Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fallingwater
    Posts
    5,081
    Thanks
    1,529
    Thanked 5,191 Times in 1,728 Posts
    There is a philosophy of seeing that is important to grapple with as you learn. And that is that every single jot you put down, every single color, every single line direction, every single shape, every single value, every single mass.... is in some relation to all the other jots, colors, directions, shapes, values, masses... etc.

    What learning to see consists of, then, is learning to see things in their proper gestalt relations; that is, in their proper graphic relations to other elements. Over time what happens is that this necessary philosophy/understanding backs you away from the minute marks you make, the one line, the one color, the one value, and forces you to consider all things from a much broader perspective... from the compositional level.

    So learning to see is really about broadening your perspective, step by step.

    The first step is integrating the facts of anatomy and substance, the details, muscles, fur, bark, break patterns, etc, into the larger gestures of the silhouette of the object being drawn without compromising the silhouette shape or the unity of the mass.

    In my opinion.
    At least Icarus tried!


    My Process: Dead Rider Graphic Novel (Dark Horse Comics) plus oil paintings, pencils and other goodies:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...d.php?t=101106

    My "Smilechild" Music. Plus a medley of Commercial Music Cues and a Folksy Jingle!:
    http://www.myspace.com/kevferrara


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kev ferrara For This Useful Post:


  4. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    2,337
    Thanks
    1,074
    Thanked 2,206 Times in 1,056 Posts
    Pff, I did the exercises in the Betty Edwards book when I was nine or ten, they helped me get into learning to observe, they didn't cause permanent brain damage and I didn't have to unlearn them in order to move on to other things.

    Sure, the book has a lot of pseudo-scientific fluff in it, but the Betty Edwards exercises can be useful to certain people at certain stages of learning to draw. Especially if you're a total beginner, or if you're stuck in a cartoon or anime style. If you find the exercises useful, there's nothing wrong with using them.
    Last edited by QueenGwenevere; July 23rd, 2012 at 03:11 PM.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to QueenGwenevere For This Useful Post:


  6. #18
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    3,233
    Thanks
    860
    Thanked 848 Times in 457 Posts
    I think people who hate Betty Edward just don't get that they are not the target audience. I think the target audience is very very n00b but it exists.

    For example, my boyfriend used swear he had not a pinch of artistry in him and he'd never ever be able to draw but he did quite well on the upside down Picasso exercise. Not that he's an artist now, but he believes he could learn if he tried which is a big improvement.

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Qitsune For This Useful Post:


  8. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    1,221
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked 1,535 Times in 567 Posts
    Learn to draw structurally, instead. Your eye may be "seeing" patches of light and dark, but your brain is seeing the solid form in space. Learn to be aware of that form and reconstruct it on paper. Then your drawing will work.
    You are making a grand assumption that we all see and process information the same way, just as we make that assumption in our schools that forces our kids to learn everything the same way. I am not a Betty Edwards advocate, could take her or leave her, but I also disagree that seeing light and shadow as shape leads nowhere.

    Learning is about the right combination of methods that work for us personally and that takes time and trial and error.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to bcarman For This Useful Post:


  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,112
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 915 Times in 458 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by QueenGwenevere View Post
    Pff, I did the exercises in the Betty Edwards book when I was nine or ten, they helped me get into learning to observe, they didn't cause permanent brain damage and I didn't have to unlearn them in order to move on to other things.
    what happend to the distinction between futile and harmful lately? its the same as saying "beating a stick against a treestump hasnt broken my arms or anything"... yeah but it didnt help your art neither! [edit] except your art is beating sticks on treestumps...
    "Have only 4 values, but all the edges you want."
    Glen Orbik

    "To any man who has slaved to acquire skill in his art, it is most irritating to have his ability referred to as a 'gift.'"
    Andrew Loomis

  11. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    2,337
    Thanks
    1,074
    Thanked 2,206 Times in 1,056 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sone_one View Post
    what happend to the distinction between futile and harmful lately? its the same as saying "beating a stick against a treestump hasnt broken my arms or anything"... yeah but it didnt help your art neither! [edit] except your art is beating sticks on treestumps...
    Ummmmm... When did this get personal? Are you saying all my art education and art career to date has been futile? Just because I did some Betty Edwards exercises when I was ten years old? Really?

    The fact is that the Betty Edwards book did help me as a noob with getting past drawing kiddie symbols, and more importantly it got me interested in learning to draw from observation in the first place. So it was a stepping stone to going on and learning more from other sources. That in itself is a good thing.

    I'm not saying it's going to be useful for everyone in all situations (not by a long shot,) but if it helps some people get started, what's wrong with that? ANYTHING that helps people get started is a good thing.

  12. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    2,734
    Thanks
    2,961
    Thanked 1,828 Times in 945 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by QueenGwenevere View Post
    Ummmmm... When did this get personal? Are you saying all my art education and art career to date has been futile? Just because I did some Betty Edwards exercises when I was ten years old? Really?

    The fact is that the Betty Edwards book did help me as a noob with getting past drawing kiddie symbols, and more importantly it got me interested in learning to draw from observation in the first place. So it was a stepping stone to going on and learning more from other sources. That in itself is a good thing.

    I'm not saying it's going to be useful for everyone in all situations (not by a long shot,) but if it helps some people get started, what's wrong with that? ANYTHING that helps people get started is a good thing.
    I don't think sone was trying to be personal, just stating a kind of hypothetical rhetorical conversation thing.
    (No doubt there is a proper word to describe what I mean, but I'm a savage.) I think his response
    is addressing the argument more than you personally.

  13. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    5,354
    Thanks
    3,074
    Thanked 6,423 Times in 2,684 Posts
    I'll admit I'm a Betty Edwards hater too. It may help some people but there are many books that will do a better job teaching basics. Fun With A Pencil, Lessons on Drawing, The Jack Hamm books, the Famous Artists Course. Hell, most of the Walter Foster Books are better.

  14. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,112
    Thanks
    801
    Thanked 915 Times in 458 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by QueenGwenevere View Post
    Ummmmm... When did this get personal? Are you saying all my art education and art career to date has been futile? Just because I did some Betty Edwards exercises when I was ten years old? Really?

    The fact is that the Betty Edwards book did help me as a noob with getting past drawing kiddie symbols, and more importantly it got me interested in learning to draw from observation in the first place. So it was a stepping stone to going on and learning more from other sources. That in itself is a good thing.

    I'm not saying it's going to be useful for everyone in all situations (not by a long shot,) but if it helps some people get started, what's wrong with that? ANYTHING that helps people get started is a good thing.
    well...uhm... what? whats been personal in my post?

    just saying betty edwards book is a dead-end and therefore useless imo, not like other books adding to a foundation.
    wtf has that to do with everything else you learned since then? i was nowhere attacking you just asking what me saying, that something is futile means that you get brain cancer from reading it... c'mon whats your problem?

    [edit] its the counter-argument that something didnt hurt, to someone saying its futile (used an analogy there), is ...well... kind of missing the point. thats what i ment, and not your art. you may not agree with me, and i admit some of my critiques are harsh, but i dont think i insulted someones art anywhen, strange you assume it in your case...
    Last edited by sone_one; July 23rd, 2012 at 06:05 PM.
    "Have only 4 values, but all the edges you want."
    Glen Orbik

    "To any man who has slaved to acquire skill in his art, it is most irritating to have his ability referred to as a 'gift.'"
    Andrew Loomis

  15. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    120
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 33 Times in 20 Posts
    Its because these principles on drawing are mutually exclusive. Not like they overlap or anything.
    I wasnt too keen on Edward's book either but it was mostly due to it having too much focus on the psychology of the brain and having to wade through all of it to find some useful info.
    But it did open my eyes a lot more into 'seeing' things clearly, supplementing that with 'structural' design and on the whole I've improved my arsenal of observation. It comes down to observation and 'absorbing' information from your subject, and whatever tool you can use for it, the better.

  16. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    New York, USA
    Posts
    2,337
    Thanks
    1,074
    Thanked 2,206 Times in 1,056 Posts
    My misinterpretation, then... I thought this part was referring to my art specifically for some reason. Chalk it up to awkward wording:

    Quote Originally Posted by sone_one View Post
    [edit] except your art is beating sticks on treestumps...
    And all I'm saying is that under certain circumstances reading the Betty Edwards book ISN'T necessarily futile. It depends on the person, the context, the situation. For me, I hadn't even heard of any of the other books when I was ten, and most of them wouldn't have been readily available anyway. But a well-meaning relative gave me a copy of the Betty Edwards book, which is fairly ubiquitous. While not great, it was certainly better than nothing, and it got me interested enough in observational drawing to start practicing from life and seeking out other sources of information. So I can't say it was useless or a waste of time in that context.

    And for some beginners, the better books may be too intimidating to use as a first book. I've met plenty of people who literally think they can't learn to draw because they don't have "talent", and are scared off by real art instruction books. Betty Edwards' book is actually an ideal starting book for people like that - it persuades them that hey, maybe they CAN learn to draw, and if they're enthusiastic enough, they'll go on to learn more from other sources.

    It's like this: for a total beginner, art is like a huge imposing building, and the beginner is standing outside across the street wishing they could go inside, but they think they can't because they don't have the "talent" to get in. Most art instruction books seem too intimidating to these beginners. But something like Betty Edwards gets them through the door. It doesn't get them much farther, but at least they've stepped through the door. And having taken that step, they're ready to learn.

    For that matter, I know some people who first got interested in art through watching Bob Ross, and eventually went on to art school... Are you going to learn good painting skills from Bob Ross? I doubt it. But if somebody got their very first motivation to go pick up a brush by watching Bob Ross, then watching him wasn't a total waste of time, was it?

    Same goes for any easy-cheesy beginner material. It wasn't a waste if it got you through the door.

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to QueenGwenevere For This Useful Post:


  18. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Downunder
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
    ^^ I am pretty much exactly this.

    I read Betty Edwards' book, first, which gave me enough confidence to persevere in trying to draw, then started on checking out Loomis' books on anatomy and perspective, among others.

    Unfortunately with no background or prior experience, I felt like I was understanding and retaining very little, because while they offered a great deal of knowledge, I (personally) require at least a little direction to get anywhere, or at least feel like I am getting soewhere.

    I end up flitting from subject to subject without any idea of how it all fits together and wasting my time, IME (not limited to drawing). So I seriously drew for a couple of months, then stopped for ~6 and am now giving it another shot.

    Maybe I should have waited until I had a little practice/skill/experience before coming to a pro site like CA (dunno how many bare newbies you get here, or whether it's expected that you have been drawing for a short while, at least).

    Either way, I've contacted a few tertiary schools locally and hopefully should be able to find something there, since the whole "self-directed" thing leaves me a bit lost unless I'm at a certain point already.

  19. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 25 Times in 6 Posts
    I'm not a Betty Edwards hater, I read the book and it helped me understand the very basics such as the perception of edges, angles, proportions, etc. It's a good start.
    But I have a major in Neruoscience and a Master's degree in Biomedical Sciences, and let me tell you that the neuroscience in Betty's book is absolute garbage.

    I studied Roger Sperry Experiments (the "split brain" experiment) in Psych 101, and Betty completely misunderstood the sense of the experiment. Sperry simply proved that the production of the language is located in the left hemisphere (the Broca's area in the frontal lobe), and people with split brains can't name object that they see on the left visual field (everything you see on the left visual field "goes" to the right hemisphere area that deals with images). The split brain experiment demonstrated that the right hemisphere can't produce language. That's it. It never showed that the left hemisphere doesn't have the ability to draw.

    Drawing is a really complicated process that goes on in every part of the brain:
    First the visual cortex in the occipital lobe (the back of your brain) receives the images the eyes see (or it imagines things to draw).
    Second, some "associative areas" of the brain receive the information processed by the visual cortex, and join them with other information (see below*); the associative areas are scattered ALL OVER the brain, not just in the right hemisphere;
    Third, the motor cortex corresponding to your dominant hand receives the information from the associative areas and moves your arm and hand in order to move the pencil (if you are right handed, the Left hemisphere moves it).
    *What goes on on the associative areas: While your hand is moving your eyes constantly look at the subject and your drawing and send feedback information to adjust the motion (simply put, the eyes see if your drawing the line the right way and send information to adjust the motion accordingly); also the cerebellum is deeply involved in the action of creating the motion, contributing to the awareness of your body parts in space. More over, while you draw, you usually think about images, you talk to yourself, so the frontal lobe (which is where the 99% of the "thinking" happens) is deeply involved, and if you aren't just thinking about images, but you actually speak to yourself in your head, then the language area is in the left hemisphere is involved. All these parallel activities (the feedback from your eyes, and the "thinking") send information to your associative areas , where all the data are merged and sent to the motor area that modifies the motion of your hand accordingly.

    So, as you can see, the act of drawing is much more complex than saying "the right brain draws and we have to shut down the left brain".. this is simply not true.
    Please guys, let's stick to art, to painting and drawing, and leave the neuroscience to other message boards.....

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to boraz For This Useful Post:


  21. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    44
    Thanked 65 Times in 48 Posts
    Nice bit of Betty-bashing going on here.

    From one noob to another: Yes, seeing comes from practicing.

    I can only speak from my own (limited) experience, but as a you are drawing you will make mistakes and you will stop and ask yourself "why is this not working? why does this not look professional?". You will compare your drawings to the drawings in Loomis's or Bridgeman's or whatever artist you want and try to spot the differences. You might have to do this once, you might have to do it a hundred times, but eventually you will spot something that you consistently keep doing wrong. So you try to correct what you spotted. But still, your drawing doesn't look professional, so you compare again and spot something new. After a while you will notice all kinds of very subtle details that you figured didn't matter, but they do.

    For a great part drawing is more about learning to see your own mistakes than it is about seeing the object. Your mistakes will show you what you think you see vs what is actually there.

    As far as seeing shapes in your head, I suppose that will come. At least simple shapes. I have no problem imagining simple objects (ball, square, wegde, pyramid, ...) and rotating them in my mind, but a full face in all its detail? No way. That's what thumbnails are for. Many small quick drawings to help your mind visualize what it is you want to draw.

    My suggestion: Pick a topic of study (anatomy, portraits, landscapes, perspective, ...), get some books on the topic and go them through cover to cover. Done those? Get some more books or go the old ones through again? Still no pro in that specific field? More books. I suggest one field, because if you spread yourself over several topics you will notice very little progress and you will lose your motivation eventually. Once you are good at one thing you'll have at least one part of your drawings that looks good and you can pull the main focus to that until the rest catches up.

    Personally I very much like books like Loomis's because he has drawings that you can "copy" and you can see how he solved problems of conveying certain shapes with very simple lines and value.
    Last edited by Kweckduck; July 24th, 2012 at 05:18 AM. Reason: grammer

  22. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Torrance, CA
    Posts
    6,799
    Thanks
    2,278
    Thanked 4,263 Times in 2,075 Posts
    I'm neutral... there's things I don't like about Betty Edwards book and it's not my favorite book by far. However, it's one of the most easily accessible books out there.

    Pretty much any library has had this book on their shelves so it's much easier to recommend than other books...because of what I'm going to talk about below.

    You don't have to go with legally dubious territory with Loomis - because they're reprinting the books. We've now run into the problem that they are finally giving people what they want, and what happens - first thing out of someone's mouth most of the time is to go download them. Granted not all the books are out, but it' feels like a fight to get people to do the right thing when the "books are free".

    Yes you want to tell people with Edwards book ignore the psychobabble and do the exercises, but I haven't seen anyone damaged by Edwards book, I've seen more people encouraged to draw and look for other books or materials to study from. Just because I found better books doesn't mean it was gonna kill someone to look at Edwards book if they just started out.

  23. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Arshes Nei For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 173
    Last Post: June 15th, 2012, 04:58 PM
  2. Art: Long time no see, "discworld" and "song of fire and ice"
    By kemar in forum Finished Art
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 13th, 2012, 10:25 AM
  3. "Concept" practice, and some "coloring" help
    By Egg0 in forum Art Critique Center
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 15th, 2011, 06:58 PM
  4. SketchBook: Art_Addict :: """"""""""""" PRAHA DROP """"""""""""
    By Art_Addict in forum Sketchbooks
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: March 26th, 2010, 03:43 PM
  5. Replies: 15
    Last Post: February 20th, 2008, 03:22 PM

Members who have read this thread: 1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Developed Actively by the makers of the Best Amazon Podcast