I just want to clarify that the last Prud'hon drawing Karin posted (borrowed from my website) is a drawing abandoned in its early stage, before being refined. It was displayed here to indicate what a "stumped" drawing looked like *before* it gets stumped. Prud'hon made portraits for people in high positions; some were pastel, and quite nice, too. Not "stylized," or "impressionist." Once upon a time, any professional portrait artist spent their early years drawing posing nude models. It was an essential part of their development as artists. I hope that your remark about naked guys and their penises was only in jest. Prud'hon's style, as you see it applied to figure drawing, also served him very well in portrait drawing and for planning important large scale painting projects.

Dear Rebecca,

Of course it was a jest. But only half. I never saw the necessity for drawing nude genetalia, or nudes for that matter. Purely an opinion, as I stated. I rather think it would serve the portrait artist better to study how fabric interacts with the human form, rather than drawing the nude. I have never had the necessity for drawing a nude figure, not to say that it would not be a pleasure.

I am not familiar with his work. I did not read the posts well enough - I was unaware that the drawing was incomplete. My point still can be made: impressionist styles that work well in figures or in works for yourself do not necessarily hone the skills for a commissioned portrait artist. That does not diminish the beauty and quality of his work in the least.

No disrespect intended. I am just a skeptic of the "nude" school of thought.

I think what I get out of drawing/painting nude models is I can more clearly observe the underlying anatomy--bones and muscles are what determine how even the clothing falls on the model...

Although my own painting has a long way to go, I feel studying the nude is essential to my understanding portraiture.

Just a thought,
Mari

I am sure I am in the minority on ths issue! :)

Lon, I think that you might indeed be in the minority on the "nude study" issue.

However, who cares? :) You're a really nice guy. You paint well. And the thoughts and opinions you express on this forum enrich all of us.

Ha ha!

Thanx, Karin! Fact is, I would be too shy to draw anybody in the nude. I always draw with my clothes on! ;)

LOL! :sunnysmil Now why didn't I think of that....

Lon wrote: I teach drawing and painting, and I've seen how students are disinclined to study clothing with full, focused attention, even though it is integral to a finished portrait. They are, however, willing to give lots of attention to the human figure, and this has proven to be an excellent bridge to the study of other subject matter. Figure drawing and painting builds hardiness in artists' ability to focus, enabling them to address the plebeian things that they resisted earlier. Also, without full awareness of (and full respect for) the body beneath, artists will have trouble with the convincing clothed bodies of their sitters.
That said, I found it difficult to pursue my interest in [nude] figure painting between commissions in my publicly accessible portrait studio, for fear that puritanical shoppers might get their sensibilities bruised. It is ironic that this essential practice could scare away customers, but I've seen it happen.

--Rebecca Alzofon

We had figure drawing whan I was a child in art school. Of course, it was not nude. I believe that children can be taught all the basics as I was taught. That requires that you clothe the models. We were very attentive to drawing from life, and I learned great lessons about the figure without the nude.

Figure drawing is essential, of course. Full nudity is not.

:o There is a thread called "Nude or Naked?" at http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=&threadid=679 that you guys might want to check out...