I’m a self-taught artist. I try to get my art education through workshops and classes online. Your explanation of sight size is by far the best explanation I’ve ever heard. This was extremely helpful thank you so much!!!
Great video I think you have made a great case for why sight size is an invaluable tool. You have also highlighted that multiple measuring systems is the best way to go about creating proportions. What I also really appreciated that you made mention of how our feelings are also a great tool when working on a project and in addition I really appreciate that you gave timelines for each project in your education showing that projects take lots of time and sustained effort.
Thanks for the detailed and clear explanation, it brings together snippets of information that I've had floating around in my mind in a slightly muddled way. Re cheating, some people can stare at an object or scene to imprint it on their mind, then 'project' the image onto the canvas and trace around it - even more efficient if you can do it! And I love some of the abstract expressionists, but I can't produce work like they did because I don't have synesthesia. It's only the artwork, and that at least some people value it at a personal level, that matters in the end.
Thank you for sharing this. I completely agree with your point. It's a tool that can be used alongside other techniques. Even historically, artists have employed various methods to accurately represent scenes, from Albrecht Dürer using a grid to observe and translate a scene from a fixed point, to Mancini with his Graticola method. Sight-size is maybe taught differently but it does have similarities to the ideas of even artists from the past. It’s a useful tool. Deviating from nature I feel is upto the artist irrelevant of the method.
Very good points, agreed. Thanks for adding to the conversation. I always find it interesting to think about how it’s possible to stack all these different methods, to give ourselves the best fighting chance at the drawing
Wow, it was so good, such useful information, and this thing with phone mirror, I will try it. I didn't know you were a student of Stephan and Cornelia. Great video, and you are so good at Photoshop. You are quick! thank you
How could sight size be a cheating method? I simply just can't see how. I teach my painting students that they must train their eye to see the abstract shapes in everything. This is so important and fundamental, that I don't even explain much of perspective. I just let them know (for example) that shapes tend to be compressed the farther they move towards the vanishing point. Sight size or not, the eye must be trained either way. You're simply showing that with great skills more can be made. Thanks a LOT for sharing!!!
Thanks for this video! I'm a fan of your work, and I think you are a very competent painter and use the sight size method to good effect. If the tool or method makes sense, I think you should use it! However, I personally think you overstate the usefulness of sight-size, specifically as a learning method. I still think it has some pitfalls, personally. however, I appreciate your point of view. I don't want to write a huge long comment and go into everything, but as a former atelier student myself that studied in a school that was similarly mostly concerned with optical copying, I noticed sight size staying long past its welcome. While it does aid in comparison to draw the subject at the same size you see it, especially with still life, it is really more in the way when it comes to live subjects like the figure. Your example with butterfly-ing the standing portrait I think is a good example of where it can be a bit of wasted energy. While using the mirror that way is a neat trick, in reality I think we have to admit that the model will shift her arm ever so slightly between poses. She shifts her weight. Her sleeve doesn't rumple exactly the same way. And like you mentioned, the artist will have to take care not to move, themselves, or their comparisons and measurements will be off! And too often students will do something like that, look back and forth, notice it's different and just start changing it. That makes no sense. Human error, and life being always in motion make the method somewhat impractical. If you spot some mistakes that way, and decide they really are your own errors, great, but optical accuracy is not the only element in play for making a good drawing. I'd rather not worry about sight-size and swiftly make a drawing of the lady that is reasonably accurate and well done, though maybe admittedly not quite as literally accurate to life as it could be, than spend 100 laborious hours trying to keep the model from moving, making all these measurements, keep the image the same size in my vision, getting my steps in for the day walking back and forth, and then, uh.... STILL be off, somehow? Perfection becomes the enemy of the good in these situations. For landscape as well, again your pictures are great, like little windows to the real world. But sometimes it's not practical to set up the canvas in a way that you can do it that way, and I prefer to not be limited. My issue isn't with sight size as a tool, but with it being pushed in schools as the proper way to do things. In my experience I noticed some people at the academy grew so accustomed to setting things up sight size that they found it hard or practically impossible to compare without sight-size and the aids you mentioned. For that reason I ended up trying to get away from that method over time. You have inspired me a bit to give some of your plein air methods a go, and maybe I'll be converted. But I also have to stress how necessary it was for my work to get comfortable painting when the reference is a completely different size. To sum up, I think it's a useful tool when used appropriately. But there's a reason for the controversy, and I think I'm more on the side of the people that want to move away from teaching it so religiously in academies. When it comes to your own work, it's really up to you.
I actually agree with most of what you’ve said. Sight size is an aid to drawing, not a replacement for drawing, and the problem is some of the sight size ateliers just never actually teach good drawing, never even doing a demo, and students that try to flick their eyes through the model room will suffer. On the other hand, when you have a trained eye and understand how big the chasm is for accuracy and specificity, I can’t pretend it’s possible to get the same results without it. But it’s not always necessary for art, anyway
@@patrickokra You could be right. I will be thinking about it. Because I see where you're coming from with the specificity, but I don't know for sure if the very best accuracy can't be achieved without sight-size training. I think we basically agree on things, though. I think maybe the video could be a bit more balanced with the pitfalls and weaknesses of the method, though I did find it surprisingly persuasive as someone that is admittedly biased against sight-size.
Excellent tutorial, I thought I knew all about sight size, but I definitely didn't. Just one thing; if you're drawing/painting sight size, but have to stand back some distance from your canvas to reach the 'sight size' distance, what happens when you want to make the mark on your canvas? It's now far out of arms reach. I just tried it, and a paintbrush on a really long stick was all I could come up with...
You walk back and forth or get really long brushes. You can buy them or extenders, I prefer to just take a step. But like I said in the video, I can work on paintings out of sight size for a very long time, before popping into the position and checking a few things
@@patrickokra Yes, that makes sense. I think in the later stages walking back to see it sight size is less necessary, for the initial stages I think a length of bamboo with a pencil stuck in the end might be worth experimenting with. Your paintings are amazing btw, and I appreciate learning about what gets taught at the ateliers nowadays without having to quit my job and spend my savings to find out. Keep up the good work.
Trying to argue that something isn't historical or whatever is kind of a moot point to make anyways because so what? It's being used now and in a hundred years it'll be historically accurate lol. It's a good tool. People get so caught up in these ideas about the history of painting and tradition that they completely miss the point of what it's all about in the first place. I firmly believe that if Da Vinci had had access to Photoshop he would have embraced it without a second thought lol
I think people get upset when things are conflated and not accurate, but I didn’t want to focus on that too much. I definitely think it makes no sense to make things harder than they should be
When painting landscapes en plein air I find that the sight size method limits how much of the scene can be covered in a given size of support, once the point from which to paint has been established. It is like shooting with a fixed focal length camera. To change the width of the scene you want to cover you would have to move back and forth, but that is not always possible. When painting in small sizes I often find that I prefer to cover more of the scene than the sight size would allow, and have to forego using it (which is a pitty, because if you can use it, it makes drawing so much easier).
As I usually paint standing, it’s not too difficult to bring myself closer or further away, but I could see how this can be theoretically be limiting depending on the scope of the scene. In practice I rarely find it impossible to find a sight size view because of my support size/subject. If anything it may be because of the position I have to place my easel because of the light
Fantastic discussion and explanation of this topic! Bravo Patrick!
Many thanks Shaoli 🙌🙌🙌
The idea that sight size is cheating is like saying using your dominant hand is cheating. 😂Great video! I always learn so much from your channel!
Thanks!
Really enjoyed this. A very similar approach to what I’m doing. And picked up a few things.
Thank you for the great lesson Patrick!
Thanks for watching!
This was an excellent explanation of sight size and so much helpful information.
Thank you Beth!
I’m a self-taught artist. I try to get my art education through workshops and classes online. Your explanation of sight size is by far the best explanation I’ve ever heard. This was extremely helpful thank you so much!!!
Thanks for the nice comment, glad it was helpful!
Great video I think you have made a great case for why sight size is an invaluable tool. You have also highlighted that multiple measuring systems is the best way to go about creating proportions. What I also really appreciated that you made mention of how our feelings are also a great tool when working on a project and in addition I really appreciate that you gave timelines for each project in your education showing that projects take lots of time and sustained effort.
Thanks, it’s definitely never an either or!
Thanks for the detailed and clear explanation, it brings together snippets of information that I've had floating around in my mind in a slightly muddled way.
Re cheating, some people can stare at an object or scene to imprint it on their mind, then 'project' the image onto the canvas and trace around it - even more efficient if you can do it! And I love some of the abstract expressionists, but I can't produce work like they did because I don't have synesthesia. It's only the artwork, and that at least some people value it at a personal level, that matters in the end.
Thanks for watching 🙌 glad it helped
Thank you Patrick, there is many golden tips in this video, much appreciated !
Glad you enjoyed it!
Very instructive ty Patrick
Thank you!
Thanks for this, great overview on sightsize
Thanks!
Thank you for sharing this. I completely agree with your point. It's a tool that can be used alongside other techniques.
Even historically, artists have employed various methods to accurately represent scenes, from Albrecht Dürer using a grid to observe and translate a scene from a fixed point, to Mancini with his Graticola method. Sight-size is maybe taught differently but it does have similarities to the ideas of even artists from the past.
It’s a useful tool. Deviating from nature I feel is upto the artist irrelevant of the method.
Very good points, agreed. Thanks for adding to the conversation. I always find it interesting to think about how it’s possible to stack all these different methods, to give ourselves the best fighting chance at the drawing
Wow, it was so good, such useful information, and this thing with phone mirror, I will try it. I didn't know you were a student of Stephan and Cornelia. Great video, and you are so good at Photoshop. You are quick! thank you
Thanks Roman!
WOW. Learnt so much from this video! Thanks a lot Patrick!!!!!!!!!!
How could sight size be a cheating method? I simply just can't see how. I teach my painting students that they must train their eye to see the abstract shapes in everything. This is so important and fundamental, that I don't even explain much of perspective. I just let them know (for example) that shapes tend to be compressed the farther they move towards the vanishing point. Sight size or not, the eye must be trained either way. You're simply showing that with great skills more can be made. Thanks a LOT for sharing!!!
Thank you for the nice comment!
Thank you ❤
Thanks! 😊
Thanks for this video! I'm a fan of your work, and I think you are a very competent painter and use the sight size method to good effect. If the tool or method makes sense, I think you should use it! However, I personally think you overstate the usefulness of sight-size, specifically as a learning method. I still think it has some pitfalls, personally. however, I appreciate your point of view.
I don't want to write a huge long comment and go into everything, but as a former atelier student myself that studied in a school that was similarly mostly concerned with optical copying, I noticed sight size staying long past its welcome. While it does aid in comparison to draw the subject at the same size you see it, especially with still life, it is really more in the way when it comes to live subjects like the figure. Your example with butterfly-ing the standing portrait I think is a good example of where it can be a bit of wasted energy. While using the mirror that way is a neat trick, in reality I think we have to admit that the model will shift her arm ever so slightly between poses. She shifts her weight. Her sleeve doesn't rumple exactly the same way. And like you mentioned, the artist will have to take care not to move, themselves, or their comparisons and measurements will be off! And too often students will do something like that, look back and forth, notice it's different and just start changing it. That makes no sense. Human error, and life being always in motion make the method somewhat impractical. If you spot some mistakes that way, and decide they really are your own errors, great, but optical accuracy is not the only element in play for making a good drawing. I'd rather not worry about sight-size and swiftly make a drawing of the lady that is reasonably accurate and well done, though maybe admittedly not quite as literally accurate to life as it could be, than spend 100 laborious hours trying to keep the model from moving, making all these measurements, keep the image the same size in my vision, getting my steps in for the day walking back and forth, and then, uh.... STILL be off, somehow? Perfection becomes the enemy of the good in these situations.
For landscape as well, again your pictures are great, like little windows to the real world. But sometimes it's not practical to set up the canvas in a way that you can do it that way, and I prefer to not be limited. My issue isn't with sight size as a tool, but with it being pushed in schools as the proper way to do things. In my experience I noticed some people at the academy grew so accustomed to setting things up sight size that they found it hard or practically impossible to compare without sight-size and the aids you mentioned. For that reason I ended up trying to get away from that method over time. You have inspired me a bit to give some of your plein air methods a go, and maybe I'll be converted. But I also have to stress how necessary it was for my work to get comfortable painting when the reference is a completely different size.
To sum up, I think it's a useful tool when used appropriately. But there's a reason for the controversy, and I think I'm more on the side of the people that want to move away from teaching it so religiously in academies. When it comes to your own work, it's really up to you.
I actually agree with most of what you’ve said. Sight size is an aid to drawing, not a replacement for drawing, and the problem is some of the sight size ateliers just never actually teach good drawing, never even doing a demo, and students that try to flick their eyes through the model room will suffer. On the other hand, when you have a trained eye and understand how big the chasm is for accuracy and specificity, I can’t pretend it’s possible to get the same results without it. But it’s not always necessary for art, anyway
@@patrickokra You could be right. I will be thinking about it. Because I see where you're coming from with the specificity, but I don't know for sure if the very best accuracy can't be achieved without sight-size training. I think we basically agree on things, though. I think maybe the video could be a bit more balanced with the pitfalls and weaknesses of the method, though I did find it surprisingly persuasive as someone that is admittedly biased against sight-size.
Excellent tutorial, I thought I knew all about sight size, but I definitely didn't. Just one thing; if you're drawing/painting sight size, but have to stand back some distance from your canvas to reach the 'sight size' distance, what happens when you want to make the mark on your canvas? It's now far out of arms reach. I just tried it, and a paintbrush on a really long stick was all I could come up with...
You walk back and forth or get really long brushes. You can buy them or extenders, I prefer to just take a step. But like I said in the video, I can work on paintings out of sight size for a very long time, before popping into the position and checking a few things
@@patrickokra Yes, that makes sense. I think in the later stages walking back to see it sight size is less necessary, for the initial stages I think a length of bamboo with a pencil stuck in the end might be worth experimenting with. Your paintings are amazing btw, and I appreciate learning about what gets taught at the ateliers nowadays without having to quit my job and spend my savings to find out. Keep up the good work.
Amazing Vídeo
Looks like I'm sight sizing naturally (plein air) after seeing this. 🤔
Trying to argue that something isn't historical or whatever is kind of a moot point to make anyways because so what? It's being used now and in a hundred years it'll be historically accurate lol. It's a good tool. People get so caught up in these ideas about the history of painting and tradition that they completely miss the point of what it's all about in the first place. I firmly believe that if Da Vinci had had access to Photoshop he would have embraced it without a second thought lol
I think people get upset when things are conflated and not accurate, but I didn’t want to focus on that too much. I definitely think it makes no sense to make things harder than they should be
Great ✨️👌🏻✨️💯
When painting landscapes en plein air I find that the sight size method limits how much of the scene can be covered in a given size of support, once the point from which to paint has been established. It is like shooting with a fixed focal length camera. To change the width of the scene you want to cover you would have to move back and forth, but that is not always possible. When painting in small sizes I often find that I prefer to cover more of the scene than the sight size would allow, and have to forego using it (which is a pitty, because if you can use it, it makes drawing so much easier).
As I usually paint standing, it’s not too difficult to bring myself closer or further away, but I could see how this can be theoretically be limiting depending on the scope of the scene. In practice I rarely find it impossible to find a sight size view because of my support size/subject. If anything it may be because of the position I have to place my easel because of the light