Ingres and Delacroix

[Xeon_OND]

Ok, some questions which I've accumulated over the past few weeks. :)

1) Pls click on below image to see the pictures and the text. It's a scanned page from Deborah Rockman's book "Drawing Essentials":
http://www.oneniceday.com/Artwork/DE1.jpg (http://www.oneniceday.com/Artwork/DE1.jpg)

She talks about using the clock face to sight angles.
I'm currently trying this out but it seems to be error-prone, due to the fact that you need to i) estimate the clock's hands on the subject accurately first, and then ii) estimate the clock's hands on the paper again.
I'm curious to know if anyone here uses this method and how it work for you.

2) Below is another excerpt from Drawing Essentials:
http://www.oneniceday.com/Artwork/DE2.jpg (http://www.oneniceday.com/Artwork/DE2.jpg)

She talks about the "classical line" used by Ingres, and 7although the line lacks significant variation in value or weight, it can convey a strong sense of volume and dimension. How is this possible?

Below is Ingre's drawing....there's different line weight and quality involved, so I'm not sure if she's refering to drawings like this:
http://www.oneniceday.com/Artwork/DE3.jpg (http://www.oneniceday.com/Artwork/DE3.jpg)

3) Below is a scanned page from Bert Dodson's "Keys to Drawing". It talks about Delacroix's drawing style:
http://www.oneniceday.com/Artwork/DE4.jpg (http://www.oneniceday.com/Artwork/DE4.jpg)

I've been wondering since last year how Delacroix drew that lion, since the book says he has a "demoniacal capacity to make the picture surface vibrate". The only way to achieve that is to draw very furiously and fast, because the lines on the lion are strong, harsh and fierece.
So, I made a video showing this. Download it here (http://www.oneniceday.com/Artwork/Delacroix.wmv) (only 344 KB).
So, umm....is that how Delacroix drew?

4) I'm getting this book (http://www.amazon.com/Drawings-Ingres-Draughtsman-Stephen-Longstreet/dp/0875051669/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268714910&sr=8-3) , and will do master copies from it. What I'm curious to know is....are mastercopies a substitute to drawing from life? I've read in some threads that doing mastercopies will improve accuracy, but I don't see how that's the case, especially when I'm drawing from a 2D subject (the mastercopy) onto a 2D subject, and my drawing from life accuracy will still suck.

Thanks!
Xeon :)

[Diarum]

LOL that was really funny, and I was not expecting that. I looks like it, maybe not such big strokes, then again I don't know how big the original. that other stuff I have no idea, I find reading art books kinda boring (all books) for some reason. I think it's because I don't have the physical book to read from. Happy Trails

[JeffX99]

Xeon - you make me proud! Yeah, don't sweat the little stuff that doesn't work for you - like the clock face idea - I don't use it but it does make some sense - pretty minor thing though.

Ingres linework in the example is pretty consistent, fluid and unbroken - which tends to convey form and volume better while Delacroix's dynamic, energetic linework conveys action and movement - but look how you don't get a sense of the lion's form - just it's attitude - in Ingres you don't get a sense of action (partly because it is a quiet pose) but you have a strong sense of those figures being solid. There is definitely line variation and an elegance to Ingres line but it is not nearly as varied as Delacroix's.

As far as master's copies...I haven't done enough to have much opinion - the few I have done have taught me interesting things I wouldn't have come to realize in another way - but I don't think they are any substitute to working from life (I have one in my SB thread I think - plus a bunch of Loomis and a Parkes). Of course this wouldn't be true if you were drawing from a statue in life. There are different reasons of course for master copies - if you want to understand Titian's color for example - or Caravaggio's dramatic light - but then the trick is actually getting in front of one and being allowed to make the copy. Drawing is a bit different of course because it is not as distorted by printing or being a .jpg on the internet.

Anyway, good job posting the questions - I hope you're getting a lot out of that book!

[QueenGwenevere]

are mastercopies a substitute to drawing from life?

No. As you've already suspected, it's the old business of copying a ready-made 2D image versus translating a real scene into a 2D image on your own, it's a very different process and you learn different things. You use your brain a lot more drawing from life than copying a master drawing. (Especially since in the master drawing, someone has already figured out the strokes and shading and everything for you, so you're not learning how to figure these things out on your own when working from a master drawing...)

Not that master copies don't have their uses... They can be a helpful way to learn different techniques and experiment with different drawing styles, because it forces you to really examine how other artists drew and painted. They did help me a little when I was first learning, but mostly I'd say they helped with picking up technique and style, not so much with observation or learning the figure or anything basic like that. I'd guess master copies are best used as part of a balanced diet that includes a lot of drawing from life and a fair amount of drawing from imagination... ;)

As for some of the other stuff... nope, haven't heard of the clock technique. Then again, I don't have much patience with techniques that involve calculating lines and angles all over the place, they never really did much for me... (unless I'm doing a perspective drawing, but that's a whole different ball game.) Dunno, I'd say if you try it and it doesn't do much for you, you could probably skip it.

I don't know exactly how Delacroix drew, of course, but I've seen plenty of his drawings up close, and they certainly give the impression of having been drawn loosely, at least... and probably pretty quickly, but not necessarily THAT fast. The key is being loose and confident and not fussing over the lines, I think, not so much being super-fast.

[JJacks]

You can learn a great deal from master copies like how to be economical with your lines and colors and different ways to go about representing something. It's not a substitute for life drawing nor is it meant to be. It's great practice and if it's all you have access to, then go for it. It certainly won't hurt you.

In the Ingres drawings, there is line variation, but the lines are not greatly different from each other. Some lines are lighter than others to signify where light would hit the figure but other than that, they are pretty similar. I think that's what the author meant in the passage.

I have no idea how Delacroix drew so I can't give specific advice about that. Just sketch whatever way feels natural to you. Seriously everyone sketches differently. There are sort of universal tips to keep in mind, like keeping your lines long and fluid so they look confident and not like a scratchy mess. You can see both artists actually put this into practice despite their different styles.

About the clock thing, if you feel like it's too much of a hassle that doesn't help, then don't use it. You can easily just use your pencil, turn it on the side and catch the angle that way.

[arttorney]

Here's the thing that caught my attention from the Journal of Eugene Delacroix about the philosophical ideas he had about drawing: "To be successful in the arts is not a matter of summarizing but of amplifying where it is possible, and of prolonging the sensation by every means." I gathered there was not a lot of love lost on his end concerning Ingres. I got the impression Delacroix thought Ingres had a major stick up his butt.

On the other side of the coin, I gather there was a lot of condemnation of Delacroix from the establishment in his time when certain of his paintings were shown. To me it sounded very similar to the knocks on the impressionists and expressionists when they showed up (i.e. "WTF? THAT'S not painting!!! Who let that guy in here?")

I think you might be looking at the boundary of whether your approach to art concerns your technical rendering of things outside of you, or your expressive rendering of things inside of you. Which direction do you feel more kinship with?

[Kamber Parrk]

Re Delacroix Lion: Looks like pure Nicolaides style gesture to me. (Except it looks like he started some tighter work on the face after he basically gesture doodled the overall masses of the lion).

It's one way of "massing" or doing "lay out."

I'm guessing he picked up his pencil to gesture doodle each "component" of the lion-- for example, the back right (continuous) haunch leg and foot gesture.

It's perhaps a bit neater than what Nicolaides teaches in The Natural Way To Draw.

[Xeon_OND]

Thanks for the detailed replies, guys and girls! :)

I think you might be looking at the boundary of whether your approach to art concerns your technical rendering of things outside of you, or your expressive rendering of things inside of you. Which direction do you feel more kinship with?
If possible, I would like to have a balance of both.
If I'm forced to make a choice, then I would choose the one that concerns my technical (accurate) of things outside of me. ;)

I'm guessing he picked up his pencil to gesture doodle each "component" of the lion-- for example, the back right (continuous) haunch leg and foot gesture.
It's perhaps a bit neater than what Nicolaides teaches in The Natural Way To Draw.
LOL, this is the 1st time I see anyone compare Delacroix's drawings to Nicolaides, but you may be right. Both seem to be using gestural-like lines to build up form and volume (mass drawing), although Delacroix's one seems to be a lot more un-restrained.

[arenhaus]

Sighting for angles is a good idea. The "clock" memorization seems artificial and silly to me, though. What's wrong with sighting with the pencil or even without? But checking the angles is a great method of sighting. Try it, you'll see for yourself.

The "classic" line does have variability, so I am not sure why she claims it does not. The way I do it, I vary the darkness of the line with repeated strokes, so it gets both more fluid and darker. You can suggest volume and shadow with line weight this way, although that's more useful for line drawing than for sketching. (In sketching, it helps to enhance the good line to make it stand out between the less successful attempts.)

With Delacroix's lion sketch it is important to understand that his furious line is not, in itself, an image. The text is justified in talking about the artist's "handwriting", because the line here records the artist's understanding of the form, not a visual image. It traces a mental model. Delacroix would have been able to read much more in that sketch than we can, because it matches his particular motor habits - just like people can read their own handwriting more easily than someone else's. He jotted down a pose of the lion in "shorthand", rather than recording it precisely. The face he must have needed in more detail, or perhaps he had felt that shorthand was inadequate for what he wanted to put down. (In any case, this method of sketching is now called "gesture drawing".)

Master copies are not substitute to drawing from life. They are used to study technical things, or someone's understanding of the subject. By figuring out why the artist made particular marks or how he simplified or analyzed the form, you can build your own bag of tricks. But you need to study the nature too, or you'll risk ending up a bad clone. The goal is practicing your own understanding. (Needless to say, it works best when you can see the actual pencil marks or brushwork - meaning that you need to study the originals. Go to a museum, reproductions are next to useless for master copies.)

[Xeon_OND]

Sighting for angles is a good idea. The "clock" memorization seems artificial and silly to me, though. What's wrong with sighting with the pencil or even without? But checking the angles is a great method of sighting. Try it, you'll see for yourself.
LOL, I've always been using the method of holding the pencil to align the angle on the subject (and closing one eye). However, for some reason, this clock method has stuck onto me and I find myself unconsciously using it more and more. LOL :D
If this clock method can be perfected, then it offers super reliable and accurate recording of angles. :)

The "classic" line does have variability, so I am not sure why she claims it does not. The way I do it, I vary the darkness of the line with repeated strokes, so it gets both more fluid and darker.
Maybe she's refering to the fact that the classical line has the same weight and thickness throughout (although there's some variation in darkness / light). Or it could be that some of Ingres's drawings uses line variation in his classical lines. I haven't seen enough of his drawings, though.

With Delacroix's lion sketch it is important to understand that his furious line is not, in itself, an image. The text is justified in talking about the artist's "handwriting", because the line here records the artist's understanding of the form, not a visual image. It traces a mental model. Delacroix would have been able to read much more in that sketch than we can, because it matches his particular motor habits - just like people can read their own handwriting more easily than someone else's. He jotted down a pose of the lion in "shorthand", rather than recording it precisely. The face he must have needed in more detail, or perhaps he had felt that shorthand was inadequate for what he wanted to put down. (In any case, this method of sketching is now called "gesture drawing".)
And because of that, I really find Delacroix's style to be the sexiest of all the artists I've read or heard of so far. :D

(Needless to say, it works best when you can see the actual pencil marks or brushwork - meaning that you need to study the originals. Go to a museum, reproductions are next to useless for master copies.)
Never knew that before.....ok, I'll find a way around that.
The last resort is to get a high-res reproduction, which is better than a 5" by 5" image in a book. :)

Thanks and good day!
Xeon

[arenhaus]

Maybe I just don't understand why you need to record angles. You can record them by aligning the pencil and making marks on paper just fine, why insert the clock in what is already a streamlined process? :)

You don't even need to close one eye. It's easy to learn sighting with both eyes open. You don't really need the pencil either, with enough practice you can see the angle and reproduce it on paper without stopping.


As for Delacroix, his drawings are certainly some of the most energetic there are. :)

[Xeon_OND]

Maybe I just don't understand why you need to record angles. You can record them by aligning the pencil and making marks on paper just fine, why insert the clock in what is already a streamlined process? :)
I was thinking, using the hands of the clock as a guide, I can reliable just look at the edge / angle and in my mind, think "5.30 pm", then I draw the line corresponding to 5.30 on my paper, and reduce the amt of times I use sighting. :D

You don't even need to close one eye. It's easy to learn sighting with both eyes open.
Maybe your eyes are special! :)
I dunno, but I've tried sighting without closing 1 eye and I see "2 images" on both sides of the pencil (due to binocular vision of the human eyes), and it's so confusing that I can't make out what I'm sighting. It's not so bad for very near objects, but for far / distant objects, it gets really bad. To each his own. :D

You don't really need the pencil either, with enough practice you can see the angle and reproduce it on paper without stopping.
Yeah, I really hope to attain that level soon. Everytime I see those pros just drawing so fast and seamlessly without stopping and I keep thinking they're all Renaissance masters in disguise. :nohope:

[armando]

All drawing has gesture. All art has gesture. Gesture is not movement like in physics, and it sure as fuck isn't "flow"(Villpu).

When someone draws very powerfully we say they draw with spirit. When someone sings very powerfully we say they have heart and soul. "Spirit", "Heart", "Soul", anima... animism. I think this is the primary meaning of gesture. edit: I don't mean animism literally like there being a nonphysical entity within the art object, I'm just talking about affects.
Both Ingres's and Delacroix's drawings have spirit. In one the ideal and rational human beings, in the other the wild free energy in the lion. The drawings pretty much summarize their ideologies. Ingres isn't using the "classical line", he's drawing how he draws. Only third-rate artists use "classical lines" or "Reilly lines" etc.

A masterpiece can have more power than the actual thing in real life. I ignore people on the street everyday even though you could say that they are perfectly drawn, you know... you can't get any realer than real life. Yet with a masterpiece I'm compelled to look. I have no choice. Isn't it strange that a picture can have more soul, and be more real than a person on the street?

[Xeon_OND]

A masterpiece can have more power than the actual thing in real life. I ignore people on the street everyday even though you could say that they are perfectly drawn, you know... you can't get any realer than real life. Yet with a masterpiece I'm compelled to look. I have no choice. Isn't it strange that a picture can have more soul, and be more real than a person on the street?
LOL, in some ways, yes.....some paintings have more soul and expression than the actual subject itself and it makes you think deep when looking at it, something you otherwise won't do in every day life. For this reason, I've started to think photography, even the most well-done shots, is mechanical and cold ever since I picked up art.

[Sascha Thau]

I've started to think photography, even the most well-done shots, is mechanical and cold ever since I picked up art.

Weeelll, I'd say photography is art too and photographers can make this magic happen, too. Just pushing the button of the shutter doesn't make you a photographer. And I think the most well done shots transport more meaning than what there is to see. Just my opinion though.