Thanks again for the clarification on sight size! However, the discussion left me with a slightly different question related to perspective and composition. In this video you surmise that the artist had been too close to the sitter or that perhaps the distortions of the figure were related to some problem of perspective. Well if that were the case, wouldn't you have to praise the artist for "being an eyeball" or simply recording exactly the occular impression of the thing in front of them? If so, is your critique more related to composition ie failing on the sight-size model by not choosing the correct position on the floor? Perhaps these drawings (as most drawings are) were not intended to be seen as "finished products" (for public consumption) but as either studies, preparatory drawings, or figure drawings while in the process of learning? In any case, I learn truckloads every time I watch your videos so keep up the good work! We are all grateful and indebted to you. Do you think you will film a bit of your retrospective show and share on this channel? Please do!
Thank you. Very interesting episode. Intuitively is the only way I know how. I hear so much about how you should measure, and Sargent did it this way and that. Any time I try this method it goes all wrong. Let the eye do the measuring and correct as you go.
That's the central problem of my drawing practice - comparing by eye and adapting the drawing to the format :) Will I find the answer in this video - I hope so :) Thanks, Paul and Mr: Producer Update: and also wanted you to know, Paul, that showing examples of drawings/paintings is really helpful - easier to see what to look for during work - so keep on doing it , please :)
I recognize the contrast between Degas' discipline and Slade school's undisciplined standard, but I don't see how it is corollary to their method of "natural size" drawing. Fawcett advocated for strictly drawing the object at the same size as it is in your vision (the"natural size)," all the time for any object. In this way, you can learn proportions over time. Are you saying drawing at natural size may equate to poorly executed drawings over time (Slade)? Your questioner this episode asks whether drawing at the natural size is more intuitive to the brain-eye connection (easier). It seems drawing at natural size removes some of the complications(Like doing the proportional/ratio enlargement in your head), so why ever drawing something bigger or smaller than what you see? You have stated in the past that doing "transference" in any form causes you to miss out on the integral skill of "seeing relationally." Am I on the right track?
Looking forward to a live video, thank you.
Great to reaffirm how to see big proportions without measuring. Thank, Paul.
Hi Paul thanks again
Sheila
awesome, thanks so much, God bless!
Thanks again for the clarification on sight size! However, the discussion left me with a slightly different question related to perspective and composition. In this video you surmise that the artist had been too close to the sitter or that perhaps the distortions of the figure were related to some problem of perspective. Well if that were the case, wouldn't you have to praise the artist for "being an eyeball" or simply recording exactly the occular impression of the thing in front of them? If so, is your critique more related to composition ie failing on the sight-size model by not choosing the correct position on the floor? Perhaps these drawings (as most drawings are) were not intended to be seen as "finished products" (for public consumption) but as either studies, preparatory drawings, or figure drawings while in the process of learning? In any case, I learn truckloads every time I watch your videos so keep up the good work! We are all grateful and indebted to you. Do you think you will film a bit of your retrospective show and share on this channel? Please do!
Wonderful lecture. Thank you
Thank you, Rebecca.
Thank you. Very interesting episode. Intuitively is the only way I know how. I hear so much about how you should measure, and Sargent did it this way and that. Any time I try this method it goes all wrong. Let the eye do the measuring and correct as you go.
That's the central problem of my drawing practice - comparing by eye and adapting the drawing to the format :) Will I find the answer in this video - I hope so :) Thanks, Paul and Mr: Producer
Update: and also wanted you to know, Paul, that showing examples of drawings/paintings is really helpful - easier to see what to look for during work - so keep on doing it , please :)
I recognize the contrast between Degas' discipline and Slade school's undisciplined standard, but I don't see how it is corollary to their method of "natural size" drawing. Fawcett advocated for strictly drawing the object at the same size as it is in your vision (the"natural size)," all the time for any object. In this way, you can learn proportions over time. Are you saying drawing at natural size may equate to poorly executed drawings over time (Slade)? Your questioner this episode asks whether drawing at the natural size is more intuitive to the brain-eye connection (easier). It seems drawing at natural size removes some of the complications(Like doing the proportional/ratio enlargement in your head), so why ever drawing something bigger or smaller than what you see? You have stated in the past that doing "transference" in any form causes you to miss out on the integral skill of "seeing relationally." Am I on the right track?