Join 500,000+ Artists
Its' free and it takes less than 10 seconds!
Thought i'd get the general feeling out there for the Reilly method and his basic figure abstraction as a start point etc. I can see that his teachings have permeated through many educational establishments in the States with it still being seemingly taught at Watts and Laafa.
The books by Jack Fargasso and Doug Higgins are great tomes capturing the fundamentals of the method but it does seem to have many limitations inherent. The basic method of figure construction can be effectively applied to front, profile and three quarter views but what of twisting high and low vantage three quarter poses.
If youve been taught this system how does it influence your way of working, how have you adapted it? Would love to hear the thoughts of all you guys whove had real experience with the system. Passages on gesture and structure lines are some of the most succinct and valuable bits of drawing information ever recorded when tackling the figure. Mr Reilly must have been a great teacher indeed.
"There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.”
"When it takes forever to learn the rules, no time is left for breaking them"
As a Watts student I use the Reilly abstraction as a tool like any other. I rarely use it in profile poses, and never take it as far as Jack Faragasso teaches in his book. Really it is just something to help you learn to see and feel the figure, and once you learn to do that the abstractions themselves become less important. You still use them but you do not rely upon them.
Definately Watts is a school that is heavily grounded in the Reilly method but it is approached from a fairly laidback standpoint. Vilppus book is often recommended for thinking more three dimensionaly about the figure and we often use tonal approaches as well.
I like to think that it is all in proper balance. But the Reilly method is easily one of the best places to start for a certainty.