schools that teach the constructional system of the renaissance. Who is your teacher of this Bammes system?

Maxine -

"If the curriculum you list is all first year you are going much faster than we do!"

There is no curiculum at the drawing academy where I stayed. They teach in the style of a russian atelier - your instructor simply comes and pushes you away from your drawing - and draw on your drawing for as long as they see fit. So it is much a way of drawing by seeing how it's supposed to be done - and then just struggling. Of course they give general talks about form and seeing in 3 dimensions, but the core way of learning is by watching your instructors draw.
The day is usually divided into 3 hour model study in the morning followed by 3 hour bone drawing in the afternoon.
Then there are guest teachers who teach various subjects such as perspective, sketching, composition.

Panchosimpson - Vilppu has better flow and gesture then other constructional systems. But that is a general problem with the russian system, and I guess Gottfried Bammes as well - they do get a bit stiff(emphasis isn't on gesture, only construction and anatomy)

One more thing, I think Vilppu uses a bit of a different way of construction - at the Drawing academy in Denmark we had a guest teacher who was a Vilppu student (for 4 years I think) - he told us that his way of constructing the figure was more loose and build on round forms (in general, like Leonardo) whereas the russians build up the form like if it was a stone(more square forms) - more in the manner of Michelangelo.

Oh yes - such a difference can even be found in schools of the other system(in the way they render the figure) -
At Angel Academy of Art they mostly teach round rendering - whereas at Florence academy, they teach planar.

Yes most of the drawings I got comes from this chinese book. I'll post some in the near future.

[hummel1dane]

Russian drawings in books!!!

Look what I found :D

http://www.gallerynucleus.com/detail/6866

They sell all 8 of them!!!

[hummel1dane]

All right thought I'd post a few - first one is unknown, second one by Chisrtyakov(so I think) last two are oils by the living master Ovcharenko Ilya Valerievich(who teaches in Florence and skt. Petersburg, check www.artac.ru for info)

[forsaken dreams]

One more thing, I think Vilppu uses a bit of a different way of construction - at the Drawing academy in Denmark we had a guest teacher who was a Vilppu student (for 4 years I think) - he told us that his way of constructing the figure was more loose and build on round forms (in general, like Leonardo) whereas the russians build up the form like if it was a stone(more square forms) - more in the manner of Michelangelo.

Those Russian drawings are very interesting - I'm curious if you have any images of the drawings at various stages to demonstrate the square forms that are used.

For Vilppu, construction is generally based on spheres, cylinders and boxes, then the anatomy is layered on top of that. At the foundation lies gesture and rhythm and pushing the pose.

[Maxine Schacker]

Hummel1dane, that last painting is a real beauty! Thank you for sharing.

[hummel1dane]

Those Russian drawings are very interesting - I'm curious if you have any images of the drawings at various stages to demonstrate the square forms that are used.

No... I have some student drawings that are less complete though..

They where all done by Jeppe, who is teaching at the drawing academy(he might be unemployed at the moment, they have too many good teachers at that place...)
(http://www.animwork.dk/Default.asp?ID=655)

[panchosimpson]

Here's some older, but very interesting studies. The floating skeletons are by Daniel Huntington, a Hudson River School painter. Also, Italian work from the 1500/1600s
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/panchosimpson/anatomical%20drawings/d1.jpg
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/panchosimpson/anatomical%20drawings/d9.jpg
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/panchosimpson/anatomical%20drawings/d5.jpg
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e155/panchosimpson/anatomical%20drawings/d7.jpg

[hummel1dane]

Great stuff!! Thanks!! What book is that from?

Here are some recent drawings from the Bulgaria fine art school - (www.nha.bg/en)
I know it now looks as if they teach "modernism" - I'm pretty sure they teach the classic stuff as well. Modernism is now a sad trend in the old communist state academies.

[hummel1dane]

A few more drawings from that Bulgarian school...

I will upload the rest later...

[hummel1dane]

I found some more Russian academical drawings!!

At this place (there are a lot) -
http://academart.com/ARTSHOP/art_shop_drawings.htm

They are on sale - wouldn't be a bad investment!

[hummel1dane]

And check out this guy as well, he is contemporary

Valentin Melik - http://www.valentinmelik.com/figurative.htm

[Mydrako]

These are amazing stuff. I didnt know bulgaria has such a lineage of classical art. I have always been in awe of the Russian Academic artists like repin and fechin. I dont really know many artists beyond them and their really hard to pronounced names isnt helping haa.. I have one chinese book on russian drawings but i really have no idea how to translate the chinese names. These books are really hard to find but i believe china has alot of books on russian artists.

Anyway, thanks for all the gorgeous pictures and please keep it coming.

[Mihail]

Duuude. Awesome drawings. Thanks for posting them

[hummel1dane]

The rest of the stuff from Sofia.

[Dile_]

megahuge thanks guys.. some of those drawings are amazing. And thanks for sharing your thoughts.. I've bookmarked this thread. again thanks..!

[panchosimpson]

hummel1dane: thanks for posting these :) are you sure these are Bulgarian drawings though? I've seen most of these before, and it is my understanding that they're part of a drawing book published in the USSR in 1957.

You can find it all here
http://veda3d.com/edu/anatomy_drawing_book.htm

Most of the former Soviet states have at least decent academic training, although it has started to die out in some quarters. I think the Lithuanian academy in Vilnius still has some good drawing standards, as do the academies in Armenia.


Anyway, to contribute more to this thread, here are some later 19th century, very optical figure drawings by good Ol' Fortuny.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2437/3636620399_24a6c60880_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3637433902_2230b7ba30_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3337/3636618047_040eb311c4_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/3637431662_83df9ebe44_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3590/3636615447_158f51ace9_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3540/3636614157_5c6e4f008f_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3396/3636612939_7401d8c1bf_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3310/3636611737_5c0980ee87_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2448/3636638293_52a48e1173_b.jpg

Also, some assorted Russian drawings from my hard drive...some are older, some are from the 40s and 50s.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3345/3636647987_5a334b268a_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3582/3637461528_4c30d0202b_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3313/3636646677_a8ed97b873_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3342/3636646297_22fcca908c_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2461/3636646205_516f85246a_o.jpg

Belousov in the 30s
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/3637460808_d4ecca032e_b.jpg

Orest Kripensky, amazing...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3368/3637461270_25612418c6_o.jpg

Hmmm, this Surikov fellow has Moscow's academy named after him...I guess he's ok :tihi:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3323/3637448794_c07251a9b5_o.jpg

Also some work from the old South Kensington schools, like the Slade and the Norwich school, in Britain at the time that Alfred Munnings was a student.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3400/3637465454_8c6a1b8108_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3633/3636650261_87d58594a5_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3645/3637464368_d36d8ac0d6_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3636650029_c60b70d623_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3658/3636647897_730561662b_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2444/3636647595_f0cd5b60e0_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2453/3636647443_386f214eb1_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3660/3637462036_1d150ef7c5_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3582/3637461788_99a2cae23b_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2457/3636647143_c9704dfa47_o.jpg


Munnings' first study at Julians
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2472/3637464286_c16f65e008_o.jpg


Eakins at the Pennsylvania Academy...note that there is NO sight size

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3594/3636648981_e91121a57f_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3344/3636649219_17b4fe967f_o.jpg


ALLLLSO, if anyone is interested in the form of impressionism that flourished under the soviet system, check out this site http://www.leningradschool.com/
there are some great, light-filled paintings in there. I think you have to go to the sidebar and click exhibitions or search artists to see it.

Best,

-Ramon

[hummel1dane]

Thanks man - about the Bulgarian drawings - I'd assume they are Bulgarian, I got them from a guy at Angel art school who studied a bit at the school in Sofia, he told me they are from his school.
It is possible the school in Sofia acquired some original russian masterdrawings as examples. But many academical drawings look similar.

Oh yes - checked the link - it says drawings from leading soviet schools - the academy in Sofia were one of those, so at least some of the drawings are probably from Sofia.

I can ask the person who gave them to me

[hummel1dane]

These are all student drawings from the drawing academy, probably done by people studying for 3-12 months. I think all are 6-9 hour drawings.
http://www.animwork.dk/Default.asp?ID=655

[PieterV]

Brilliant thread :D

[Hyskoa]

Indeed.

[hummel1dane]

A lot of these drawings were done by Mads Peter who now teaches at "the drawing academy"

The last one is a 3 hour portrait(more or less) done by Artem - who is the head instructor at "the drawing academy"
Artem studied with Boris for many years, then graduated at the Repin and moved to Denmark to teach.

[Art_Addict]

He's talking about basic education for a painter, independently of things like ID, etc.

The debate isn't between "realism" and "construction"....it's between an optical and a sculptural approach to drawing. The method taught in most ateliers is visual....it depends on copying the shapes of objects as they appear in the visual field of the retina....like a jigsaw puzzle of shapes.

The sculptural method is largely focused on capturing the physical, tactile aspects of the subject....and understanding it three dimensionally.

Also, the ateliers have a fraction of the teachings of the french academy. The french did not use sight size systematically, and they understood the planes/structure a lot better....that's why they could produce those huge history paintings, and the ateliers can't. Bridgman studied with Gerome, and I believe Vanderpoel studied with Boulanger...both advocate construction in their books.

Also, the current crop of ateliers come from the Boston painters lineage. They didn't care for imaginative paintings (think Veronese, or Tiepolo) and were very much focused on painting the visual field.

Like you said, you need both sides to have complete training. I'm a student of Vilppu, but am also looking to study with a Florence trained painter to get both sides.

I look forward to future posts in this thread, this is a promising discussion.

-Ramon

Since this post, a lot more info has been added but I do wanted to respond to this in particular Ramon. I hope you don't mind.
Good thread btw, I'm very impressed by some of the drawings posted.

What I am largely noticing is that people in general and in this thread seem to make a distinction between these 2 approaches (optical-sculptural, realist-construction) but do not question 1. whether those attributions are actually correct in their own sense and 2. whether there are teachings that do combine both approaches effectively. With the latter I'm thinking first and foremost about Ted Seth Jacobs. I'm not sure why exactly he is so often overlooked.

Can the method used in for example the Florence ateliers rightfully be called 'visual' or 'optical' ? How you describe it seems quite correct but are those methods not in a way formulaic with a strong bias towards a classical, idealized aesthetic? (form in the shadow is heavily suppressed and flattened for example) Not really true to the 'optical' world per se? Does the lack of structure add to this observation? If not enough structural information is present then it doesn't look quite real, it goes hand in hand, as you said so yourself.

But, can the same not be said about many schools that focus on anatomy/construction? Are the simplified geometric forms to conceive and generalize a human body structurally true to human form? Or true to how we perceive it? Does the encyclopedic knowledge of human anatomy help our level of draftsmanship or does it ingrain another set of symbols that prevent us from seeing the uniqueness of the individual under very specific and unique circumstances?

I totally agree that students after committing themselves to their training should question what they learned. This is the only way to build upon what is already there. At the same time being able to do so may prove to be quite difficult. We often defend our teachers and the methods we have made our own. Dirty old cognitive dissonance is in the way again! :) And it is understandable.

When I asked Ted a while ago what he felt for him was the most challenging thing about painting he replied: "... Putting in more and more structural information without losing the unifying actions of light within the whole visual field" This very much rings with the initial concerns and observation expressed in this thread.Ted Jacobs built upon what he had received and came up with a set of ideas that combine both approaches, yet presented in a very different manner. For example 'structure' is not explained by anatomical or geometric descriptions but rather presented in a way so that it is not limited to human or animal form but can apply to all organic form ( humans, animals, plants, flowers, trees, mountains, drapery, etc etc... ). And it can be used to identify forms to an almost granular level where they become un-identifiable by anatomical names.

Here's a link to a couple of pages on the ARC website of his book on structure that is waiting to be released but has experienced some delay recently : http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2002/Dictionary/form1.asp (http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2002/Dictionary/form1.asp)

703381
703376
703375
703377
703383

[jrp]

excellent post, very informative ... but yet to be concluded..
from what I can gather the Art Students League is the place you consider to combine both approaches, and offer a more rounded education..?

A contemporary artist who work well with light and structure is Michael Grimaldi, and the Janus Collaborative School of Art where he teaches seems to offer a very diverse curriculum, ticking all boxes mentioned in the thread.

'- Linear Perspective
- Constructive Anatomy
- Structural Drawing I : the application of perspective and anatomy to the expression of the human figure
- Structural Drawing II : the study of movement, rhythm and the effects of gesture on anatomical structure
- Analysis of Light Phenomena
- Color Theory
- Elements of Design and Composition (theoretical and practical)
- Short Pose Drawing and Painting
- Portraiture
- Methods and Materials
- Sculpture/Ecorché'

It's curious to compare the Academy figure studies of an artist such as Degas/ or even Sargeant to those at schools where sight size is taught today worldwide. I personally find a lot more (optical) truth and structure in these drawings completed over a century ago.

(sorry to lack supporting images can anybody help by posting the student drawings of degas or jss?)

A major difference in Art education compared to then and now is the attention paid to anatomy within our figurative art schools. Have a look through 'Figure du Corps' - review available on this website http://www.beardedroman.com/?p=447
From what I have heard, The Florence Academy of Art offers no tuition in quicker drawing at all! Focusing only on LONG poses and cast drawing.

Personally, I am finding Robert Beverly Hale's Drawing With The Master and Terrence Coyle's Anatomy with the Masters really helpful..as well as Burne Hogarth's Dynamic Anatomy, and all Bridgeman very very helpful

also.. just found this drawing http://www.bacaa.org/uploaded_images/Chris-756191.jpg

may be Dan Thomspon...brilliant.


great drawings on this page
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.myamericanartist.com/images/2008/05/06/0805ghen3_460x600.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.myamericanartist.com/2008/05/values-create-d.html&usg=__FIVS8c2ewR1iBzMOqVOfDA0Wcew=&h=260&w=200&sz=50&hl=en&start=23&um=1&tbnid=KFtHBTp0lqfCjM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=86&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dart%2Bstudents%2Bleague%2B19th%2Bcent ury%2Bdrawing%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsaf ari%26rls%3Den-us%26sa%3DN%26start%3D18%26um%3D1


and augustus john's are also brillaint

sorry if i am making no sense, have a cold and am pretty tired!

[panchosimpson]

Can the method used in for example the Florence ateliers rightfully be called 'visual' or 'optical' ? How you describe it seems quite correct but are those methods not in a way formulaic with a strong bias towards a classical, idealized aesthetic? (form in the shadow is heavily suppressed and flattened for example) Not really true to the 'optical' world per se? Does the lack of structure add to this observation? If not enough structural information is present then it doesn't look quite real, it goes hand in hand, as you said so yourself.

Tom,


It is optical in the sense that it is predicated on copying the visual field (the image on the retina caused by the light rays), as a set of two dimensional shapes, not necessarily because it presents information exactly as our eye sees it. It can look real because it copies the visual evidence of structure, my problem with it is that said structure if often not properly understood.

Moreover, the ateliers are far from what I would consider "classical", and if the surface is in fact simplified, I don't think it has to do with an aesthetic appreciation for a certain ideal. The simplifications one often encounters in work done from the optical point of view are often done in the interest of preserving the unity of the impression, or the big effect.

Moreover, art is art, not real life. All manners of painting have relied on conventions of some kind or another...even the most naturalistic interpretations of nature, and these are conventions that we accept.

The things we paint and draw ARE in fact, symbols, although they are very sophisticated ones at that. This has to do with the notion that art is a means of communication, and the representation of reality is of service to art insofar as the intended message is conveyed. Having an understanding of anatomy does not entail that every figure would be drawn in exactly the same way, every time. Just because we understand that we each have a nose, with the same basic structures, does not mean that we think all noses look exactly the same. The simple forms are useful because humans make extensive use of analogical thinking...we understand difficult concepts in terms of simpler ones.

I didn't include Ted's approach in the discussion, because it doesn't have as much in the way of historical background as the other approaches do. There is evidence of geometric constructive approaches to drawing dating to the 1500s (Holbein comes to mind), gestural, anatomical drawings that do not show explicit use of geometric forms go back even further (Michelangelo). Optical drawings with an intensive focus on the visual field go back to at least the 1830s.

I think Ted's teaching is admirable in the sense that he has tried to combine both approaches. However, I am uncomfortable with any method that is so wholly guided the by one man's vision and particular inclinations. Even though he and his students claim to reject all manner of formulas and conventions...drawings from that school have a sort of lumpy look that is the result of looking for so many subforms. I would counter that students would be looking for subforms of this kind even when they can barely see them...so a way of seeing is being imposed subconsciously as well. The biggest drawback is that it leads to an obsessive preoccupation with the surface and sacrifices broadness of vision (which was much valued by the Ecole, and later by Dumond. It is my understanding this was one of the theories that Ted discarded later on)

That being said, I think he has produced many good draftsmen, but I think you're setting up his approach as somehow superior to the others (i.e. the other two approaches are formulaic, this one isn't) when that is not necessarily true. I mean, understand the desire to expand the vocabulary of art, and not just rehash the same kind of work done before. However (at least for my taste) the vocabulary of art became as perfect as I would like it to be a long time ago. On a purely personal note, I think our time is better spent trying to express new messages with the existing tools....because I firmly believe the communication part of it is the important bit.

-Ramon

[Art_Addict]

I think Ted's teaching is admirable in the sense that he has tried to combine both approaches. However, I am uncomfortable with any method that is so wholly guided the by one man's vision and particular inclinations. Even though he and his students claim to reject all manner of formulas and conventions...drawings from that school have a sort of lumpy look that is the result of looking for so many subforms. I would counter that students would be looking for subforms of this kind even when they can barely see them...so a way of seeing is being imposed subconsciously as well. The biggest drawback is that it leads to an obsessive preoccupation with the surface and sacrifices broadness of vision (which was much valued by the Ecole, and later by Dumond. It is my understanding this was one of the theories that Ted discarded later on)

That being said, I think he has produced many good draftsmen, but I think you're setting up his approach as somehow superior to the others (i.e. the other two approaches are formulaic, this one isn't) when that is not necessarily true. I mean, understand the desire to expand the vocabulary of art, and not just rehash the same kind of work done before. However (at least for my taste) the vocabulary of art became as perfect as I would like it to be a long time ago. On a purely personal note, I think our time is better spent trying to express new messages with the existing tools....because I firmly believe the communication part of it is the important bit.

-Ramon

Good post Ramon. And I can understand the criticism.
I'm often a little hesitant to reply when Ted is discussed because those discussions have the tendency to gather a lot of heat.. and also because I don't want to distract too much from the original topic in this instance.

But I do want to say that 'broadness of vision' is definitely not something that Ted discarded. In fact it is an extremely important aspect! Refer to the quote again that I posted.
It is what is often referred too as 'the effect' that he discarded. A typical 19th century method of lighting your picture where the painting is treated gradually darker the further away from the intended focal point. Bouguereau's 'Venus' painting is an example. Basically a compositional tool. Another way of guiding the viewer's eye.
It just does not correspond to the observed effects of light that we see in Nature, that's all.

[Art_Addict]

Jrp : That drawing you linked too is by Darren Kingsley, not Dan Thompson.
Here's his website: http://www.darrenkingsley.com/

[Mydrako]

I cant say i have much knowledge of these russian artists but I am in awe of them. I got this book on some russian drawings.. ( i assume they are.. i have no idea how to translate the chinese names to english names even though I can read the chinese characters)

Sorry for the crappy photo. I dont have a proper light setup and no scanner...

[hummel1dane]

excellent post, very informative ... but yet to be concluded..
from what I can gather the Art Students League is the place you consider to combine both approaches, and offer a more rounded education..?


All I know is that the Art Students League have a lot of different teachers that teach a lot of different classes, and to me it seems they offer classes of both approaches - but not combined.

[hummel1dane]

It is what is often referred too as 'the effect' that he discarded. A typical 19th century method of lighting your picture where the painting is treated gradually darker the further away from the intended focal point. Bouguereau's 'Venus' painting is an example. Basically a compositional tool. Another way of guiding the viewer's eye.
It just does not correspond to the observed effects of light that we see in Nature, that's all.

I honestly think that most artists today, including those from the classical realist schools, would rather paint like Bouguereau. Not his subjects, but at least with his technical skills.
Bouguereau is the ideal at Angel Academy of Art(we have reproductions of his paintings everywhere!!)
Oh yes, and "the effect" is in use at Angel Academy. As well as in the russian academies.

Do you know Ted's reasons for abandoning it? I mean, if it works, why discard it?

True to nature? - it does exist in nature, Leonardo Da Vinci was the first to report this effect in nature.

Another thing,
when we are working on a flat piece of paper we are in a different univers. We have to turn flatness into 3D. That's our job.
Even professional potrait photographers use multiple lightsources and blockers and other tools to control light on form so that it more resembles a portrait painting from the 16th or 17th century than anything our eyes would ever see in nature!

I agree with Ramon, I think they had a perfect academical system in the past, let's rebuild that! :D

[hummel1dane]

A contemporary artist who work well with light and structure is Michael Grimaldi, and the Janus Collaborative School of Art where he teaches seems to offer a very diverse curriculum, ticking all boxes mentioned in the thread.

'- Linear Perspective
- Constructive Anatomy
- Structural Drawing I : the application of perspective and anatomy to the expression of the human figure
- Structural Drawing II : the study of movement, rhythm and the effects of gesture on anatomical structure
- Analysis of Light Phenomena
- Color Theory
- Elements of Design and Composition (theoretical and practical)
- Short Pose Drawing and Painting
- Portraiture
- Methods and Materials
- Sculpture/Ecorché'


I just checked their webpage, the faculty work is good -

but why is there no student work?

Do you have experience with that school? If so, how is their approach?
Do they start out building boxes or do they start out copying the shadow shapes?

If it was possible to see some student works, finished as well as unfinished, it would be easier to judge. (if you know the teachers, tell them to get more pictures up)

Thanks for adding it!

[Maxine Schacker]

The exciting thing about much of the Russian work shown on this thread is the life force
and feeling in the drawings.

How can you not see the difference between artists like Velasquez, Rembrandt, and more recently, Sargent and .... Bougereau? ( I can barely get myself to mention him in the same sentence with the others.) For the life of me, I just don't get the fascination with him or his methods.

There's more real seeing and real feeling, by the way, in many of Ramon's paintings than I've seen in any Bougereau. For me, Bougereau is more of an illustrator than a painter and there are illustrator's I prefer (Rackham, for example).

[hummel1dane]

The exciting thing about much of the Russian work shown on this thread is the life force
and feeling in the drawings.

How can you not see the difference between artists like Velasquez, Rembrandt, and more recently, Sargent and .... Bougereau? ( I can barely get myself to mention him in the same sentence with the others.) For the life of me, I just don't get the fascination with him or his methods.

There's more real seeing and real feeling, by the way, in many of Ramon's paintings than I've seen in any Bougereau. For me, Bougereau is more of an illustrator than a painter and there are illustrator's I prefer (Rackham, for example).

Maxine,
I'm not talking about taste or "life-force" (let's call it gesture instead, makes more sense) I'm talking about pure academical skills.

That is -

Mastery of figure drawing(and I would say Bouguereau knew about gesture, he just prefered the more "still" symbolic/allegorical gestures, that was his usual taste)

Mastery of anatomy

Mastery of academical painting techniques - skin color, drapery, and all that technical stuff(glazing, varnish etc...)

Mastery of composition

Mastery of perspective

Mastery of foliage

Mastery of symbolic language

Mastery of realism as well as construction (he's a perfect example of someone who combines the two)

--

Disregard his taste, and do look at some of his compositional sketches, they have a lot of "life" (cool gestures)

And do judge him by his best works - personally I only like 20 of his paintings, and he made like 800 paintings or something.

When discussing classical fine art education, taste isn't all that important. What I mean by that - if you do not like Bouguereau but you like some other painter from his time, their classical backgrounds were very similar. So learning "to paint like bouguereau" would just mean to get his technical skills.
From there you can go anywhere, but first of all, you NEED to learn to paint like a master, any master.

Ok - I'll post some of his more dynamic work -
This painting actually recieved positive critic by a critic who usually disliked Bouguereau - positive critic for its use of dynamic figures

Nymphs and satyr
http://www.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Nymphes_et_satyre.jpg

--

This one "Birth of Venus" is perhaps more "still" but isn't it very beautiful? And the composition - isn't it awesome!!!

Birth of Venus
http://img.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Naissance_de_Venus.jpg

--

What about this painting - Great composition, great gestures, great skin colors, great atmosphere, perfect anatomy, perfect feeling of forms.
Perhaps the "taste" is too romantic(but "taste" is a different debate)

If there is ANYTHING academically lacking in this painting - I would like to know.

The Wasp's Nest
http://img.artrenewal.org/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/Le_guepier.jpg

I will post some of his compositional sketches later.

[forsaken dreams]

Ah, the Nymphs and Satyr is one of my favorite paintings, along with Girl Defending herself.

Also interesting are his pencil studies

[hummel1dane]

Yes Bouguereau was amazing. Even people who doesn't like his style must admit that he was an absolute master.

this place http://www.xs4all.nl/~frqnc23/framesen.html has most of his works, including pencil drawings.

I would like to know what Vilppu would say about his gestures.

Ramon, you have had Vilppu as a teacher, would you say that Bouguereau is lacking in terms of gesture?

[Maxine Schacker]

I would agree that he was skilled and that he found the means to express his aesthetic vision. I'm curious about what you feel painting is about. I get the feeling that in an overreaction to the decline in western art, we are going too far in the opposite direction.
When all of this was beginning (in the 1980's), I drew two days a week with a group that met in John Angel's studio/school. What horrified me was that every drawing on the walls looked exactly alike. There was no way to tell one artist from another.

The point is, yes, to learn the language but the language is not ONE individual's solutions. We are now producing a bunch of B clones. If you learn the method and follow everything exactly, you'll end up with a skillful product.

And who said this is classical? It's NOT the way Michelangelo worked. It's not the way Titian worked. It's interesting that all of these artists had a profound grasp of visual language, but each person's work is individual. That's what makes it great. They are able to share their experience of the world. That's what makes great paintings different than photographs.

So much of one's journey is the search for the right process, methods and materials to express what one sees and feels about the world.

The reason I get so excited about some of Ramon's work is that some of the paintings have absolute integrity. You know that what you are seeing is free of ego, pretension, or an attempt to make a beautiful painting. He's LOOKING, feeling and recording to the best of his ability, and what comes through is very moving. Watch out that you don't remove "the very heart of the poem of life."

[eezacque@xs4all.nl]

When all of this was beginning (in the 1980's), I drew two days a week with a group that met in John Angel's studio/school. What horrified me was that every drawing on the walls looked exactly alike. There was no way to tell one artist from another.

The point is, yes, to learn the language but the language is not ONE individual's solutions. We are now producing a bunch of B clones. If you learn the method and follow everything exactly, you'll end up with a skillful product.


A Renaissance artist learned to perceive, through all possible senses, and he had a thorough command of his materials and techniques which allowed them to 'replicate life' in paint, marble or whatever. He was an artist, scientist, artisan, craftsman combined in one 'uomo universale'.

Through the centuries, the ideal of being a universal human being was watered down to 'being like [insert your favorite Renaissance artist here]', and the original emphasis on perceiving and researching became more and more an emphasis on copying. An example of this is the Bargue course, which not just teaches the principles of drawing, but also teaches 'le grand gout', that is, the style of Renaissance artists.

The emphasis on copying was strongly countered by the movement towards 'doing your own thing', and I feel art education is still suffering from it. The majority of art schools teach creativity, originality, expressiveness, skipping the fundamentals of perception, research and craftsmanship, delivering young people who lack the words to express their own originality.

Michelangelo was, creative, original and expressive in his days, and it would be interesting to see his works if he would live today. And I don't think he would just do another 'David'...

[hummel1dane]

I would agree that he was skilled and that he found the means to express his aesthetic vision. I'm curious about what you feel painting is about. I get the feeling that in an overreaction to the decline in western art, we are going too far in the opposite direction.
When all of this was beginning (in the 1980's), I drew two days a week with a group that met in John Angel's studio/school. What horrified me was that every drawing on the walls looked exactly alike. There was no way to tell one artist from another.

The point is, yes, to learn the language but the language is not ONE individual's solutions. We are now producing a bunch of B clones. If you learn the method and follow everything exactly, you'll end up with a skillful product.

And who said this is classical? It's NOT the way Michelangelo worked. It's not the way Titian worked. It's interesting that all of these artists had a profound grasp of visual language, but each person's work is individual. That's what makes it great. They are able to share their experience of the world. That's what makes great paintings different than photographs.

So much of one's journey is the search for the right process, methods and materials to express what one sees and feels about the world.

The reason I get so excited about some of Ramon's work is that some of the paintings have absolute integrity. You know that what you are seeing is free of ego, pretension, or an attempt to make a beautiful painting. He's LOOKING, feeling and recording to the best of his ability, and what comes through is very moving. Watch out that you don't remove "the very heart of the poem of life."

I don't feel that painting(or art) is about, or has to be about anything specific. We all have different taste and arguing about what is best seems to be a waste of time.
But there is a lot of technical stuff that a lot of people today crave.

I believe that the single most important thing is to establish a proper system of fine art education, where you can learn all academical skills and exactly how to create an academical "masterwork".
And I do believe that the academical masters of the 19th century should be our rolemodels, as they had 500 years of accumulated knowledge.

But TECHNICAL rolemodels. I don't think that art education should have anything to do with "taste".

But first we need to understand the system that created Bouguereau and his contemporaries, as well as the systems of all past masters back to the renaissance(or even further).

And then we would probably have to reclaim the state sponsored art academies(yes this is a future fantasy), and have some sort of introductory classes preparing people before entering those academies. And of course an admission exam.

Otherwise this situation of going to many different schools to learn it all will continue.

[Mydrako]

I agree to a certain extent with hummel1dane about the need for proper fine art education. However, it shouldnt be restricted to the french academy. Who is to say that is the best way of educating and preparing artist. The nature of art is that it is diverse and limitless, and what sort of education we should go through should be determined by what we gravitate towards. Hence, a variety of different techniques should be passed on, and of cos accepted by different people as they want. Not to say a school must teach different techniques. Thats the reason why different atelier exist and why people choose this school over another. Let the individual choose what path they want and not criticise other system of teachings just because they are not to your taste.

When all of this was beginning (in the 1980's), I drew two days a week with a group that met in John Angel's studio/school. What horrified me was that every drawing on the walls looked exactly alike. There was no way to tell one artist from another.

I really doubt it is the problem of the system that produces such a situation. It is the fact and responsibility of the artists themselves to seek out their own voice.

Personally, I am in awe of both the gestural style of sargent and tight finish of bourgereau. I feel I can learn from both and it will serve me well to master both techniques. So i hope there is a revivial of all those great system so we can learn from all of them :)

[panchosimpson]

I hadn't checked this in a long time, and I have a few brief remarks to make (going out of town soon!)

Personally, I like Bouguereau's work, when I first saw "Homer and his guide" I was floored. I've seen his work in person as well and it's inspiring to see the simplicity of means with which he achieves his effects. I think the great esteem in which he is held today is an interesting phenomenon. In my opinion, this is largely due to the efforts of say, Fred Ross (Chairman of ARC), fort better of for worse.

We live in a very different age than old Boug, and I think our times are characterized by greater cynicism, and a lack of trust for the ideal, the desire for some kind of alternate reality. One of the things that is continually surprising to me is the condemnation of anything seeking to express tender feelings as saccharine or overly sentimental. Personally, I have an affinity for the dreamers and the romantics, and think that such feelings can be genuine.

I think Bouguereau's work is as individual as anyone's, I could tell it apart from a mile away. I also see no distinction between an illustrator and a painter, to me there are good painters and bad ones, that is all.

Back to the question of education, I think knowledge leads to empowerment, and having a superlative executive ability is definitely a virtue. I think we are far far behind our predecessors from the 19th century French Academy, and the reasons why we look to them are varied

a) They are closer to our time and their work/ political philosophies are closer to home
b) There is abundant literature regarding their methods, etc, more so than for any other period
c) I don't think any other school has produced so many technically competent painters. ever.

However, I don't think that the claims of 500 years of accumulated knowledge are necessarily true in any significant way. They were just as in dark as we are about how Rembrandt, or Titian, or Velazquez worked.

One of the things that worked well since the time of David, is for art students to choose a role model from a master of the past. One with whom the student has a temperamental affinity, regardless of subject matter. I personally identify strongly with people like Ribera, Carlos de Haes and Dean Cornwell. Diffeerent people should follow different masters to gain their technical equipment, even if the subject matter ends up being totally different. Again, I love Ribera, but I have no desire to paint saints or anything to do with religion.

Lastly, I think the role of schools is to turn out painters, not artists. It is the responsibility of the individual to make the leap that distinguishes the artist from the mere craftsman.

Mydrako Let the individual choose what path they want and not criticise other system of teachings just because they are not to your taste.

I largely agree with your statements, except the second half of this one. Of course individuals are going to choose whatever path they want, that is not only natural, it is imperative for the healthy development of art. That being said, anything, absolutely anything (be it an religion, a way of life, a system of morality, an art education system) that is worthy of consideration has to be able to prove its validity and withstand rigorous criticism. If it can't, then maybe there wasn't much there to begin with. The moment we stop criticizing, we stop thinking, and we automatically stop making progress.

Criticism of this sort is part of the search for truth, it may not be found, but free inquiry can lead to great insight. Moreover, there is a difference between what is and what ought to be. I think one reason why a lot of atelier trained artists produce similar work (despite claims of objective observation) is that they fail to question and criticize what they learn...the ones that stand out always question things.

[hummel1dane]

Mydrako,

Today the only surviving academical system seems to be the russian. The french system is dead(but yes we have books)
The italian system produced Annigoni(before it died)

Annigoni was active in the 20th century. He taught a number of people, but as far as I know none of his students has ever reached his understanding of form.

Some of his students are running classical schools today. But I think all of them are based on the optical approach.

A few paintings by Annigoni
http://www.jaymedelrosario.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/61689_200901270410251jikn.jpg

http://www.jaymedelrosario.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/61689_200901270412421sudf.jpg

I think the english system suffered an ill death as well.

When I mention Bouguereau it is because of his technical mastery - I don't think the world today can produce another Bouguereau because we lack a purely academical system in the same standard.
The same goes for all the other old masters, French or English, Italian, American, or whatever.


"However, I don't think that the claims of 500 years of accumulated knowledge are necessarily true in any significant way. They were just as in dark as we are about how Rembrandt, or Titian, or Velazquez worked."
This is up for debate -
I strongly believe their knowledge to be better than ours, especially about the renaissance.
If you spend 4-5 years copying renaissance artists in Italy like all the winners of the grand prix de Rome, your knowledge will increase considerebly. And of course the better your are at technique the easier it will be to get to understand past masters working habits, even if they weren't taught to you directly.
And of course, the students always add to their teachers teachings(hopefully without discarding)
But I get your point - there were differences in technique between different lineages. But each lineage did contain 500 years of accumulated knowledge.

We live in a very different age than old Boug, and I think our times are characterized by greater cynicism, and a lack of trust for the ideal, the desire for some kind of alternate reality.
Mm, I would say that about the 20th century and the older generations of today.
The younger generations of today are much more capable of loving an artist such as Bouguereau, or any similar artist. Just think of all the fantasy style drawings that young people produce.

About idealism - I would say we are entereing an age of idealism, perhaps not just the "beauty" kind of idealism, but a general idealism of the archetypical. There is an idealism of the grotesque as well as the beautiful.
I'm refering to all the fantasy games, both live and on computer, as well as Harry Potter and all that...

Now that's a generation who'd put a Bouguereau or a Waterhouse up on their wall and wouldn't understand the point of a Pollock or a Rothko no matter how hard they tried.

In architecture the change is around the corner as well - if interested take a look at this book
"The return of sacred architecture : The golden ratio and the end of modernism"
http://www.amazon.com/Return-Sacred-Architecture-Golden-Modernism/dp/1594771324/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246214525&sr=8-15

About realism vs the ideal,
many people I talk with at Angels aren't that crazy about realism. I think they would prefer to eventually produce art with more imagination and expression.

--

Btw I've become a bit curious about LAAFA(Los Angeles Academy of Figurative Art) they seem to give classes of both kind,
sculptural drawing/painting and optical drawing/painting.

[Maxine Schacker]

Ramon, there is a great book out on Velasquez and his technique. We now know MUCH more than we did when I was young. There are scientific means to actually analyze process, and I've learned a lot from these books.

Second, there has been a dichotomy in painting for generations. Different means were needed to paint an ideal world of ideal forms than was necessary for art that tried to capture a sense of everyday life. The Dutch were interested in everyday life in the 17th century, long before Bouguereau.

The portraits shown above are very skilled, but they are dead. Compare them to the Velasquez painting of his servant, to the great Vermeer portraits, to any of the later Rembrandt portraits.

Technique is the handmaiden of expression. Good art is about much more than technical excellence. It demands real seeing, real caring, real vision. If w simply follow the same formula everytime, knowing we will get an accurate product, we are entirely mechanical.

I agree about the cynicism of our times. Without feeling there is no life, and there is a difference between sentimentality and sentiment. It's dangerous to humanity to devalue tenderness, affection- all the things that make life worthwhile and motivate us to care and accept responsibility for the world we are creating. Bougereau's methods, adopted as the bible, represents the easiest, most superficial kind of feeling and is perfect for these times. There4's a reason why everyone;s work looks the same. Students very stroke marks are identical.

Most important, B found his vision and the means to express HIS vision. I would not doubt that he made real choices and had integrity about his idea of what was important to him.

Yes, we need to learn the language. Yes, we need to understand the connection between process and outcome. Yes, we must understand our choices and learn from the masters by discussing their processes, but the goal is not to be a clone of nay single master. The goal, on ce wwe understand b asics, is to find our own path.

A good education should explain the processes and the differences and give you basic visual skills and knowledge.

All the great artists I can think of create real and deep experiences, and are using ALL of their senses (Titian just popped into my mind).

After viewing B's work I feel as if I ate too much cotton candy. My visual memory of many great paintings has gotten me through bad nights. B's work is very pretty but it lacks depth. If that were all that art is about, I wouldn't be so passionate about art.

[hummel1dane]

Bougereau's methods, adopted as the bible, represents the easiest, most superficial kind of feeling and is perfect for these times. There4's a reason why everyone;s work looks the same. Students very stroke marks are identical.

A good education should explain the processes and the differences and give you basic visual skills and knowledge.

All the great artists I can think of create real and deep experiences, and are using ALL of their senses (Titian just popped into my mind).

After viewing B's work I feel as if I ate too much cotton candy. My visual memory of many great paintings has gotten me through bad nights. B's work is very pretty but it lacks depth. If that were all that art is about, I wouldn't be so passionate about art.

Yes I agree with almost all. I wouldn't call love for beauty superficial though. Nor would I say that the feelings of happiness or positiveness or youth or whatever is expressed in Bouguereaus paintings is in any way easy. But I agree that he didn't focus on all of human emotions, and I agree that if Bouguereau was all we had, then there would be something missing in art.

Personally I don't see a need of having individual stroke marks in painting - people can use the same technique and still come up with individuality, through different compositions, expressions, colors, figures, whatever. The reason why most works look the same today is that they are mainly copying shadow shapes, sometimes even from photos.
One technique if have seen in use is to take different photographs of people, cut them out around their siloute, put them next to each other to try different compositions(so it looks like they are part of the same group), and then just glue them together on a photographed background - and then copy all that in paint.

this results in bad composition, bad perspective, bad expression(no interconnection of people)

I don't think that anybody today can call themself a Bouguereau clone - that would be a total disgrace to Bouguereau as he worked very differently(much more sculptural and he did amazing compositions and good interconnections.)

About the ideal education - I agree with you if you are talking about basic art education. Yes it should be all round.

But in a classical academy, I think we need more indoctrination.

[Mydrako]

panchosimpson Totally agree with u on the criticism part. I think I put myself across in a wrong way. I was trying say we should not put down and ignore other system just because they are not to your taste. I agree we should learn from many perspective and integrate whatever you have learn into what you call ur own style. What is style but a personal choice of techniques and inclinations from your various influences, consciously or subconsciously.

hummel1dane Those are lovely painting!! I have seen some of his works in some painting books but I don't know much about him. The russian academy seems to be the only one left. But their website being only in russian kinda shroud them in a veil of mystery. I would love to hear mroe about their system from those who have went there before. I heard some of the china artist also studied in the same way during the turn of the century when russia still have a lot of influence on Chinese art. Does any one have knowledge of them?

Btw, u might want to check out the Central Academy of art in New York too. I seen their school blog and they seem to have a high emphasis on structure and optical studies too. The school is started by Jacob Collins I believe who studied with Ted Seth Jacobs before.

Maybe you should add those schools that was brought up to the initial list of school in your first post. Isnt that the purpose of this thread? :D

Maxine Schacker I would love to know the title of the book.

I agree with some of your points on Bourgereau ( i really hate spelling his name grr). However, I am rather confused when you say his work lack depth. What do u mean by depth? Do u mean in atmospheric effect or do u mean it lacks meaning?

I feel some of his works is really effective in bringing across the message (not that it might be the message he want to convey but the one i interpret), especially those works that portray the innocence of girls playing among the fields. The direct and masterful portrayal of beauty and innocence in my opinion is no less effective than for example paintings by Sargents.

----
What is your take on Reilly's method of drawing? Would you think of it as a more structural or more gestural? I am rather saddened that his teachings on picture making has been lost through the years. What about Howard Pyle who have influenced so many other artist?

[hummel1dane]

Thanks man, just needed a kick in the ass! There might be some schools that I haven't included, because I don't know were to put them on the list!
Oh yes, guess I can upload a few more Annigoni.
He taught painting to Michael John Angel(who is head of Angel Academy)

He never abandoned his classical style, he had a bit of a temper, and he liked to drink - A LOT!

[hummel1dane]

Found some Prudhon drawings that are worth posting... I hope they weren't posted earlier...

[hummel1dane]

I found a few more Prudhons.... And check out this place for a tutorial about his technique and uses of materials.

http://www.art.net/Studios/visual/Rebecca/OnPrudon1a.html

[hummel1dane]

And I found the coolest gesture tutorial as well :

http://www.art.net/Studios/visual/Rebecca/LifeDrawing1.html

[Mydrako]

Nice !!!.. Prudhons is one amazing draftsman... u guys seems to be introducnig me to more and more amazing artist from that period... the late 19 century is certainly a time loaded with so many amazing artists....

Btw, think u missed some of my questions in my longwinded posts?
What u guys think of Reilly and howard pyle.. They are not exactly fine artists but they sure influenced alot of people. One prime example of their legacy is Jeff watts who run the Watts Atelier.

[forsaken dreams]

And I found the coolest gesture tutorial as well :

http://www.art.net/Studios/visual/Rebecca/LifeDrawing1.html

Those are some nice Prudhons, but I was never sure what his appeal was from a technique standpoint. I never took the Prudhon technique class with Rebecca, but I couldn't find a compelling reason to learn the parallel hatching method a la Prudhon.

For gestures, I always end up going back to Vilppu, he always manages to "cheat" so much life, motion and emotion into them :
http://www.vilppustudio.com/redesign/gallery/quick.htm

[forsaken dreams]

I forgot to add Purd'hon sure had some nice models to work with though!

[hummel1dane]

I don't really know them(I'm European) - just looking at Howard now, I like some of his compositions, and as a painter I think he was quite ok.
According to what I've just found on the internet, he was the author of some very well known books yes? About King Arthur, and about Robin Hood?

All right, found some stuff about FRANK REILLY's school of art,
it looks a bit construction oriented in my eyes, though it doesn't seem as thorough as the russian system. He did use a fixed light source for doing values.

I will definetely order his book!

check out
http://www.dhfa.net/Artiststatement2.html

[hummel1dane]

Those are some nice Prudhons, but I was never sure what his appeal was from a technique standpoint. I never took the Prudhon technique class with Rebecca, but I couldn't find a compelling reason to learn the parallel hatching method a la Prudhon.

For gestures, I always end up going back to Vilppu, he always manages to "cheat" so much life, motion and emotion into them :
http://www.vilppustudio.com/redesign/gallery/quick.htm

I've added Rebecca's classes to the list of schools that teach construction - would you agree? Yes I think Vilppu is the best when it comes to gesture.

[forsaken dreams]

I've added Rebecca's classes to the list of schools that teach construction - would you agree? Yes I think Vilppu is the best when it comes to gesture.

Yes I think Rebecca's method, although she no longer teaches, probably falls under construction ( I only ever took a anatomy class from her). Her approach to construction isn't as elegant or solid as Vilppu's but is construction none-the-less.

Does the length of a pose, say 4-8+ hours versus less than 1 hour poses influence the approach of construction vs visual diagramming? It seems to me that construction is better suited for shorter poses where poses may have to be cheated or recalled from memory, while the visual approach is better suited for accurately reproducing long poses with much time spent modeling the form.

[hummel1dane]

She doesn't teach? Mm, an outdated webpage perhaps. I'll keep it in the list anyways, then people can contact her if interested.

The shorter the pose, the faster you have to draw, and naturally your result will be less like the model.
But you can still keep rigidly to constructing when you have more time.
With more time, you can still keep your approach entirely planar, infact you'll have more time to decide how to construct the planes and to check your perspective alignment and to get all the anatomy correct - if you are good enough, you can even start to construct the tendons and vains.

And you can always spend more time on the shading - even with constructed planes and constructed light(constructed light = light from imagination) you can shade for hours, or days!

The reason the renaissance artists didn't do a smooth shade when drawing the figure was because they didn't have to. Only in the finished charcoal cartoon would they spend time on shading. (The cartoon was the last step before they began the painting)

I have only seen Vilppu do fast shades. The longer time you spend on the shade, the more 3d you can make it look(more fading values) and he doesn't spend much time with the perspective, thus the strength of the construction is weakened.

If you want to master shading I really suggest you do the Bargues at one of the ateliers. Then you'd also see the difference between peoples ability to shade.

I think the russians do more than 20 hour studies, and they always start with a strong construction. But they have several system - I only know their basic system(light source from imagination), which is similar to Vilppu's system, but in that system they have longer poses than Vilppu 1-20 hours - but no gesture system, you just decide for yourself where you want the big elements placed(they might disagree with your decision though.)
If you lack gesture, they might tell you to go sketching in the streets!

They think more in terms of big 3d blocks moving around in 3 dimensions, than expressive gesture lines.

But the linear quality of overlappings they do very well.

I know Vilppu thinks gesture is most important - the russians would say construction(as well as composition).

When I get the time I'll try to contact Ashland academy of art and hear about their system of figure drawing. I know they use spotlight.
Then I can inquire about the length of poses etc.
And when I return to Florence in September I'll go visit the russian school in that city.

[Maxine Schacker]

Annigoni and Prudhon are not examples of artists following John Angel's (Bourgereau's?) methods! John Angel studied fresco painting with Annigoni. When he came to Toronto he painted in acrylic and didn't begin to use oil until the late 70's or early '80's (time is becoming a blur).

By the way, since Bourgereau didn't paint from life, sight sizing couldn't have been what he was doing.

I am not against trying true classical methods. I think students need exposure to a range of approaches and need to understand how process affects outcome. They need to understand the expressive potential of oil. Surface, medium, brush type, texture, thick and thin, scraping. A potential that is beyond the verbal.

I adore Vermeer and he, living at the same time as Rembrandt but being a different personality with different tastes, is a totally different and individual painter who made very different choices. Both are brilliant.

I'm off to the studio and have no more time! This is a very interesting and thought provoking thread.

[Mydrako]

Vilppu is probably emphasizing more on gesture because he teaches in the animation industry where gesture, line of action, silhouette is more important than the 3d volume. Animation use alot of overlapping and other tricks to suggest form. This is my guess... :P

I have been seeking out many ways of drawing. Starting out with vilppu's teaching which really give me a good start. Trying out reilly method now. But old habits are hard to break. I keep seeing vilppu influences creeping in haa..

I havent really found books on the russian construction method so any recommendation would be great.. From observation of some of the drawings, the only difference btw the russian and the french academy is that the russian shade more in terms of planes while the french academy goes more towards the egg form? However, nowadays everyone is teaching we must observe planes, and we must do gestures lines. Vilppu is one example. Kevin Chen is another guys who seems to comibine gesture and planes construction quite well. Glenn Orbik too? So i think the current teaching now in US is like a mixing of everything, or should i say, a distilling of all the past teaching? So the question now is, is it good to learn this combined method or go to the root and learn them separately?

[hummel1dane]

Annigoni and Prudhon are not examples of artists following John Angel's (Bourgereau's?) methods! John Angel studied fresco painting with Annigoni. When he came to Toronto he painted in acrylic and didn't begin to use oil until the late 70's or early '80's (time is becoming a blur).

By the way, since Bourgereau didn't paint from life, sight sizing couldn't have been what he was doing.



Thank you, I often wondered exactly what John Angel studied with Annigoni, as Annigoni has a very sculptural style that I can't recognize in John Angel's work.

Bouguereau was very sculptural, extremely influenced by renaissance artists, Raphael in particular.
He chose the raphael painting "Galatea" as his work of study in Rome(he had to go to Rome and do a full size copy of a renaissance painting with more than 3 figures after winning the Gran Prix de Rome)
It is interesting to compare this painting to Bouguereaus later "Birth of Venus" - there are similarities yes?

It is likewise possible,at least in his early days at the academy, that he supplemented his study of paint with the study of clay sculpting. Many french painters did that.

Yes it is unthinkable that he should ever have used sight size. And in his figure studies he certainly didn't use shadowshape copying.
I don't know about objects or foliage, but I like to think that they where constructed as well.

I don't think any painter today has a technique similar to Bouguereau.

About his popularity today - yes it is very much a result of Fred Ross work, but even so, if we disregard the change of taste in the 20th century, and only consider the popularity of Bouguereau in his own days, he certainly does deserve a place among the top painters in history.
I mean, think of all his achievements, medals, honorable positions, what more could a french painter of that time attain?

Btw what do you think of the norwegian painter Odd Nerdrum?

Mydrako,

I don't think the russians wrote down anything, and if they did - it's probably in russian!!! Yes today their system is most interesting.
The school where I studied is really really good, but it is only drawing, and no value study.
I can't say at the moment if it is good to mix different systems - I have only been one trimester at Angels and most of the time it felt like too much of a challenge(to draw differently/think differently).
Copying 2d shadow shapes is like the opposite of constructing the figure. I would prefare to just have stayed in the russian system, but complicated financial reasons makes me continue at Angels. (It's a great school btw, just different) Well, I probably will get used to it.

Doing smooth rendering of round forms takes a looooong time. Planar is much faster. Planar also gives a more strong result, in the sense that it is easier to grasp/comprehend/touch. But of course it lacks realism.
One very good thing about working in planes is that you can easily see if the perspective is way off. And when you have found your planes you can always choose to round them.

[Maxine Schacker]

What do you mean by "it lacks realism"? The Angel method seems to me to look flat and like a photograph.

About Nerdrum: I have never seen his work in the flesh (so to speak), so it's hard to say, but on line his painting seems very compelling. What do you think?

[hummel1dane]

At Angels they do have a system of rendering, it is more than just copying shadow shapes. I haven't got enough experience with their system yet to explain properly.

What you are talking about is 3 dimensionalism - this is different from realism.
If you work planar the result can be VERY 3 dimensional, but little realistic. You can easily see the underlying structure, how the artist has perceived the form, anatomy, gesture.
And if you so choose, you can omid cast shadows, disregard specular highlights etc, and it will still look 3 dimensional.

With the Angel system, the underlying structure isn't build up in the same way, it is aimed at copying the exact shapes of light, but with a smooth rendering wrapped around imagined cylinders and eggs(to increase 3d I guess). I think they also do reflected light at these imagined solids, but it is very dimmed down at the edges of the forms.
Mm, I think Dorian can answer more about their system, I only have 2½ months experience.

The french masters of the past had a VERY strong underlying structure, but they dimmed down this structure, so that it looks more realistic(smoother, more values)
I strongly believe that an artist such as Bouguereau could easily draw in the style of Raphael or Michelangelo if he so chose.

This quality of structure is what is lacking at schools such as Angel, but they attain a more realistic result right away.

About Odd Nerdrum, I have only seen some bad imgs online(bad quality), but they still look great! Just ordered his new book, 500 pages or so. I am very excited.
What really interests me about Odd is that he takes the word "kitsch" and attempts to make it possitive by applying it to his own art.(after Edmard Munch he is norways most famous painter)
And looking at his art it is as far from "kitsch" as anything could ever be. That is cool I think - will make it easier in the future for classical artists to break through the barrier of art criticism(if they can't through "kitsch" at you, what can they do?).

If he excibits in Denmark(or west Sweden) I will go and see his stuff in real life.

[forsaken dreams]

She doesn't teach? Mm, an outdated webpage perhaps. I'll keep it in the list anyways, then people can contact her if interested.

Her page is: http://www.academicfigure.com/

I took a look at your sketch thread and I think I better understand the planes approach to shading. My art education has been a la carte with no formal study, but I did study briefly with one Chinese instructor who taught bust/cast drawing very similar to the Russian approach. We used loose hatched pencil lines and a planar breakdown (planes facing away from the light source will be darker, etc) as opposed to the Bargue shadow shape approach.

I think the longest pose that Vilppu instructs with is 6 hours. The most finished of his more recent work (within the past few decades) that I've seen has been white/black charcoal/pencil on toned paper. He generally works fairly small and definitely prefers quick sketches with washes over longer poses with a one source light setup. In his classes, no light setup is used except on longer poses and only in sessions studying light/shadow.

Perspective I think is an integral part of construction when you break things down to simple cylinders and boxes. If you can't draw simple objects in perspective you are going to have trouble with construction. I've never thought perspective as being that complicated and it really is so basic an art skill, that is perhaps why Vilppu does not focus on teaching it much. Understanding and using perspective is part and parcel of drawing the shapes you are using to construct the figure in space.

But students of Vilppu are primarily concerned with the animation industry and so the focus is usually composition, construction of the figure, and gesture. As a result, tone, modeling form, shadows, edges and all that jazz are not focused on. However, they are given equal weight in his books, it's just that many never get that far in terms of either interest or mastery of content.


The Angel method seems to me to look flat and like photograph.

Why is that? the work looks very flat and a bit sterile to me as well. Is it the single spot lighting? Or the sharp focus and edges of every little thing? The lack of much color in the shadows, and the convincing reproduction of objects lit by a single light source in a studio setting add to the sterility for me.

[hummel1dane]

Her page is: http://www.academicfigure.com/

I took a look at your sketch thread and I think I better understand the planes approach to shading. My art education has been a la carte with no formal study, but I did study briefly with one Chinese instructor who taught bust/cast drawing very similar to the Russian approach. We used loose hatched pencil lines and a planar breakdown (planes facing away from the light source will be darker, etc) as opposed to the Bargue shadow shape approach.

I think the longest pose that Vilppu instructs with is 6 hours. The most finished of his more recent work (within the past few decades) that I've seen has been white/black charcoal/pencil on toned paper. He generally works fairly small and definitely prefers quick sketches with washes over longer poses with a one source light setup. In his classes, no light setup is used except on longer poses and only in sessions studying light/shadow.


Who was that chinese?

Doing a 15-20 hour study without a light setup has many advantages - you have time to get the proportions right, you can dig REALLY deep into the anatomical details, and you can do a nice 3 dimensional rendering.

Oh yes, the size... The russians draw A3 or A2 - Vilppu is A4 or smaller right?
At Angels I think max 30cm for the length of the figure in pencil is standard, then charcoal is a bit bigger.
The 30cm figure is necessary because of the time consuming rendering(filling a dark smooth tone with graphite can take 3-5 hours alone)
Then we use brushes(long haired and cut down), some also use stomps. We use 2B and HB (if time, 2H as well) I don't know about charcoal.

I don't think the russians use stuff like stomps and brushes and they don't go harder than 4B in graphite(and they probably don't even like pencil, prefers redchalk, blackchalk or charcoal.)

But that makes sense - if you use brushes or stomps you can work in harder pencils, because you'll get the dark tone by brushing - working the graphite into the paper = darker tone.

[Mydrako]

Hmm u probably know this but this site seems to sell alot of russian drawing book published by chinese publishers.

http://www.gallerynucleus.com/detail/6866?page=1

Looks really interesting. They are kinda costly and i think u can find them at a low price in china. I will try to find the publisher and see if they sell it direct from china which will probably be at a much lower price.

---------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
Found that amazon china sell all these books at pretty good price.

http://www.amazon.cn/mn/detailApp/476-9532481-9015508?qid=1246595970&ref=SR&sr=13-7&uid=476-9532481-9015508&prodid=zjbk295314

The actual publisher is guangxi fine art publishing and their site is at
http://www.gxfinearts.com

If u guys have problem navigating the site, I can help with the chinese :)

[hummel1dane]

Hmm u probably know this but this site seems to sell alot of russian drawing book published by chinese publishers.

http://www.gallerynucleus.com/detail/6866?page=1

Looks really interesting. They are kinda costly and i think u can find them at a low price in china. I will try to find the publisher and see if they sell it direct from china which will probably be at a much lower price.

---------------------------------------------------------
Edit:
Found that amazon china sell all these books at pretty good price.

http://www.amazon.cn/mn/detailApp/476-9532481-9015508?qid=1246595970&ref=SR&sr=13-7&uid=476-9532481-9015508&prodid=zjbk295314

The actual publisher is guangxi fine art publishing and their site is at
http://www.gxfinearts.com

If u guys have problem navigating the site, I can help with the chinese :)

Thanks that would be very nice! When I return to Italy I would like to order them! I can't even read what the price is!!

[Mydrako]

Here are some painting by Vasily Perov. I think they are really strong in narrative, something i admire in some of the russian painters.

[forsaken dreams]

Who was that chinese? Not sure, he's not any of the famous guys that teach currently, but I believe he studied at a state run art academy in China. The primary method he teaches for studying and understanding form is with graphite, from 4B to 4H in 2 step increments, aided by a kneaded eraser. The hatched lines are very apparent and rough, and funny enough, look exactly like the book that Mydrako linked to: http://www.gallerynucleus.com/detail/6866?page=1

In fact I had to actually copy this exact drawing too:
http://www.gallerynucleus.com/item/image5/6866/7irq9u/Chinese_Face2_detail5.jpg



Oh yes, the size... The russians draw A3 or A2 - Vilppu is A4 or smaller right?
Hmm, I don't believe Vilppu has a specific size of paper he draws on, but yes A4 or smaller is pretty close. When demoing he'll work on large newsprint only because it's easy to see and probably cheap. But in general he carries around a sketchbook he makes himself, around A5 in size. The largest drawing of his I've seen was between A3 and A2 but it was framed and contained a composition of 2-3 figures. In general his drawings measure about 6cm-10cm in height on average I'd say. Most of the time he uses a fountain pen for his own work and applies tone via a mix of hatching and water.


Hmm u probably know this but this site seems to sell alot of russian drawing book published by chinese publishers.

http://www.gallerynucleus.com/detail/6866?page=1

Looks really interesting. They are kinda costly and i think u can find them at a low price in china. I will try to find the publisher and see if they sell it direct from china which will probably be at a much lower price.


wow, thanks for posting these! This actually is starting to answer my questions about the style of cast drawings I was taught back in the late 90's. I could never quite figure out why what I was taught as "cast drawings" was so different in style and technique for the "cast drawings/paintings" taught by the ateliers I've seen popping up lately. I thought maybe it was a variation of Bargue's stuff, but as I understand it now the technique and approach is quite different. It's interesting to find that the roots are actually Russian.

The same technique (breaking down into planes and rendering with roughly layered hatching) was applied to everything from basic still life of cones and spheres to pots, pans, vegetables and casts. It is pretty interesting to see the same look taken to the figure drawings as my own figure drawing training has been a vastly different approach (primarily Vilppu).

[hummel1dane]

Could be interesting to know more about that state academy. Especially now when the standard in Russia and rest of eastern Europe has dropped.

The only thing I've heard about chinese students is that after so many years of hard discipline they end up with the ability to draw everything from life to minute details, fast and with perfect technique - but they have no imagination!
Is it true?

The roots of the Russian system are french and italian schools of renaissance technique(around 1720). Yes we are VERY lucky that they didn't stop teaching the classical stuff in the 20th century!

Mydrako, those are amazing paintings! I definitely will look into that guy.

[Mydrako]

hummel1dane I heard that China has school that churn out brilliant artists technically but then the china's standard of living is rather low in some area that these artists are forced to work in "factory" that reproduce works of art for sale. Hence the lack of freedom in thought and imagination. There is that rare few that "made it" beyond being a copyist. There is one taiwanese, Yim Mau Kun, who is quite amazing, and he studied in Guangzhou Academy of Fine Art. You can check out his works here and he has some books too on drawing.

http://www.yimaukun.com/english/index2.html

forsaken dreams I am not surprised the china trained teachers draw and paint the same way as the russian. Their system of training supposedly came from Russia. Probably thats why they sell all these books about russian taechings.

[hummel1dane]

Updated the list.

Now included :

Articles about academical education :

La Academia dei Desidorosi: A Pre-cursor to the Nineteenth-Century Academy (http://beardedroman.com/?p=342)

Léon Bonnat (French, 1833-1922): The First Classical Realist? (http://beardedroman.com/?p=367)

Books about the old academies and stuff :

Life Class: The Academic Male Nude 1820-1920 (Paperback) by Stephen Boyd (Author), Edward Lucie-Smith (Author) (http://www.amazon.com/Life-Class-Academic-Male-1820-1920/dp/0854491031/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_3)
The Nude in French Art and Culture, 1870-1910 (Hardcover) by Heather Dawkins(Author) (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0521807557?...89&camp=211189)

Supplies for the artist

Models of human anatomy (http://www.3bscientific.com/)
Models of human anatomy (https://www.biovere.com/)
Real animal bones for animal drawing (highly recommended) (www.animalskeletons.net)

E-books that costs money....

The Sculptor and Art Student's Guide to the Proportions of the Human Form By Dr. Johann Gottfried Schadow(http://figure-drawings.com/artstudentsguide.html)
The Art Student's Guide to the Bones and Muscles of the Human Body and Lessons on Foreshortening By Dr. Johann Gottfried Schadow (http://figure-drawings.com/bones-and-muscles.html)

[hummel1dane]

Highly recommended anatomy dvds :

There are 6 dvds in the series, however, the artist will probably only benefit from the first 5 (the last covers internal anatomy)

These are the dvds you need if you want to master the human body and you don't want to perform your own dissections.
This is serious stuff, from a doctor who is an expert in anatomy, everything is covered. You will get to understand HOW the human body REALLY looks - not the artificial and incomplete illustrations you see in artistic anatomy books.

If you EVER want to learn how to draw the human body like an old master, you either have to attend REALLIFE dissections, or get these dvds...

The movement and function of bones and muscles is covered, as are veins, blodvessels, joints and ligaments (you can't find joints or ligaments covered in ANY artistic anatomy book) You'll also see the location of fadpats.

In short, if you are serious - GET THESE DVDS!!!

Dvd 1 upper extremity (http://www.amazon.com/Aclands-DVD-Atlas-Human-Anatomy/dp/0781740630/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b)
Dvd 2 lower extremity (http://www.amazon.com/Aclands-DVD-Atlas-Human-Anatomy/dp/0781740649/ref=pd_sim_b_2)
Dvd 3 trunk (http://www.amazon.com/Aclands-DVD-Atlas-Human-Anatomy/dp/0781740657/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_c)
Dvd 4 Head and neck part 1 (http://www.amazon.com/Aclands-DVD-Atlas-Human-Anatomy/dp/0781740665/ref=pd_sim_b_3)
Dvd 5 Head and neck part 2 (http://www.amazon.com/Aclands-DVD-Atlas-Human-Anatomy/dp/0781741939/ref=pd_sim_b_3)

I've made an index of the first 3 videos and beginning of the 4.

Aclands anatomy dvds

Video 1

Part 1 :
1:40 Bones (clavicle, scapula, humerus and joints.)
5:50 Movement
7:00 Humerus
8:00 Movement
10:00 muscles of shoulder
14:0 Scapula muscles (seratus aneterior, trapezius, rhomboid pectoralis minor, levator scapuli
18:00 pectoralis major, lattisimus dorsi, deltoid
22:00 Vessels and nerves

Part 2

39:00 Arm
41:10 Bones, humerus, radius, ulna
44:20 Joints elbow
47:50 hand joints
49:30 Bones of hand
51:30 Joints of hand
54:50 muscles of elbow, brachialis, biceps, brachioradialis, triceps, anconeus
59:10 muscles of lowerarm pronator teres, pronator quadratus supinator, bicpes, palmaris longus, extensor carpi

nerves vessels

Part 3 (the hand)

1:17:40 Bones of hand
1:19:00 Joints
1:25:00 Bones and joints of thumb
1:28:00 Pullers, flexor retinaculum, extensor retinaculum
1:32:00 Extensor mechanism
1:35:30 Muscles of hand, flexor digitorum profundus, flexor digitorum superficialis
1:39:00 Muscles of extension, extensor digitorum extensor digitiminimi, extensor indicis
1:41:00 Long muscles of thumb flexor pollicis longus
1:50:00 Skin, fingernails

Video 2 Lower extremity

1:50 Pelvis, femur
6:20 ligaments of pelvis and femur
7:10 Joint
8:50 movement
11:20 muscles, short rotaters piriformis
12:50 obturator int. Ext. Etc.
15:20 adductors, abductors
17:41 Gracilis
18:50 muscles of hip joint, gluteus
20:00 fascia lata, iliotibialtract
21:50 flexors, psoras major, iliacus
23:30 rector femoris, sartorius
24:10 quadriceps, sartorius
25:30 gluteus medius, harmstring muscles
28:00 gluteus maximus
28:00 movement anti-gravity
32:00 inguinal ligament
33:00 femoral triangle

nerves vessels

Part 2 knee

46:00 bones, femur, tibia, fibula
49:00 patella
50:00 joints
54:40 movement
55:00 patella joint
56:00 capsul
58:30 muscles of knee joint
59:30 quadriceps
1:01:40 movement
1:03:10 adductor canal
1:04:10 flexors, harmstrings, movement
1:05:20 popliteus, plantaris, gastrocnemius

nerves, vessels

Part 3 lowerleg ,foot

1:15:00 Bones movements
1:17:00 joints
1:20:20 tcn joints, more bones
1:23:00 movement eversion inversion
1:24:00 deltoid ligament, calcenea ligaments
1:26:00 retinaculum
1:28:30 muscles of lowerleg
1:29:30 tibialis anterior
1:31:00 gastrocnemius, soleus, plantaris
1:33:00 calceneus tendon, archileis tendon, movemen
1:34:00 deep fascia
1:35:00 fibris, transvers septum
1:38:00 tibialis posterior
1:39:20 peroneus brevis, peroneus longus, peroneus tertius, movement

nerves vessels

1:52:00 rest of food, bones
1:55:00 joints and ligaments
1:56:40 plantar aponeurosis
1:58:00 mp joints
2:02:40 extensor hallucis longus, extensor digitorum longus
2:05:00 action of extensors
2:06:00 flexors
2:09:00 small muscles
2:12:00 muscles of big toe
2:14:40 muscles of little toe
2:16:00 plantar fascia
2:26:00 skin

Video 3 Trunk

2:00 Spine bones
8:30 movement of cervical bones
10:30 movement of lumbar bones
13:00 : sacrum
15:00 intervertebral disks, ligaments
22:00 bones, ribs, muscles inner, rotator
24:40 erector spinae
26:00 movement
26:40 neck, splenius, longissimus, semispinalis
37:00 front rib
38:00 sternum
42:00 ribjoint
43:00 1. ribjoint
52:0 breathingmuscles
56:00 intercostals
58:00 scalene muscles
1:00:20 rectus abdominis muscles, transversus abdominis, external obl.
1:22:00 breasts(skin/fat)
1:24:00 abdomen
1:25:30 pelvis
1:32:00 inguinal ligament
1:33:00 muscles, erector spinae, quadratus, lamburum, psoas major, iliacus
1:39:00 rectus abdominus, ext. Obl. Transversus
1:45:00 ext. Obl.
1:47:00 movemen
2:10:00 Pelvis
2:17:40 obturator internus
2:19:00 coccygens, cevatorani

Video 4 Head, neck (partly)

Part 1

1:00 bones of skull
9:10 atlas and axis(spine bones of head movement)
11:00 cervical vertebrae and difference.
14:20 other bones
16:00 ligaments
26:00 muscles, fine movement of head, rectus capitis oblique capitis
27:20 longus cervicis, longus capitis, weak flexors
28:00 3 scalene muscles(elevating upperribs, deep inspiration)
29:00 semispinalis(extension) splenius(rotation) levator scapuli, trapezius(upper part)
31:40 Sterno Cl. Mastoid

[hummel1dane]

Here are some screenshots from the first dvd.

[hummel1dane]

More anatomy!!!

For you anatomy freaks out there I just found a working online version of Gray's anatomy (if you look up muscles at wikipedia the photos are usually from Gray's anatomy!!)

The link :

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2536371/Anatomy-of-the-Human-Body

The drawings from Gray'ss anatomy show all muscles of the body including their origins and insertions.

[hummel1dane]

With what has been said in this thread it may seem as if the french academy of the 19th century was a perfect institution. This is not the case.
There were shortcomings in the education, and those shortcomings were the main reason they had such a strong focus on copying the works of renaissance masters(as well as ancient greek and roman statues)

What they lacked in the french academy was the exact understanding of the proportional systems of the past.

In short there are two ancient systems of determing idealist proportions in figures(as well as buildings)


* The geometrical system of ancient Egypt/Greece/middle ages.


* The musical system of Pythagoras



The geometrical system of ancient Egypt/Greece/middle ages.

The first system has always been viewed as the most perfect. It evolved over a period of thousands of years.
It is also the most complicated and most secret. It was taught within strict secret societies(Egyptian priesthood/Greek priesthood, Christian secret societies(knights templar?).)
To breach the code of secrecy resulted in instant assassination.

This system did not use numbers(measurement), it relied on geometrical symbols and design alone.

This system was used to determin proportions in statues, buildings, and objects. It was used in the egyptian pyramids, as well as greek temples, ideal greek statues, greek pottery design, some roman temples, and later in the gothic cathedrals. Perhaps in the composition of medival wall paintings as well.

This system died out sometimes between the end of the gothic building period in the late middle ages and before the beginning of the renaissance.
A fraction of it did survive, and can be found in the design of church portals, as well as in the composition of paintings.


The musical sytem of Pythagoras.

The use of the musical system of Pythagoras(the divition of the string using harmonic ratios such as, the octave ½, the fifth 3/2, the fourth 4/3 etc.) in figure design was made popular by the greek sculptoris Polykleitos.
Perhaps Polykleitos was denied initiation into the sacred and secret societies of the time, and thus took Pythagoras as his guide. He thought of numbers and harmonic ratios as expression of the divine.

This system of numbers and harmonic ratios was later rediscovered by the renaissance artists. Most famous of these were Leonardo da Vinci, Albrecht Dürer, Michelangelo. etc.

In architecture this musical system was perfected by Palladio and Alberti. At that time it was the norm to study musical theory alongside architecture.

This system was questioned in the age of enlightenment(1700-1800) and most likely abandoned(in the name of reason and logic).
Thus proportion and design was now entirely the choice of the artist, and was judged by the feeling it avoked. This was the birth of aestheticism and the modern understanding of art.


Back to the french academy

However, with the birth of romanticism and neo-classicism sometimes in the end of the 18th century there was a renewed interest in the ideals and "art" of the ancients and this lead to the situation in 19th century french academy -

* They believed that the achievements of the greek and renaissance artists were the "ideal" art

* They didn't have a clue of how to attain this ideal(the systems of proportion)

Thus all they could do was to copy the works of ancient masters and try to magically recreate this "idealism" in their own work.

In the later part of the 19th century they slowly abandoned the quest for idealism and started to focus exclusively on realism. In 1905 Bonnat became the head of the academy - (he didn't give a damn about idealism.)

Fortunately enough, today we have a wealth of information about the old proportional systems - I can name a few books(there are a thousand more) -

The secrets of ancient geometry and its use, Tons Brunes
Sacred geometry, Robert Lawlor
Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks
Albrecht Dürers notebooks
Architectural princicples in the age of humanism, Rudolf Wittkower

[Jasonwclark]

I’ve had Bouguereau on the mind lately, since his work came up quite a bit in JM’s Color Theory class, and this thread seems as good a place as any. :)

I know this all been hashed out before at length, but I think its entirely possible that Bouguereau's work will always have a lasting appeal for at least two groups of people (despite whatever else might happen) - straight men and people who like angels. Likewise, it’s probably equally possible that straight women, and people who don’t like angels, will always find it somewhat distasteful. That may sound messed up when I say it, but to divorce his work from the sexual element and pretend that it isn’t influencing anything, is kind of just being dishonest with ourselves. I can say with some confidence, that if it were a bunch of nude men swinging around in the forest instead of young women, the painting would not hold the same interest for me. I might still appreciate it in other respects, for a quality of stillness, or levitation, or something of that sort, but would it really command my attention for an hour like 'Les Oreades' or ‘Evening Mood’? Probably not.

When I look at a Russian figure drawing of an elderly man’s nether regions, I don’t say to myself “damn that’s gorgeous!” before any other thought enters into play... So, in an important respect, its easier to see what’s actually happening in the drawing, (or to put it into the Loomis formulation: to see what I specifically like/dislike about ‘how’ something is drawn, as opposed to ‘what’ it is.) I don’t think its at all odd that something like this should happen, its really the same sort of thing as Degas having an immediate appeal to people with an interest in dance. If you enjoy the Ballet, there’s a strong chance you’re going to enjoy Degas, independent of what’s actually going on with the paint. You just have that immediate in, which someone with no experience of dance might miss. Of course we know that what’s going on with the paint is the whole point, and that he certainly tackled subjects beyond dance, but that might still take a back seat to other considerations, when the interest/disinterest in the subject matter is strong enough.

Its always easier to be analytical about something when you’re more detached from it, when the impact and the analysis is happening on an intellectual level instead of an emotional one. They say for example that Rembrandt has a way of becoming more relevant and powerful with age, whereas someone still preoccupied with youth might not see it, and thus be more critical of his work. Bouguereau too, is expressing himself as much in his choice of subject matter as he is in the execution, so it seems hard to separate the one from the other.


One of the things that worked well since the time of David, is for art students to choose a role model from a master of the past. One with whom the student has a temperamental affinity, regardless of subject matter.

I find this interesting as well - I heard that Goya once said we each get two masters. We can learn from many more, but two will always stand out from the rest in terms of influence and adoration. He claimed Velasquez and Rembrandt as his. I always thought that was a cool idea, that we each get two shades from the past to help guide us along the way. He never mentioned anything about enemies though...

I wonder if we each have a pair of malevolent ghouls chasing us around as well, always trying to trip us up and confuse us.
Billy B the Zombie, and some other undead goon out to get Maxine. Or my own personal nightmare staring Duchamp and Rothko. :)
Aim for the head!




Anyway, thanks for the great read here -
5 stars for sure

[forsaken dreams]

I’ve had Bouguereau on the mind lately, since his work came up quite a bit in JM’s Color Theory class, and this thread seems as good a place as any. :)
I'm curious what aspects of Bouguereau's work came up in the class?


I know this all been hashed out before at length, but I think its entirely possible that Bouguereau's work will always have a lasting appeal for at least two groups of people (despite whatever else might happen) - straight men and people who like angels. Likewise, it’s probably equally possible that straight women, and people who don’t like angels, will always find it somewhat distasteful. That may sound messed up when I say it, but to divorce his work from the sexual element and pretend that it isn’t influencing anything, is kind of just being dishonest with ourselves. I can say with some confidence, that if it were a bunch of nude men swinging around in the forest instead of young women, the painting would not hold the same interest for me. I might still appreciate it in other respects, for a quality of stillness, or levitation, or something of that sort, but would it really command my attention for an hour like 'Les Oreades' or ‘Evening Mood’? Probably not.

I think it's very over-simplistic and narrow to reduce all of Bouguereau's work to "naked women" and "angels". With the number of naked cherubs in his paintings, you might as well add that Bouguereau's paintings would attract men or women with a sexual affinity to chubby, naked babies also.

Many of Bouguereau's themes feature Greek mythology and religious matters, which of course is often populated by young virgins, angles, cherubs, satyrs, nymphs and other assortments of creatures.

In my experience there have been many more men than women who are attracted to his work due to his sometimes "sappy" and over-sentimental/over-romanticized themes.
Perhaps some viewers may find his content offensive if they are easily offended by nudity, but I would hardly call his paintings sexual. Off the top of my head, I would think of more modern works by an artist such as Boris Vallejo or Luis Royo.

There is a lot to admire in Bouguereau's work, from his treatment of mythical subject matter, to the posing, treatment of light, to his technical skill with flesh and cloth.

For me if it were a bunch of well painted men with Bouguereau's level of draftsmanship and skill, it may capture my interest for far longer than a group of nude women. Pectorals, abdomens, biceps and other muscles are amazing when done well. And for a nude man not to be painted with yet another shriveled penis, or modestly covered with some composition breaking twig, now that would be a wonder to behold.

As a guy I've seen more than my fair share of both nude men and women, but I will notice and admire if a portion of the body is well executed in a painting/drawing and would definitely study it in detail regardless of the gender.

It would be curious to find out how cultures with less of a hangup about nudity and sex would view Bouguereau's work.

[Elwell]

I know this all been hashed out before at length, but I think its entirely possible that Bouguereau's work will always have a lasting appeal for at least two groups of people (despite whatever else might happen) - straight men and people who like angels.

And foot fetishists.

[Jasonwclark]

Yeah, I was being intentionally crass and overreaching with my generalization just for emphasis. :)

There are many reasons why I like him that go beyond what I said above. But I also think Maxine and Hummel1dane are both justified in feeling the way they do, which is why I thought is worth throwing my two coppers into the well.

I'm curious what aspects of Bouguereau's work came up in the class?

It was mainly to do with the foundations of light stuff he was talking about in the beginning; value, temperature, and things of that sort. Asked point blank - Manley said that Bouguereau was one of his favorite artists, if not the favorite, because of his figure work and the way he handles the interaction between light and flesh. I don't want to go into it too much, but you should definitely check out the class if you have chance. It was well worth the cost, and think he's going to do it again next month if there's enough interest.

Anyway, sorry if I threw this one off the tracks a bit there.
Someone needs to follow up with more Reilly or Michelangelo, so the conversation doesn't drift too far afield. ;)

[Mydrako]

hummel1dane Those video really look too gruesome for me. I cant stomach it haa...Guess I know why i never take an interest in being a doctor.

Originally posted by Jasonwclark
Anyway, sorry if I threw this one off the tracks a bit there.

I dont think u are going off track that much. I find that point on choosing two master quite an interesting, though it is really hard to choose just two.. I think I need to reexamine my own likes and inclination and narrow down what sort of painting excite me.

And I think the discussion over Bourgeareau will go on for generations. His works really leave a lasting impression on people thats for sure, for good or for worse.

Btw, I just got a few of the chinese books on Russian drawings I mentioned earlier in the thread. When I have time, I will take picture of a few pages and post it here. I must say, they are gorgeous. They are full of energy and unity at the same time.

I have a questions for people here. We sort of know where to learn how to draw the figure. What about the most important aspect of art, design, composition, picture making? Are there any system to learn it. For me, this aspect of art is the most abstract and intangible, and hardest to learn in my opinion. Maybe the very nature of it makes it hard to create a systematic process to learn it, but I have not seen a "system" for learning it. We all know all the masters have great compositional skills but where and how did they learn it?

[forsaken dreams]

Yeah, I was being intentionally crass and overreaching with my generalization just for emphasis. :)

Haha, well I admit I've always wanted to get down and dirty with Bouguereau's angels, satyrs and purple thistle plants :)

It was mainly to do with the foundations of light stuff he was talking about in the beginning; value, temperature, and things of that sort. Asked point blank - Manley said that Bouguereau was one of his favorite artists, if not the favorite, because of his figure work and the way he handles the interaction between light and flesh. I don't want to go into it too much, but you should definitely check out the class if you have chance. It was well worth the cost, and think he's going to do it again next month if there's enough interest.

Cool, I thought about it, but am a bit short on funds currently and am not sure about how basic or repetitious the class would be. For the masters of flesh, my favorites are Bouguereau, Sargent and Rembrandt. They paint human flesh in a way that looks like you could reach out and squeeze it! I guess those would be my top 3 I look to for figure anyway. Having only 2 masters seems much too limiting for me :) Especially since no artist is a master of all subjects, one really has to look towards different artists for figure vs landscape vs etc, etc.

[PieterV]

hummel1dane Those video really look too gruesome for me. I cant stomach it haa...Guess I know why i never take an interest in being a doctor.

Might add this too, it's less... explicit.
http://www.visiblebody.com/

[lena murray]

Excellent forum, thank you guys. However, there is no need of reinventing the bicycle. The Repin Academy is still around and carries all of these traditions. It is somewhat true, that the level has been going down since many of the major studio heads who were in their 80-s have passed away, but the place has all the resources including the anatomy room, the drawings of the former students (many of them are on this forum) on view in the classrooms, in the academy museum. And there are still many young teachers in their late twenties who are real virtuosos when it comes to academic drawing. Here is a video of the academy which I have on my page of the russian version of facebook. Hope you guys can view it. There are now three students from America who are studying at the Repin Academy, two of them studied at Bridgeview in New York for many years before going there.

http://vkontakte.ru/video9768849_129671344

[hummel1dane]

Thank you for your post, but I couldnt get the video working!!

Comparing the paintings from the Repin with those of other academies today, they still seem to be more rough. Is this just artistical preferences?

Im at Angel Academy myself at the moment, and I know that they only uses top quality products and that they paint many many layers and uses a lot of different varnish techniques and etc. (I dont know much, havent made it to the painting program yet...)

Could you really learn the exact same techniques at the Repin?

[lena murray]

I apologize about this video. I guess you need to be a member of vkontakte.ru to open it. This is the Russian version of facebook. Unfortunately I could not find it on youtube. If anyone could tell me how I could download it, it would be great.

Hillem1dane: About your question regarding the Russian paintings being more "rough". Generally the easel painters paint more alla prima, but it is also a matter of personal taste. Those at the restoration department do more of the real glazing techniques. You'd be surprised to see some of their old master copies, some of them could pass for real forgeries. So, if you are interested in glazing, there are professors who teach that. However, they don't even start glazing until the second or third year, I believe. The Repin Academy has the following departments: architecture, sculpture and painting. Painting department has the following specializations: easel, monumental, church and restoration. The first two years all the painters work together drawing and painting from the models. In addition they have their other subjects such as anatomy, perspective, art history, conservation technologies (for restorers, for example) and etc. It is during the third year when they join a particular studio headed by a particular professor. The sixth year is a diploma, one large multi-figure painting based on a subject, usually historical (Russian history is a typical subject). There are many chinese students there and they usually do Chinese warriers, large battle scenes. I will post some photos soon.

[lena murray]

These are some recent student work at the repin academy.

[Jonas Heirwegh]

wow amazing, thx for these pictures! I'm seriously considering to attend the repin academy for a while now. But I heard its hard to get accepted and you also need to learn the language. Do you have more info on how to get accepted?

I really prefer this style much more then the angel academy's style. There is much more feeling to it, more structure.

[lena murray]

Yes, I have all the information about how to get into the academy and I'd be happy to share it with everyone. Just don't want to get too tedious here, so if anyone interested, just write me a personal message. Language is not a huge problem, since language courses are part of the program. Currently the academy has a lot of Chinese and Korean students who are learning Russian at the same time as taking the art classes.

[Mydrako]

To be frank, I was hoping you can write the information here so that everyone have access to it! I am sure alot of people would want to know mroe about the school frmo someone who have went before. I might be interested in the future (if my life situation permits it), so it would be good to know more information first. Thanks !

[Jonas Heirwegh]

Yes, I have all the information about how to get into the academy and I'd be happy to share it with everyone. Just don't want to get too tedious here, so if anyone interested, just write me a personal message. Language is not a huge problem, since language courses are part of the program. Currently the academy has a lot of Chinese and Korean students who are learning Russian at the same time as taking the art classes.


You could make a new thread about the Repin Academy. I'm sure alot of people want more info on it because there is little know on the internet.

[hummel1dane]

Yes you could just post all of it here, that would be great! You could also make a new thread about the Repin, or do both!

[lena murray]

Yes, I will write about the academy here soon, just need a little time, since it is a lot of information.

[lena murray]

I decided to write this in several emails. My computer tends to lock up a lot lately. Anyway, here are a few samles of work done during the entrance exams by two of my friends. The figure drawing did not get a really high grade, but she did better on her portrait and composition. I will be posting compositions in the next posts hopefully.

[lena murray]

1. Passing entrance exams.

Entrance Exams take place every year in July and last for about one month. I will concentrate here on the painters's exams, since probably this is what this forum is about. So I will omit Sculpture and Architecture.

Those applying for easel painting have to complete the following assignments: Portrait and Figure Drawing, Potrait and Figure Painting and two compositions (one on a given subject one on your own). Each assignment is given about 16-20 hours. Illustration students are allowed to use watercolor instead of oil and restoration students have to make an old master copy instead of composition.

[lena murray]

Even to be allowed to take the exams applicants have to have a high school diploma and a portfolio of figurative work from life (not from photographs). The admission committee selects perhaps 500 students to take the exams. These students are competing for about 150 seats. Most of the Russian students come from three year art colleges or from specialized art schools (like the academy has its own boarding schools for children). Those two girls whose work I've posted both completed 3 year colleges. For one of them it was her third attempt (the first year she was not even allowed to take the exams) and for the other girl was a second attempt (she came from a better college).

These girls are Russian citizens who compete among themselves. Their education is completely free of charge, and they even get free painting supplies once they are accepted.

For the foreign students it's a little bit different. Foreign students are competing only among themselves. Foreign students do pay for their education at the academy (about $5,000 per year), but they have fewer seats than the Russians. Like in each group of say 10 students there would be 3 foreigners. So, in some way the competition among the foreigners is tougher, but also their level is not as high as among the Russians, so it is good that they compete only with each other.

[lena murray]

How can foreign students be allowed to take entrance exams?

A few years ago the Academy started a preparation course for the perspective academy applicants. This is the course that I took myself even though I was not going to apply to the academy because of my family situation. My friends whose exam work I've posted were also taking this course even though they already graduated from an art college.

The Russians and international students are split into separate groups. There are much more international students taking the preparation courses, so their groups are somewhat larger, up to 30 students per class. Their schedule consists of 2 hours of drawing and 3 hours of painting five days a week from October to June. They finish right before the entrance exams. The first month they work on casts and still life settings, and then it's all portrait and figure. Last year tuition was 500 euros a month, it's probably the same this year.

To get into the prep course you need to send a CD with images of your work. They are not too strict about accepting students into the prep course, since this is their money-making group. But, every few months the committee of the academy professors comes and grades the work. If you get two bad grades (which are 2s) you can be expelled. Also, it is a good opportunity for the applicants to expose themselves to the committee and get noticed, since these are the same people who grade at the exams. In addition to drawing and painting, students work on composition (theme-based). This is mostly homework which is brought to class and then presented for grading. Composition is probably the most important part of the exam because it really shows the applicant's personality and all of his technical skills since it's done without any models or props (all from memory).

Currently the majority of the prep course international students are from China and Korea. There is a handful of europeans. That is why europeans and americans might be given some preferential treatment just because right now they are a minority among foreign students.

I welcome any of your questions and I can help you to make the connection with the foreign students administrator. He does not speak English so I have served initially as an intemediary.

Like I said before, currently two of the Bridgeview students from New York are the academy students (both have done the prep course), and the third one from California is joining the prep course this year (conceptart connection).

I forgot to mention. The prep course also includes 3 hours of Russian every day.

They don't care very much how good your Russian is if your art skills are good at the exam. Many chinese and korean students who have been there for 6-7 years and have graduated speak very bad.

The actual degree program at the academy is 6 years, the 6th year is the diploma project (multi-figure composition).

[Jonas Heirwegh]

Thank you so much for the info. I'm really considering this. Especially if you can take a prep course first, would be so awesome.
The guy from California joining in, are you talking about Francis Vallejo?
http://francisvallejo.blogspot.com/2009/09/repin-institute.html

Anyway few questions...

- I assume all the lessons are taught in russian right? but how will foreign students understand what the professors are saying in the first few years when you are still learning the language?

- Also what didnt they like about the figure drawing that got bad grades?

- How about living in st petersburg? Is it expensive, does the school help you find a place to rent? How are the average rent prices?

- Do you get alot of individual guidance from the professors or will they rarely give you personal critiques?

- last one. Do you have more work from beginning students as well as more advanced students. If you do have alot of work you can always put it in a rar file and upload it to my rapidshare account so its easier then to manually upload every image. I'll email you if like to upload it to my rapidshare account.

Thx in advance!

[lena murray]

Hi jonas,

1. about images of work. I have tonns, a whole disk full of photos, they are huge. They were taken during 2007-2008 end of semester grading from many of the painting studios. Images are several mb each, so what do I do to upload? You tell me.

2. Yes, it is Francis Vallejo who is going to petersburg to join the prep course.

3. At the prep course they have a Chinese interpreter since most of the students speak Chinese, not much help for Europeans and Americans. The teachers don't speak much. Basically they go from student to student and correct their drawings and paintings. They do all of the teaching by drawing a diagram in the corner of your sheet. Actually this is how they teach the Russian students as well. It is so clear that no need for words, believe me. Also, some younger teachers do speak some limited English.

4. The teaching style at the academy is personal critique only. They go from person to person correcting everyone's work. Believe me, they work really hard. In Russia in general there is no such thing as lecturing, unless it's a lecture-type of class like art history or perspective study. It is all totally hands on. Also, they always bring the examples from the Fund of the best work done before you as demonstrations. These examples are very specific, like if your setup with a female figure is in the blue color harmony scheme, they will hang a painting of a similar or even the same model in the same color scheme.

5. The figure drawing grade was not so bad, just average. I guess, compared to other applicants' work it was not as good. I personally see some problems with it like not being treated enogh as a whole, the head is done sort of separate from the body.

6. Living in St. Petersburg. There are dormitories at the academy, they are cheap, but the conditions aren't great, very crowded rooms. Also, I think they are hard to get into, but you can ask once you decide to go. Commercial rents are not bad right now. Our american students are sharing a large 3 bedroom apartment right near the academy for about $1000, so each pays about $300 a month. Because of the crisis ruble is much lower now than a year ago. If you are willing to live on the outskirts of the city, you can probably get your own place for about $500 a month, may be less. Basically, I put Francis in touch with our guys and I think they are helping him to get a place. You should speak to him.

I think that's about it as far as your questions. Also I have a page on the bridgeview site from the prep course that I took. http://www.academicart.com/repinnew.htm

My friend Sveta, whose work from the exam I posted in my previous message is featured on that site, but that was the year when she did not get in. Actually, none of these girls whose work is on that page got in the first time, but some of them did get in the second time.

[Mydrako]

Awesome !!.. Very informative. I am just wondering.. If u take the prep course now but decide not to go into the degree course for now, next time u want to try for the degree course, do u have to go through the prep course again?

The prep course actually sound like a great short course to improve ur skills... Lets just see when I can "retire" from my work for one year and head there...hee

[lena murray]

Basically, that is what I did. I knew I was not going to enter the academy because of my family situation here in the U.S., so the prep course for me was an education in itself, and it is absolutely great. You'd make enormous progress in one year, which was the case with everyone in our group.

I don't think you have to retake the prep course again. What happens at the June grading is that based on the work done in the prep course you are allowed to take the exams. Some students weren't, since the work was not adequate.

I guess if you come a few years later, you can use the same works (the grades are posted on them) to be allowed to take the exams.

By the way, Jonas now has all my pictures from the academy. I hope he will post them soon. I will give commentaries on what they are.

[Jonas Heirwegh]

I uploaded the files Lena. Thanks for sending those to me!

So these are pictures from the drawings and paintings Lena took from the Repin Academy.

http://rapidshare.com/files/286949273/obhod2.rar

http://rapidshare.com/files/286947730/obhod_academy.rar

http://rapidshare.com/files/286925874/obhod_oksana.rar

[lena murray]

thanks for the upload, jonas. I will be happy to answer any questions that any of you might have.

But, basically this work is from different studios with different speialization. All portraits are done during the first and second years, so these are first and second year students' work. They don't do much portraiture after that, mostly the whole figure (multiple figures), dressed and nude after the first and second years. Also, I believe there is a file from the illustration department. They work in watercolor and a variety of printmaking techniques, such as lithographs, etchings etc. The idea is to train book illustrators. But, as you can see their portrait work is still very academic.

Two figure setups are done starting the third year, I believe.

Also, these huge drawings done in the sauce technique (multi-figure setups with sculptures and etc) are done only at the monumental studio. Monumental studio prepares students for mural painting among other things such as stained class, tapestry and similar designs.

Also, there is all that compositional work from the monumental studio, such as semi-circle formats. They are given these specific assignments to design a mural or a stained glass for example in a specific format, oval, rectangular etc.

I don't know if you can tell the difference, but the work from the monumental studio is supposed to be more flat, like the shadows are completely flattened.

I believe I don't have any work from the restoration department or church painting. may be they did not open up their studios for the public, not sure.

All these photos were taken in the winter of 2008 and spring 2008. After the grades are given, the studios are open to the public for just a few days.

Hope this helps.

[Jonas Heirwegh]

Hey Lena, thanks for the info.

What exactly do they focus on on the 4th, 5th and 6th year at the academy in the painting program?

Also how do they teach to draw from memory as you said students need to do paintings with figures without drawing from the model?

[lena murray]

Well, the large scale drawings with figures and sculptures is what monumental studio students do during their 3-4-5 year. Also, setups with two figures and interior. They work on composition through the whole program. The sixth year they get a personal studio where they work on their diploma painting, usually a large scale painting based on a theme. Actually those compositional sketches you saw could be preparatory studies for a large scale painting.

As far as drawing from memory, I meant the exam. They are given a theme which could be as abstract as "wind" or "celebration" and they have to make a multi-figure painting based on the theme in a few days in class.

In general when they work on compositions sketches, they don't use models much, although they can. The idea is to teach them a good design where everything is balanced in color and in black and white.

[Maxine Schacker]

I have ordered the anatomy DVDs for the school and can hardly wait until they arrive! They wouldn't deliver to Canada, so I had to send them to a friend in the US.

You all don't know how lucky you are to have access to so much information! We struggled hard for everything. Now I go to the computer and, voila!, there it is, everything from Vermeer's technique to exquisite art supplies, to downloadable books that were out of print and hard to find once upon a time.

[lena murray]

Just came across this photo of students defending their Diploma pieces at the Repin Academy. It's a good illustration that answers some of your questions of what they do in their 6th year, which is basically one painting. This one is from the monumental studio.

[Jonas Heirwegh]

Fantastic Lena. Looks mighty impressive!

[Art_Addict]

I agree, that's awesome! Thanks for sharing!

[hummel1dane]

Hey folks, check out this debate between Mentler and Graydon, very relevant to this thread...

http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=134717

Scroll down to like the middle of the thread and read the comments by Graydon and the answers by Mentler.

If you havent seen Mentlers work already check him out, he's awesome, I think he has like 3-5 threads at conceptart!!

And Graydon is totally amazing as well - here is a link to his 9/11 masterpiece -

http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=77541

[lena murray]

I actually think that 9/11 is a little too ambitious for Graydon Parrish to tackle, sorry to say. Unfortunately, nobody today has the skill to make this kind of painting. While I admire his ambition and desire to excell in this, unfortunately for him, there is no system or school today to educate artists in the grand historic genre painting (Repin academy is no exception).

I am including here Karl Brullov's painting of 1830s from the Russian Museum, "The last day of Pompeii" and Graydon's painting. You see the difference, it's impossible to try to compete. It's no wander the historic painting genre has died by the end of the 19th century, the school was already lost then.

As far as the bonedoctor, I love his posts, extremely helpful.

Also, relating to this discussion somewhat, saw John Singer Sargent's exhibit of seascapes at the Corcoran yesterday. Part of the exhibit were his tiny pencil sketches, a few sketchbooks with his notes to himself (and he had toons of those filled up). That's another thing that's missing from today's artist's training, calligraphic, no eraser used, sketches of everyday things (life observations, people, trees, seawaves, anything), rather than staged spot lit studio arrangements. That's what really trains the eye, more than Bargue, sight size or any of that stuff. I see two reasons for that, one is that we are lazy to live with a pencil (we have to go to class to do it) and second, our surroundings and isolated life (large urban cities for many of us) aren't really that interesting to observe with our pencil.

[hummel1dane]

I agree to the first part of your post.

But as for the second, I studied at a school where they taught in the strict russian renaissance tradition of Boris Kazakov(no eraser in model studies, except when used in the manner of a white pencil) -
This was mixed with a free spirit of going sketching in the afternoons at the market or having shorter model poses, such as 30sec - 2min. (there were people at the school sketching in all kinds of crazy ways, because many of them were done with classical drawing and had started on the animation program)

As for sketches we often used non erasable pen. We had many different teachers in sketching, one who instructed us in seeing the story in the faces and expressions of people(to imagine what they were thinking). That was very inspirational.
I think there can be very interesting places even in a city - just think of the multitude of sketches by Leonardo, capturing city life at the marketplace.

But our russian teacher hated sketches and short poses. In russia, the shortest poses he ever did was 15min!

The school I stayed at unfortunately does not teach painting - they only have their half year drawing class, that can be repeated indefinitely(they teach individualy).

I can give you the link if you havent checked it out already -
http://www.animwork.dk/Default.asp?ID=655

Ill recommend that school to all people in the world! At least just for a half year, to get good renaissance draftman skills.

[andres333]

Realism vs Construction

Yes I've read the entire thread as far, and got my own conclusions, first I agree with some of the words that Mentler posted in another thread

"Two basic approaches

Drawing the figure from imagination

Drawing the figure from life

Most master draughtsmen use a combination of both <> it is just a matter of where one puts the most emphasis.

Anthony Ryder draws mostly from life

Harry Carmean relies a great deal on imagination

both work from models but see them totally different

It alls has a lot to do with seeing shapes or seeing forms"

and I also have to add, that this two ways of approaching correspond to the two sides of the brain, the left side of the brain "the logical" is related with construction, and the right side of the brain "the spacial" is related with realism, well maybe I wouldn't call them that way, i think it would be better if they would be called just "sculptural" and "optical", but it's ok, we all get the sense.

I like to believe that both of these approaches complement each other, and that's the way I try to work.

Beyond the fact that anyone agrees or disagrees with what I say, I firmly think that EVERY CA.ORG MEMBER OR ARTIST SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THIS THREAD because it may be helpful to realize which approach you like the most, and that will definitively determine your path as an artist, and in life.

[hummel1dane]

Ah yes, the brain.

I like Robert Beverly Hales talk about the subconscious as being more greatful and expressive. So the idea to let all the technical information become part of the subconscious is very beautiful.
Eventually we forget all that we have learned. Then we are free.

Or in the words of a martial artist.
"Before I started studying a punch was a punch, a kick was a kick
Then suddenly, a punch ment 100 different things, and a kick the same.
Now again, after attaining mastery, a punch is a punch, and a kick is a kick."

Or in this quote

"For a beginner there are many options, for a master there are few."

Thans for that artist btw
Harry Carmean

I think we should make a list of all contemporary high level classical trained artists both mannerists and more realistical minded. It could be interesting. Maybe even sort them into the schools where they have studied.

At Angel school we learn to see abstract shapes, and develop the minds ability to copy fast and precise. This is not the study of proportion in the classical sense. This is learning to see proportional relations in life.
we also learn to pick out the subtlety of value.

I will try and make a list of all the persons of skill who have studied here...

[hummel1dane]

Just found a step by step guide of "how we do charcoal figure drawing at Angels" by Dorian, its pretty old though, he is way better now!


http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=95605&page=2

[hummel1dane]

Just found a step by step guide of "how we do charcoal figure drawing at Angels" by Dorian, its pretty old though, he is way better now!


http://conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=95605&page=2

[andres333]

the step by step guide is looking pretty good .........but you really need to post it TWICE?

[lena murray]

Here are a few of the demos done by an anatomy professor Kurkov at the Repin Academy. As you can see, they are done as small demonstrations on the side of the students' drawings. This is how they teach. They go from person to person, drawing this little structural diagram for you, so all you do is look at the model, the diagram and draw...easily said, not so easily done. But I find Kurkov's drawings. Have over 100 of those, but big files, as usual, need to resize. May be able to post them later.

[Hyskoa]

Can't we like.. abduct one of these teachers and bring them over to Belgium?
I'm sure Jonas won't mind either.

[lena murray]

To Hyskoa: Sorry, but I don't think it's within my control. Also, I think these teachers are pretty happy there, and also, you don't get this kind of training by having one or two good teachers, it's the whole process and the academy's resources that can help tremendously. I experienced it first hand, my progress of being there for just 9 months was so much faster than taking classes here and there in the States for 5 or so years before, even from very good teachers, many as good as Professor Kurkov.

That's why I am such an avid promoter of the Repin Academy, even though I have my own school in New York with a similar direction. It's really hard to reinvent the bicycle.

Having said this, I think they might be interested in coming to teach a short workshop here and there from time to time. The issue is money. I've been thinking about bringing someone to New York, but just the airfare and living expenses makes it impossible. I have a friend in Paris who also has been thinking in that direction, so may be she makes something happen. I will let you guys know, since you are not too far.

[lena murray]

By the way, can anyone recommend a simple free program for resizing images in batches? A free one is preferable. I tried picasa, it's too complicated.

[Hyskoa]

Google: "Free batch image resizing" gave me this
http://www.fotosizer.com/

[lena murray]

Thanx, Hyscoa. I tried that program, but you can't save the recized images on your computer, at least I couldn't do it.

[lena murray]

I finally figurered out the batch recizer, so here are some more photos by this professor.

[hummel1dane]

These are very good, well constructed, but they are not brought to a high degree of finish. Do you know how long are the duration of the poses?
Do you have some of longer duration, lets say between 10-30 hours or so?

What are the longest poses kept, and what are the shortest?
Do you work with direct studio/daylight, or do you construct the light from imagination?

[lena murray]

Perhaps you did not read my first post with these drawings. These are not at all finished drawings. These are thumbnail sketches (basically diagrams), very small, drawn by the teacher on the side of a student's drawing to explain how to draw a specific piece of anatomy. They are probably 6-7 inches and done in 10 minutes.

During the class, the teacher does dozens of them for each student from each student's vantage point.

The poses may be very long, like 60 hours (three weeks, 2 hours a day, 5 days a week), but these again are not done by the students, but by the teacher as short demonstrations.

As far as lighting, they usually use directional light that could be both natural and electric, but they don't use harsh spotlights.

[hummel1dane]

Ah ok thanks. Just wondering if you have any finished drawings from the academy.
The thing is, I still doubt they are as good as they used to be.

I always wonder about the use of directional light. I understand that basic draftmanskills doesnt involve direct light. Building the planes and you can choose a light direction from imagination - is this school of renaissance drawing not being taught at the academy?

[lena murray]

Now that I've figured out how to use a recizing program I can actually post some student drawings from the Repin Academy. Yes, they are not as good as they were 50 years ago, no doubt. The older teachers who studied back in the 50s draw amazingly well, and some young ones too. You see some of these drawings in the chinese book that was mentioned in one of the posts on this thread.

As far as directional lighting. They are not as slavish to it as you would think, and many studios have just even light from the skylights which they use a lot. One thing is that they never use spotlights for painting, because it kills the color nuances. Since in the fall and winter there is almost never any sun in Petersburg, you get this very even northlike light almost all the time, so the paintings have a silvery tone to them, lots of cools. I actually love working in that light myself.

[Art_Addict]

Those drawings you posted look very good. Some of the better structural analysis I've seen. Very good grasp of the working's of the body.

I always wonder about the use of directional light. I understand that basic draftmanskills doesnt involve direct light. Building the planes and you can choose a light direction from imagination - is this school of renaissance drawing not being taught at the academy?

Could you clarify what you mean by that Hummeldane? Do you wonder about it's use for understanding form?

[hummel1dane]

Could you clarify what you mean by that Hummeldane? Do you wonder about it's use for understanding form?

Sure I can clarify

The original renaissance schools of drawing taught you to construct the figure and the lightsource from imagination - such as it is taught today by Vilppu and Mentler. (using 3d basics)
In russia I know that they had such a tradition, as it was taught by Boris Kazakov(skt petersburg) to the head instructor, of the drawing academy in Viborg, as well as some of the other teaches.

The russian system is more complete than its american version when it comes to tones and construction - because they use long poses and still constructs the light and shade from imagination.
I know that Vilppu changes to a light source if doing a semi long pose, to study the light. (and I think his longest pose is 3 hours!!)
Even at Ashland(which is a russian school) they seem to be using the fixed lightsource a lot, which goes against good renaissance spirit! (but they call themselves a realist school so it is probably ok!)

The system of not using a fixed light source even in longer poses, such as 15 hour poses is the closest one gets to a true renaissance system. The ideal in this system is Michelangelo - and you are also taught to copy his drawings.

The thing is, if you cannot copy the light, you HAVE to build the body inside out, often standing with a bone in your hand and an anatomy book by your side - and you NEED to get the feel of working in 3 dimensions. Often walking in circels around the model, or if an inanimate object you would even touch and feel the form.

Besides this, when being forced to do the light and shade using your imagination, you really learn what makes something 3 dimensional, what works and what does not.
Thus the model becomes a reference, and you can change the pose as much as you would like.

And I think for many years, cast shadows are avoided entirely, concentrating only on form(not even sure if Boris ever taught cast shadows)

More questions?

[Mydrako]

Gorgeous drawings !! I am going to save them to study it !. Thanks alot Lena.

I believe this is the basic difference between the realism and construction method. One depend more on observation while the other based on logical building of the structure. I dont think there is any superior method but what works for what time and situation and I feel we should study both method and practice them diligently because they strengthen different aspect of our skillset.

The optical method of cos depend more on observation of the true lighting and in many cases, artist use models, light them up in the way they want, and paint by observing. This method allow artists to see more nuances that is just impossible for people to imagine. ( maybe except Michelangelo lolz) Of cos, while using the optical method, one can always use ur construction knowledge to modify ur drawing in cases when the lighting destroy form. I find the writing by Robert Hale explain it very well in his drawing lesson book.

The construction method has the advantage of allowing artist to create picture of poses impossible for model to assume and for many artists now who deal with fantasy art, alot of poses are out of the world and have to be thought out. Of cos lighting is arbitary and have to be imagined. Hence, this method would be much preferred in this situation but this method is so much tougher and unless you have decades of experience under your belt, this method might lead to weak painting. So many artists use reference images, reference model poses in similar poses to help.

In my opinion, we should both embraced both methods and use whatever suit the need. Under the pressure of a deadline, if you can find a model and light it as you want, by all mean, just use the actual lighting. There isnt a method to good art, there is just good art :)

[lena murray]

I will post more later from this batch of Professor Kurkov's drawings. I actually took a few with me to a class tonight, they were extremely helpful.

About Professor Kazakov. He actually died a few years ago. He was a major professor at the Mukhina Academy (a rival to Repin). Mukhina is also a pretty old academy which was founded by Baron Shtieglits, but later than the Repin Academy which is 350 years old. In any case. The Shtieglits was founded as a trades school for architecture, monumental sculpture, stained glass, decorative metalwork, fabric design and etc. Therefore, their artwork is more stylized and less naturalistic, since different needs. I personally studied privately with professor Zaitsev from Mukhina. Zaitsev also tought more structural approach withouth much consideration of the light source. But having himself graduated from the Repin Academy years ago (he is in his 70s now), he still belives in a more organic approach as opposed to the more rototic looking drawings. I don't want to get into a long discussion about this long-time competitiveness and hostility between the two academies, but I can say one thing. For some reason, Mukhina hires mostly Repin graduates to teach their drawing classes, so make your own conclusions. The reason being is Repin students in general draw and paint better because its a stricly fine arts school and they spend 6 years doing just that. In Mukhnina while they still draw and paint for 6 years, they also learn professional skills. These days, it is virtually impossible to get into Mukhina for the so-called budget spaces (for free) because of the competition. But, many students who aren't so good, do get in there on a paid basis, hence their level is really bad now compared to what it used to be during the Soviet times when it was completely free. On the other hand the Repin Academy is still completely free to the Russian citizens. I know this is somewhat irrelevant to this discussion, but since there was a personal connection here, I just thought this might be interesting to Hummel1dane.

[lena murray]

as promised, more pictures. You can actually see that these demonstrations are done right next to the students' work on the same piece of paper.

[hummel1dane]

Thank you so much must for the answer. I think Boris himself was a graduate from the repin as well? Sad to hear that he passed away.
Anyways, for those who are interested in the renaissance stuff, it is taught strictly in Viborg Denmark at a fairly high level. But no painting!!! I think Artem Alexev(the main instructor at Viborg) studied with Boris for like 4-5 years.

- Mydrako,

Yep we need both, if we can find the time ;-)

[lena murray]

I've promised to post those for a while, so here we go.

I will be posting these in batches.

[lena murray]

these drawings/paintings are hanging high at an angle therefore distortions in photos, like the lower parts of the bodies sometimes look very short due to photographic distortions.

[hummel1dane]

DAMN!!! That looks great! Thank you so much, if you have more, please post! :D

[lena murray]

portraits are by first year students

[lena murray]

as you can see they have grades on them, mostly 4, which is an equivalent of a B in America, the highest grade is 5 (A). The bust type portraits are only done during the first year, later they get into more like a torso portrait and full figure, progressing into two figure setups for the 4 and 5th years. As you can see the photos are out of focus, but you can still make a judgement.

[Mydrako]

Lovely work!!... for me, i am most attracted to the grayscale charcoal drawings. They are really stunning in both the feeling they evoke and the structure and form the figures have.

I notice that they like to paint the figures among background columns or statues, and they also like to have squarish cloth of quite bright colors hung at the wall behind. Do they serve as compositional devices, or it is just some tradition they have.

[lena murray]

I do like these drawings too, they are not charcoal, but sanguine and souce, somewhat a special technique that is popular at the academy. The red and black and black and white drawings (note these are not paintings) are done in the same technique by the students of the monumental studio (not easel painting students), that's why they use all these decorative props like columns, sculptures, draperies etc. They are trained to be decorative painters (murals, stained glass, tapestry design and etc.). They are tought to paint large scale paintings that are meant to be viewed from unusual angles. This is not easel painting, therefore, there is a certain flattening of the images, playing with perspectives, stylizing the anatomy and etc. They don't paint exactly what they see. I don't have too many pictures from the easel studios, except for these portraits that you see here, but they are totally different.

[hummel1dane]

Sorry to take your minds off those amazing paintings from the Repin.

Ive been philosophizing a bit about the term "realism"

So far this thread has dealt primarily with sculptural vs visual understanding of drawing/painting.
The name of the thread, realism vs construction, is a bit misleading in itself.
For some, sculptural drawing would appear more "real" as it deals with absolute form in 3d space,
rather than just light/shade.

However, there is one more thing that should be considered when debating about "real"


GESTURE


--

I would say that the study of gesture is exactly the study of what "real" is - what LIFE is! Take a look at all the stuff produced at the ateliers today - Does it look "real"?

Take a walk in the street and observe people - talking, walking, arguing,
driving, eating, - THATS REAL! THATS LIFE!

--

I guess part of the problem arises when you want visual accuracy, - it naturally takes a long time, and so the model will stiffen.
The face will turn zombie.

Of course academical gesture systems has been invented to prevent too much stiffness, but this is futile - the whole idea of setting up a pose
is artificial in itself. And so the result will look artificial.

In portratiure only a true master would be able to actually design a suited expression of that particular individual.
and this would also require prior observation of that individual - either fast sketches or a good visual memory. Add to that understanding
of structure, underlying anatomy, even psychology.

--

Another more philosofical point is the fact that life is in movement. Constantly. So to say that something that appears still is "real"
can be negated. For that reason, the study of dynamic composition could also improve the feel of "real". Control the "pace" of the painting.
Control the movement of the figures. The direction.

It is actually in the composition that youd find the biggest difference between Graydon and the russian dude. (a few posts ago)

--

Gesture and composition is lacking today. So called "classical realism" or "contemporary realism" is shallow. NOT real!

--

So all things considered, I'd strongly argue against the whole idea of "realism"

--

But what about you, any thoughts?