Yes yes yes, please continue to look through the many “different facets of the prism” of a concept so to speak! Each time you address it it pulls me closer, focuses the lens a little brighter. I think this is an optimal way of teaching and of communicating in general. It far outruns the “push forward with more information“ tactic. Thank you so much for your rigorous tenacity. This is a gift for any serious student of art. ❤
Thanks again Paul! I appreciate "Unknown"s question and your answer, especially considering how "the finish is in the start". Two things observed here follow this theme of "construction" drawing vs. "visual impression". From my experience, construction drawing simply takes your "invisible angles" and renders them as a tool to draw against. Look at the Degas nude you were referencing. He's rendered at least three vertical plumb lines that the curved arabesque is visually measured from. The hard straight line is like a horizon line to the "hills" of curving anatomy. Construction drawing creates a type of armature to work against. That's the typical mindset. I'd say the major draw-back in the construction method is having that crutch to compare to while the angle line is literally invisible. It is the "invisible angle" one must learn to see as represented by a serpentine set of gestural curves. This appears to be a mindset issue more than anything. This is about the artist's state of mind while observing, then applying marks in a calibrated way. The more you work this mental exercise, like playing a musical instrument, the more accurate you become. Hard work pays off . . . hard work that cannot be avoided if mastery is the goal.
Thanks always Paul, i feel so greatful everytime I see this type of content about the modern planar approach vs the round. This pure round unified Line approach is basically what every old master does but NOBODY in the modern art atelier industry talk about this concept , this makes me Crazy Everybody praise Sargent, Fechin ecc but everybody try to achieve this type of beauty with the facet approach, its like trying to imitate Jordan but changing the shot mechanics ahahah
Thanks so much for addressing my question. This was a great video. Distinguishing between drawing from life and from photographs was impactful. You have stated in words what I am just now beginning to intuit from looking at the work of some of the masters that appeal to me. Until you said it I couldn't put my finger on it, that inherent "grace" in a drawing. I will keep exploring! Fantastic lesson. P.S. You should definitely aim for a live conversation with some of your UA-cam students.
Mr. Ingbretson, great comments on copies! I hope to hear more about this soon, but what you've shared is already illuminating. I liked the point you made regarding the value (or not) of making copies for learning how to paint rather than using the copy process for answering specific questions about a master work. I also found it helpful to hear you discuss the various reasons why one would copy a master work and the level of specificity that you engage in when doing copies; even trying to emulate the look of a mark or contour that was produced repeatedly or asking questions about the consistency of paint, size of brush, or how the painter achieved any particular "look". Thanks again as always! Wonderful discussions continue to be had here on your channel!
As I develop towards an illustrative style I find myself confronted with similar kinds of questions; copying is part of illustrative practice for pragmatic reasons, which also leads towards usage of constructive approaches to modify the source material: you don't always have a perfect image of a horse that will tell the story, but you can synthesize a good one quickly if you understand the forms. But I find that I can't really start by thinking deeply about construction, because it greatly complicates proportional reasoning to try to consider the transformation of an entire form at once. It's much easier to see and mark in some contours and landmarks and then work through each drawing problem to reach the result in iterative stages. The problem, I find, is that when I start constructing, I've gained the ability to dictate a fictitious shape instead of seeing, and once detached, I will most likely gravitate towards what I'm familiar with - flattening out the image into something a little more symbolic, using simpler ratios and angles. So where detail is called for I find it important to introduce other sources of information in the start to ward that off as long as possible, and to construct just where I need to solidify forms.
Hi Paul You have added many things to the way I think and see what I'm trying to paint, and as always it's one step at a time. Each step of knowledge take time to look back and see how you would have done the earlier thing differently if you had known about the thing you know now, and use the new adjustment to grow . Even in the painting you are doing use the new to inform what changes that are needed to move on each mark informs the ones already painted and the ones yet to be painted. I call this the push and pull of my painting because sometimes you need to change from one to the other. Thanks again enjoyed this. Sheila
Once I realized that every new piece of information had the potential to change my entire theory of painting I began - instead of fearing it -to love the idea of constant change.
Attending a figure drawing session later today so this was very well timed! The start always has been incredibly intimidating to me, especially when working in mediums which aren't as workable. Echoing what others have said, I always enjoy when you go back to a previously addressed topic because we're able to see it from a slightly different perspective and (in my opinion) that helps the material become easier to digest. Great content as always.
I have a question about the recommended reading that I've seen for Gammell and I was curious why the Harold Speed and Bouguereau books are listed if construction methods and imaginary paintings aren't a part of the Boston method. I'm sure you've mentioned this before somewhere so my apologies.
The only book list I ever saw with Gammell was in the Review of books he wrote. Someone who was a student of his may have something but he didn't share it with me when I explicitly asked him what to read. His library on the other hand, was loaded with books, as mine is, that are from other approaches.
Looks like this channel and this kind of talk is not for me. I have been drawing and painting for many decades, have two fine arts degrees including Ivy League, have maybe 1000 wonderful art books, have studied with a great many noted artists and some of the top art historians, have works in important collections and a growing list of museums --- and I simply can't make heads or tails of whatever Paul is talking about here. Incidentally, I did a copy of the glorious Degas drawing of Manet shown here, which is virtually indistinguishable from the original. Anyway, I consider this a lot of rambling talk which provides no clarity or meaning to me. My preference is clear talk about what makes the very greatest drawings so great. Point being, I really don't care to spend too much time looking at minor works by minor artists. I would rather talk about genius than things like: shading, shadows, "finish", construction lines, and such.
On the other hand, rather than being a general discussion, or theoretical this is all organized along the practical thinking, methods of working, related to the Boston School. Not necessarily for everyone for sure. Would that it were!
@@PaulIngbretson Ok. The Boston School. Actually I never heard of it and had to look it up. Few of these artists are familiar to me, and when I look them up, I can see why. Like listening to music on the radio, if I don't like it there is no reason to pursue it further or find out more about the performers. I'll just leave it by repeating, "not my cup of tea". It strikes me that the goals are on the superficial side, as if intending to create "pretty" things to satisfy a certain clientele who might pay well but are light on familiarity with the best art.
Such a amazing painter and master! This level of discussion doesnt exists in another art channels.
I always wonder if / how you all can benefit from it but I find it obligatory to continue the discussion
Assembling the puzzle piece by piece! Thank you as always !
Hey, Ilya
Don't be scared of wrong marks. The wrong marks tell us where the right marks should be :)
Yes yes yes, please continue to look through the many “different facets of the prism” of a concept so to speak! Each time you address it it pulls me closer, focuses the lens a little brighter. I think this is an optimal way of teaching and of communicating in general. It far outruns the “push forward with more information“ tactic. Thank you so much for your rigorous tenacity. This is a gift for any serious student of art. ❤
You expressed that well, thanks Wileyc
Thanks again Paul! I appreciate "Unknown"s question and your answer, especially considering how "the finish is in the start". Two things observed here follow this theme of "construction" drawing vs. "visual impression". From my experience, construction drawing simply takes your "invisible angles" and renders them as a tool to draw against. Look at the Degas nude you were referencing. He's rendered at least three vertical plumb lines that the curved arabesque is visually measured from. The hard straight line is like a horizon line to the "hills" of curving anatomy. Construction drawing creates a type of armature to work against. That's the typical mindset. I'd say the major draw-back in the construction method is having that crutch to compare to while the angle line is literally invisible.
It is the "invisible angle" one must learn to see as represented by a serpentine set of gestural curves.
This appears to be a mindset issue more than anything. This is about the artist's state of mind while observing, then applying marks in a calibrated way. The more you work this mental exercise, like playing a musical instrument, the more accurate you become. Hard work pays off . . . hard work that cannot be avoided if mastery is the goal.
Hey, David. Just saying 'hi'.... always appreciate your thoughtful comments. Merry Christmas!
@@PaulIngbretson Merry Christmas to you too Paul!
Thanks always Paul, i feel so greatful everytime I see this type of content about the modern planar approach vs the round.
This pure round unified Line approach is basically what every old master does but NOBODY in the modern art atelier industry talk about this concept , this makes me Crazy
Everybody praise Sargent, Fechin ecc but everybody try to achieve this type of beauty with the facet approach, its like trying to imitate Jordan but changing the shot mechanics ahahah
I do like the analogy, martino.
Absolutely hit the spot, will really enjoy listening to this again, excellent advice and much needed encouragement. Thank you
Very welcome
Thanks so much for addressing my question. This was a great video. Distinguishing between drawing from life and from photographs was impactful. You have stated in words what I am just now beginning to intuit from looking at the work of some of the masters that appeal to me. Until you said it I couldn't put my finger on it, that inherent "grace" in a drawing. I will keep exploring! Fantastic lesson. P.S. You should definitely aim for a live conversation with some of your UA-cam students.
You are so welcome! And I will....maybe include you...lol
Mr. Ingbretson, great comments on copies! I hope to hear more about this soon, but what you've shared is already illuminating. I liked the point you made regarding the value (or not) of making copies for learning how to paint rather than using the copy process for answering specific questions about a master work. I also found it helpful to hear you discuss the various reasons why one would copy a master work and the level of specificity that you engage in when doing copies; even trying to emulate the look of a mark or contour that was produced repeatedly or asking questions about the consistency of paint, size of brush, or how the painter achieved any particular "look". Thanks again as always! Wonderful discussions continue to be had here on your channel!
Glad that is still so, and thanks, Paul
As I develop towards an illustrative style I find myself confronted with similar kinds of questions; copying is part of illustrative practice for pragmatic reasons, which also leads towards usage of constructive approaches to modify the source material: you don't always have a perfect image of a horse that will tell the story, but you can synthesize a good one quickly if you understand the forms. But I find that I can't really start by thinking deeply about construction, because it greatly complicates proportional reasoning to try to consider the transformation of an entire form at once. It's much easier to see and mark in some contours and landmarks and then work through each drawing problem to reach the result in iterative stages. The problem, I find, is that when I start constructing, I've gained the ability to dictate a fictitious shape instead of seeing, and once detached, I will most likely gravitate towards what I'm familiar with - flattening out the image into something a little more symbolic, using simpler ratios and angles. So where detail is called for I find it important to introduce other sources of information in the start to ward that off as long as possible, and to construct just where I need to solidify forms.
Yes, I do understand the illustrator's dilemma to the extent that I have made such efforts as well. Thanks.
Keep the videos coming, Paul 👊🏼
:) I want to hear such encouragement, K.
Hi Paul
You have added many things to the way I think and see what I'm trying to paint, and as always it's one step at a time.
Each step of knowledge take time to look back and see how you would have done the earlier thing differently if you had known about the thing you know now, and use the new adjustment to grow .
Even in the painting you are doing use the new to inform what changes that are needed to move on each mark informs the ones already painted and the ones yet to be painted.
I call this the push and pull of my painting because sometimes you need to change from one to the other.
Thanks again enjoyed this.
Sheila
Once I realized that every new piece of information had the potential to change my entire theory of painting I began - instead of fearing it -to love the idea of constant change.
Hi Paul
As always you say it better than I can,you are a real wordsmith.
Thanks again
Sheila
Attending a figure drawing session later today so this was very well timed! The start always has been incredibly intimidating to me, especially when working in mediums which aren't as workable. Echoing what others have said, I always enjoy when you go back to a previously addressed topic because we're able to see it from a slightly different perspective and (in my opinion) that helps the material become easier to digest.
Great content as always.
Wonderful!
I have a question about the recommended reading that I've seen for Gammell and I was curious why the Harold Speed and Bouguereau books are listed if construction methods and imaginary paintings aren't a part of the Boston method. I'm sure you've mentioned this before somewhere so my apologies.
The only book list I ever saw with Gammell was in the Review of books he wrote. Someone who was a student of his may have something but he didn't share it with me when I explicitly asked him what to read. His library on the other hand, was loaded with books, as mine is, that are from other approaches.
Thank you!
Chomsky?
Looks like this channel and this kind of talk is not for me. I have been drawing and painting for many decades, have two fine arts degrees including Ivy League, have maybe 1000 wonderful art books, have studied with a great many noted artists and some of the top art historians, have works in important collections and a growing list of museums --- and I simply can't make heads or tails of whatever Paul is talking about here. Incidentally, I did a copy of the glorious Degas drawing of Manet shown here, which is virtually indistinguishable from the original. Anyway, I consider this a lot of rambling talk which provides no clarity or meaning to me. My preference is clear talk about what makes the very greatest drawings so great. Point being, I really don't care to spend too much time looking at minor works by minor artists. I would rather talk about genius than things like: shading, shadows, "finish", construction lines, and such.
On the other hand, rather than being a general discussion, or theoretical this is all organized along the practical thinking, methods of working, related to the Boston School. Not necessarily for everyone for sure. Would that it were!
@@PaulIngbretson Ok. The Boston School. Actually I never heard of it and had to look it up. Few of these artists are familiar to me, and when I look them up, I can see why. Like listening to music on the radio, if I don't like it there is no reason to pursue it further or find out more about the performers. I'll just leave it by repeating, "not my cup of tea". It strikes me that the goals are on the superficial side, as if intending to create "pretty" things to satisfy a certain clientele who might pay well but are light on familiarity with the best art.