Tracing and transferring images
 

I am new to this forum, but I am hoping this is the right place to post this topic.

I was perusing Amazon.com for good drawing/art books, and found a bad customer review for a perfectly decent book on drawing portraits. The reviewer poo-poohed the book because it taught "details and all that stuff". He said, "there's a simpler way." The reviewer then went on to praise another book (which will remain nameless) that taught the "grid" method only. (The reviewer said that he didn't even use the grid method for his drawings, he just went ahead and traced the photograph.)

I was appalled by this attitude. I almost popped a cork. Since when is learning and understanding the portrait considered a waste of time? What's so wrong with really learning how to draw? I hope this person's opinion is in the minority. How depressing.

I am pretty stuffy and stubborn about this issue, I confess. (I will remain a "purist", who only wants to draw freehand.) But am I the only one? I have always assumed not.

I've been drawing and painting for a while, but have an education based more on illustration (where tracing is not uncommon). Being the stubborn "purist" that I am, I've never traced a photo when creating one of my portraits. I never liked the idea.

I understand that some artists in the past have used the grid method, and I understand that the grid method can be a great help for learning, and for certain tasks. But I always assumed that fine artists who used the grid method also knew how to draw as well. However, the impression I'm getting is that some artists nowadays don't know how to really "draw" and are unable to get an image unless they use a grid, or trace it. I guess that's OK for more "funky" artwork, but for more "traditional" forms of artwork, it just doesn't seem right to me.

So, I am curious. Is the lack of drawing skill a common thing for many artists? Is it acceptable to trace (or grid) a photograph in more traditional fine art portraiture? I assumed not, but I am kind of out of the loop. I thought this forum would be a good place to ask!

Oops. I did search to see if this topic had already been convered. I did. But I see that this subject has kind of been covered on this thread. (But it's not an identical subject.)

I gather from this other thread that tracing from photographs is a heated topic. I hope I'm not opening some big can or worms here. Maybe it would be better if this thread was moved to another section of this message board? I'm not sure how this works!

I guess part of the reason I started this thread is to find out how common tracing is, if many artists now consider the traditional skill of drawing to be not that "important".

An interesting topic. I share your views on drawing freehand.

You know, a noted artist in who lives in my town was commissioned to do a portrait which is now on permanent display in the governor's mansion.

Not only is the artist a known photo-tracer, but the portrait is mediocre in comparison to the portraits shown on this forum. There's an animation on the artist's website of the portrait in various stages of completion, and at step one the face is completely rendered.

Throughout history, artists were trained for years in drawing, and I think that's as it should be. However, it's one thing if you get an outline from a photo for time's sake and go on to produce good work, but another if you rely completely on the shapes, colors, and tones in a photo, do none of the drawing yourself, and still come up with a lackluster portrait.

Just my cent-and-a-half.

Nathan

You're right, it's a contentious issue, unresolvable here or in any other forum. You've expressed your preferences and there's absolutely no reason why you can't or shouldn't work according to those preferences, no matter what anyone else says or does in their own practice. The gracious turnabout that some practitioners won't embrace is that other very dedicated, skillful, enthusiastic, and honourable practitioners use different methods.

I was fortunate to learn to draw and paint from life, without having relied upon photos or gridding, but there's a footnote here that has to be told. I ALWAYS had to do a charcoal drawing first, of anything I was thinking of rendering in oils, and this included portraits as well as still-life. After all the "hard work" -- the most correct placement and drawing of everything that I could accomplish -- was done, to such a degree of finish that I could proudly show the charcoal to anyone [and indeed I used to exhibit these charcoals alongside the paintings], I didn't just start over and re-draw everything on canvas. I did as I was trained to do in a "classical realist" atelier: I placed a sheet of acetate over my drawing, traced the contours, and then transferred them with graphite paper to my stretched canvas. Where's the "cheating"? I'd already done the measuring, the sighting, the drawing, once. Why, for the sake of purists' imprimatur, engage in redundant and repetitive work re-drawing it on the canvas?

But, yes, it's a bit of a stickier wicket, isn't it, to project a photo onto a canvas and trace the contours. That's faster and easier than gridding, which is faster and easier than marking off major divisions and filling in the bits, which is faster and easier than just having a go at drawing someone or something without any mechanical aids.

We all work within the limits of our time, and our talents. My best work is from life, and some of my least satisfying work is from photographs. But I have some pretty darn nice pieces from photos, too. I was recently on a tour bus in southern Taiwan and I saw a colourful oxcart sitting near the entrance (frequented infrequently by tourists) to a locally famous coastal sand dune area, and I instantly thought, there's a painting, and I lifted my camera and brought home only that image. I've painted it now, and though I'm not completely happy with it or how it came about, it was recently shown with a series of other "Taiwan influenced" paintings, and this particular piece was singled out by a Taiwanese-born Chinese woman as the one that most evoked, for her, a native Taiwan scene. "That," she said emphatically, "that is Taiwan." And that, I'm noting for the benefit of this discussion, is the only one of the pieces that showed a painting done by reference to a photograph.

We all have our own work to do, and our own sensibilities and preferences. My own take on the protocol is that as soon as someone tells me that I'm cheating, or doing it wrong, or not doing "fine" or "good" art, I find it beneficial to try to omit that person from my circle of counselors. Most of the critics of the way I work aren't even working artists, I find; they're failed artists, or disenchanted former artists, or collectors of what they like, or just folks with an attitude that they learned from reading other folks' opinions. I'm doing the best I can, ALL the time, with my time and talent and circumstances -- some of which aren't where I'd like them to be. And sometimes that means drawing from life, sometimes gridding up from a photo, and yes, the god of arts forgive me, sometimes projecting something, just so I can get on with what I love to do, which is painting. Believe me, it's a LOT harder to paint a really good painting from a photo reference than most people imagine. Because I've done the boot camp of drawing and painting, I can perhaps make the most of a photo. The real hazard is in slavishly copying one, or gridding up from or tracing one, without having been inquisitive and disciplined enough to know what things and people look like away from the lens as well as processed through one.

There's room for all of us. Not everyone likes that -- but so what? We're all here to stay, whoever likes it or not, if we're committed and conscientious enough about it.

Steven

Thank you for such a thoughtful and gracious response!
I think this is the crux of it for me too. I've seen work that was created by a person who obviously hadn't been through the "boot camp". They traced, the portrait is dead-on accurate, but it's just missing something.

If I see a painting that sings, is gorgeous, and has personality and life to it, it doesn't matter so much if it was traced or not. Obviously the artist has "paid their dues", and it shows in their work.

I think the thing that seems "wrong" is when the artist doesn't really comprehend it all yet, but are able to get quick and easy results (by using "shortcuts" like tracing). I saw it a lot in some of the illustration classes I attended. Such artists may do well for a while, but sooner or later, that lack of foundation ends up being something they regret not having. Or - even if they don't regret not putting in the time to develop the foundation, it becomes obvious to others that they are missing something.

That's the way I see it, anyway. I can't imagine not being able to draw from life, or not being able to invent sketches from my imagination, without needing to use a model or photograph. Such drawings are often the ones I love the most. I cannot fathom why some people would choose to not learn how to do that, but if they don't, they don't. (Sorry, I obviously don't get why people trace!)

Nathaniel Miller: I was able to quickly do a Google search and find the painting you were discussing in your post. Yeah, it seemed a little sterile to me too. I prefer the examples of artwork I've seen on this site as well.

Well, I don't necessarily attribute any particular intent to one's opportunities, even though I believe our intentions shape much of what happens to us once we understand how self-determinative we are. I'm the oldest of nine kids off a very poor western states farm, and the only reason I stumbled into some quality instruction in art was serendipity, extreme generosity of others, events that couldn't possibly have been foreseen by me, and many (many) hard lessons learned during a few decades -- some misspent -- of sorting things out.

It's scary to expose our creative efforts, however modest, and plenty of folks feel excruciatingly vulnerable in doing so. I think it's their right not to be afraid, and it is a great pleasure to me just to be able to say, well done, is there anything I can help you with?

Steven

Yes, that's true.

I should always be mindful of the fact that I don't know the background of each artist. I shouldn't make hard and fast assumptions about their choices. But you know, I've met more than a few that were definitely making a conscious choice to not learn how to draw.

They seemed nigh onto belligerent in their unwillingness to not learn how to do it. And it wasn't because they didn't have the opportunity - able teachers and classes were readily available - they just weren't interested. I even had experiences where I was treated as if I was a "chump" who was "wasting my time" because I was devoted to developing my drawing skills. ("Why do you want to bother to draw that when you can just trace it?") There was a subtle contempt towards those of us who were bringing our sketchbooks everywhere and working very hard to develop and perfect our skills. I detected an attitude that I can only describe as laziness among such people. I am sorry to be blunt, but in my experience, there are people that are like that. There is a lack of love and enthusiasm for the artistic process (in my opinion).

Sigh. I suppose such negative experiences have colored my attitude a bit about this matter. (Ya think? ;) )

Art is, art isn't ... (sigh)
 

My number one maxim in art, which can replace all others, is:

THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

'nuff said.

For me it is pretty much as David has described. A finished piece of art must stand and be judged. The journey which brought it to that place cannot help or hurt it. Personally I paint only in an open field. From memory. In the dark. During thunderstorms. Should people give me credit for this when they judge my work?

If a painting delights, it delights. That, of course, is the bottom line.

What I have seen (and what I am critical of) is work that lacks something subtle. And then it turns out that the artist who produced it didn't put enough effort into honing their foundational skills. Obviously, I've seen plenty of this.

"The end justifies the means", but when the "end" is lacking something, and when you can pinpoint why it is lacking something, you start to form opinions.

Obviously I have! :)

Of course, you're right, Jacqueline. The "ends" must stand alone, and be judged on their merit. My only contention with "should be's", or worse still "must be's" is that there are ALWAYS many ways to get from here to there. The means are never meant to, and cannot, "justify" the ends, if the ends stink on ice. ;)

Jacqueline, it sounds as though you've rubbed elbows with a few folks who perhaps were jealous of your interest in and talent for drawing well, but they had their agendas and you have your own work to do. Part of their work, perhaps even unknown to them, might well have been to provide the sort of provocation that would make you all the more diligent in perfecting your skills, a sort of irritant around which the pearl of your own talent would develop. Now you are privileged to have acquired a good deal of facility in the drawing arts and you're poised to take advantage of the swelling of interest in well-crafted realistic representational work. I'm unable to attribute this paraphrase, but I recently read someone's advice to the effect that "Some of the Divine Masters who come into your life are going to be real SOB's."

As to this matter of the ends justifying the means, my current perspective is that while I am of course always delighted to have a piece turn out well, and I'm not embarrassed to have others share in my delight, the truth is that I'm usually a little disappointed when a piece is finished, when the "ends" have arrived, because it's in the "means" that I have all my fun. That's where I get to play, to solve problems, to work out ideas, to watch an image come alive from underneath my brush. And while I have said earlier that, yes, sometimes I just have to -- or for whatever reasons simply choose to -- use various mechanical aids in the process, I find that to the extent I do so, some of the fun that is really the only reason I paint is diminished. The integrity of the final piece may not be compromised, but my enjoyment of the process, and what I learn from that process, is, and so I try to keep to a minimum my reliance on implements or procedures that displace part of the creative fun. I'm hedonistic, I guess -- I do what's necessary to maximize my pleasure in this beauty-filled vocation.

Steven

What a lovely way you have of putting that!

Yes, in part, they made me stronger in my resolve. But there wasn't much risk that I'd waver in that. I was (and am) quite fixed upon honing my drawing and painting skills. I was just appalled by their apathy. It wasn't just the tracing, it was the unwillingness to pick up a pencil or brush for any project that wasn't required. If they weren't being paid for it, or required to do it for a class, they just didn't do it. I thought that was quite a joyless way to approach art. Yes, indeed. Quite a few bad experiences I've had! ;) Ain't that the truth.

Exactly!!! That's the way I see it as well. If it is necessary to use some mechanical means, it is, but that doesn't mean that drawing and painting is some sort of punishment. It isn't a "chore" that needs to be gotten through as soon as possible. It's a delight.

I obviously have been soured by encountering people who did not have this feeling of "delight". Their attitude towards drawing and tracing was just one manifestation of that.
What a beautiful, poetic way of putting it! Unfortunately, I guess none of us can compell someone else to see the joy in the process. If they don't feel that joy, they don't, I guess.

The thing that primarily prompted me to start this thread was a reader review on Amazon.com. The attitude was kind of like "don't waste your time with this book - it's full of all that boring drawing stuff". Such a discouraging attitude. I really have a problem with that. I disagree (strongly) with people who are actively trying to discourage other artists from developing further art skills. As if it's such a miserable drudgery, that it should be done away with as soon as something "easier" comes along (like tracing).

The thing is, some "shortcuts" and "aids" just can't be used all the time (IMO). I don't know how a person can never learn how to draw a thing, and still think that it "doesn't matter", "doesn't make any difference". Well, I shouldn't say that absolutely. In some art styles, for some kinds of paintings, it probably doesn't matter. But the reason that artists have been drawing for ages is that it is still an important and vital skill. It is not unecessary or outdated. It's not a "waste of time". And that's the attitude I almost got from that Amazon book review. Such things just get me worked up sometimes, I guess!

David: sure, there are many ways to get to the same place. Each artist has different backgrounds, different "angles". The work must be good, that's the bottom line.

Jacqueline, I think there are two tracks going here. One is the relationship that a painter has with his/her art. This can be very complex and personal. The other is the relationship a finished painting has with its intended audience. This, albeit varied from person to person, to me is less complicated.

I don't mean this comment for you Jacqualine but just as a general observation. It seems that "suffering" has played a big part for the artist. The more suffering that went into the art the better it must be. My God, you mean he laid on his back and painted the ceiling? And it took how long? How could anyone find fault when there was so much suffering?

I wish us all wonderful suffering.

Just a follow up thought. I think the issue of tracing, projecting, photography and all other related mechanical helpery is related to our belief that there should be a struggle (my ref. to suffering.) To painstakingly draw is to struggle, to trace or to photograph is not to struggle. It's not fair that I should struggle and you not. But the point that I would make is that, as unfair as it may be, it's all wrapped up in the finished product.

Could you, if faced with two hypothetically same paintings, give a tenth of one percent more credit to the one which was rendered without any mechaninal means? Maybe you could but in fact historical beginnings don't usually travel with the art.

Can you imagine in the upcoming art competitions in Phil. and N.Y. having a form to fill out which asks the entrant certain questions about the genesis of each piece submitted? Now that would be interesting. Then you would see a real serious discussion on this topic.

And may I say for the record that I have not traced as an adult. Nor have I ... well, yes I have done that but I would never, no wait I've done that too. Oh well I don't trace.

I think you hit a nail on it's collective head, Mike. You've made me smile!

All you struggler's feel free to squirm.

(I've never traced either, ever since I discovered what Wonder Woman really looks like without her clothes. ;))

Oh, I'm sure there's an element of "you're not suffering enough!" in my feelings, but it's also much more than that.

I think it's a terrible disservice to tell a "newbie" artist that drawing is unnecessary. Because they may find out later that it is - that they would have, and should have, learned how to do it.

It's sort of like asking a little kid if they want piano lessons. They may say no at the time, thinking that it sounds "boring" and "stuffy". But when they are older, they'll envy others who have that ability, and will regret not learning when they were younger. (Of course, nothing's stopping them from learning it at any time, but it's always better to start sooner rather than later.) So, when I read a book review where someone says "Don't learn that boring drawing stuff!" I get upset. I think, don't tell people that. Choose that for yourself, if you wish, but don't ever discourage other people from learning.

Another thing - I've seen a lot of "traced" work, and usually I can see something "missing". Also not to be forgotten is the fact that when a person knows how to draw, they can draw from life, or perhaps even draw things from imagination. So, learning how to draw isn't about "suffering", it's also enhancing what an artist is able to do. I've seen the works of people who can only trace, and I've seen the works of artists who can draw freehand (and can enhance and alter their artwork) and I find that very often, the person who can draw has a wider range of "looks" and subjects they can draw. This is not hard-and-fast, of course, and I will repeat that if the finished work is good, it's good, tracing or no.

But thinking from the viewpoint of someone offering advice to an artist who is starting out, I'd never tell them to not bother to learn how to draw. I'd never tell them that "there is a simpler way", and preach the virtues of tracing. That is limiting. After all, a person who draws can also trace, or grid, or draw standing on their head. A person who can only trace can only...trace. I think people should be aware of the consquences of choosing tracing instead of learning how to draw. But if they choose to do trace anyway - hey - that's their business.

I hope this makes sense!

"But thinking from the viewpoint of someone offering advice to an artist who is starting out, I'd never tell them to not bother to learn how to draw. I'd never tell them that "there is a simpler way"

I would never give such advice. This is silly advise and should be tossed without regard. I think drawing is a wonderful skill. I practice it almost everyday. I would do nothing but encourage anyone to work hard and become skilled at drawing. For me personally, tracing is crossing the line (sorry) but my argument is this: be true to yourself, and arrive at completion with a happy heart and with as good a work as you can muster. People will judge the outcome not the process.

Have a nice weekend, Mike

Let me offer some concilliatory words too, Jacqueline. Mike and I were having a little fun, but it wasn't meant to be at your expense. I can tell you're sincere, and we came across a little less-than. Sorry.

The fundamentals of our art (yours, mine, all of us) are simply that ... fundamental. Skipping steps to become mock-proficient at a "trick" (tracing) does both you and the subject a disservice. I will always be on the side of those who advocate eliminating short-cuts until you learn your craft. If you can't create without tracing or grids you've diminished your efforts. For some, this is a legitimate limitation, and shouldn't be a badge of shame. Enjoy what you do at costs!

All the best,
Dave

Re: Tracing and transferring images
 

I know exectly what you mean. I've always felt the same way you do. I never trace, to me its a sin. It's always been freehand drawing for me. I'am only 26 but have been drawing all my life. And I do think alot of artists do rely on tracing and grids. And computers make it easier for people to just pop things out of the printer and think they're artists. I am self taught and believe in drawing the old-fashioned way, no tracing, grids or computers. Just plain old freehand. And knowing that I made a portrait with my skill from a blank sheet of paper makes it all worth it. The real artists know who they are.

I would echo David's sentiments. Create, be happy.

Disegno vs. Colorito
 

From...

http://www.rice.edu/projects/Blaffer.../venetian.html

...comes...

"In a famous anecdote, Vasari recounts Michelangelo's comments after visiting the studio of Titian, who was in Rome for a brief sojourn in the mid-1540s: Michelangelo supposedly praised Titian, 'saying that his coloring and style pleased him very much but that it was a shame that in Venice they did not learn to draw well from the beginning.'"

More on this neverending debate can be found in that website as well as in...

http://webexhibits.org/feast/context/venetianart.html

Drawing is indeed a wonderful art. But painting can be an art unto itself.

"LINES DO NOT EXIST IN NATURE. What you interpret as a line is the place where two areas of different color or tone come together, and your imagination supplies the line between them." - Hereward Lester Cooke, then Curator of Painting at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC (quoted in his classic work, "Painting Techniques of the Masters", which does, however, recognize the power of drawing, at least in the hands of certain artists).

To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Art is as art does."

I'm not sure whether lines exist in nature or not (though any given segment of a spider web seems, for example, pretty linear to me, and that took only an idle moment to think of -- there must be lots of other instances), but it seems to me that the point of learning to draw well -- which is much much more than making linear outlines -- is that, if there are lines in nature and I want to depict them, I would -- because of my drawing experience and the way it trained my eye -- know where to put that line in relation to other lines or objects, I would be able to correctly represent its angle from the horizontal or vertical and accurately gauge its length. These are the same judgments I later had to make when painting, as I considered whether an eye was the correct width, whether the eyes were in proper relation to each other and to the brow, the nose, the ears, whether the hands were too long or the foreshortened feet foreshortened too much. A well executed pencil drawing with accuracy and economy of line is a very beautiful thing in its own right, and the beauty extends to the fact that in order to create the drawing, the artist had to be able to accurately see and then accurately replicate what was seen. If the artist was using Bouguereau as a standard but, for lack of the skills that a trained draftsman's eye can implement, winds up with the flounder features of a Picasso, it's generally disappointing for both artist and viewer. If a painter is gifted or talented enough to be able to work in a realistic representational style without having to learn to handle graphite or charcoal, that's fine. I wasn't, so I did.

Painting consists of five basic considerations: Line, form, space, color, and composition -- the last comprised of the first four.

The first three are primarily, as you have so vividly described, considerations of "spatial relations" -- the province of the right brain.

Painting, as the non-objective artists have demonstrated, is at its most basic the application of color -- which as we've discussed elsewhere (as in the "Primary Colors" thread) is a matter of physics, physiology, and psychology and, I would assert, more the province of the logical and linguistic left brain (as well as the more basic, emotional, "subconscious" realm of the mind).

Ideally, as in the works of Da Vinci, both halves of the brain work together, in art, science, and life; nonetheless, the tradition of "painterliness", as beginning with Titian, does by definition stress the coloring of surfaces over the draughtsmanship of line (although as a practical matter, anything that we can do to render our subjects as accurately as possible is, of course, most respectful and profitable).

As for spider webs, I can tell you as something of an entomologist (another hat I wear) that each strand of silk does indeed have a measurable thickness -- as opposed to a true line (a geometric construct of the mind) -- and, thus, like any other object in nature is bounded at its edge by a row of atoms, whose electron clouds, the scientists tell us, are dispersed to infinity.

Any line we draw -- like any art we create -- is truly in the eye of the beholder. I admire it all (That's my "line" and I'm sticking to it)!

Electron clouds, hmm? Well, that would explain, I suppose, why so many of my earlier drawings have disappeared. Some of the more recent ones are looking a little fuzzy, too.

No, the spider's silk isn't a geometric construct of the mind, which is precisely why its "molecularly bulky" presence is optically available to us. And the best we can do is to use our implements -- whether 6H pencil sandpapered to a needle point, or a rigger loaded with paint -- to represent that inherent width, shape, bulk, "line" as we understand it when we say "draw a line." And when we set that graphite or that brush down and begin to draw, it's a pleasure, I think, to try as closely as possible to mimic nature's placement and design. It is also my prerogative as the artist to adjust that design according to my own purposes, but I do so with the confidence that I'm in charge of where I choose to locate and define lines, shapes, values and colour. Hundreds of hours' worth of drawing practice, like hundreds of hours of batting practice, increases the odds that I'll knock one out of the park.

Drawing is a useful skill, but I agree that many painters carry out a career's worth of fine work without having learned to manipulate the fine line. Others, such as Mary Cassatt, have left behind beautiful pencil and drypoint drawings that are stunningly evocative in their simplicity and economy. I believe that facility enhanced her paintings, as well.

You are right, of course, that a spider's web -- or any other object -- is not simply a construct of the mind (Unless we get completely Socratic in our thinking). However, to define a limit to any physical object is indeed a mental exercise -- the closer you look, the more you see there is no defining edge (although to be fair, I concede that the painterly invention of "lost edges" refers not to atomic theory but to parallax etc. -- more on such illusions below).

Although this is usually a distinction without a difference -- human beings have such powers of delineation and definition to make sense of the world around them -- there are concrete consequences. For example, in a life-drawing class, I doubt that any two artists will portray the same model with exactly the same set of lines (It would hardly be art if they did).

The subjects we objective artists portray are real; but the lines we draw are subjective, depending on such physical factors as our distance to the subject, our angle of view, the detail viewable in the available lighting, etc...

http://www.optillusions.com/

...but equally importantly, what we choose to portray or not portray as artists with our lines or colors says a lot about ourselves and our subjects -- which I believe is at the heart of what you've been getting at.

Beyond technical proficiency, of laying out lines in geometric accordance with the forms observed, are we to draw and/or paint our subjects "warts and all" or in the most flattering view?

Like I said, I admire it all!

There's a J.S. Sargent exhibit touring museums right now, and I was lucky enough to get over to St. Louis to see it. The focus of the exhibit is his drawings and landscape sketches in watercolor, so I was a little dissappointed that I didn't get to see any of his beautiful portraits.

As I was walking through the hallways lined with his drawings, I was really stunned. He could draw a very life like portrait with less than 10 lines. One of the subjects he repeatedly drew was a flamenco dancer, and the expression of her movement with extremely economic line was incredible. I loved looking at and studying these drawings. The feeling I had when viewing these works is partly why I'm giving up pursuit of a career in research to attend an atelier after I finish my current studies. For some reason, I find it absolutely enthralling.

I know that many terrffic artists don't know how to draw well, and I wish them nothing but success. For myself, though, I couldn't imagine an artistic career that didn't include this beautiful skill.

Whatever serves our artistic purpose. We're all kings and queens in the realms of our own studios. But when the heirs of the Wicked Witch of the West commission that posthumous portrait, I want to have my wart-sketching abilities well and truly honed.

Wicked Witch of the West? Now THAT'S one portrait I've GOT to see!

And Nathaniel, your description of "economic line" really struck a chord: One of the first artists who really made an impression on me, at a VERY early age (40 years ago), was Hirschfeld...

http://www.alhirschfeld.com/

...which, with Disney and Hanna-Barbara, led me into cartooning and little animated films.

But after that -- and drawing COUNTLESS realistic and schematic sketches of every conceivable plant and animal species (including Homo sapiens), inside and out, in every macroscopic to microscopic detail for years on end -- I've come to appreciate not only the art of drawing but also, as a breath of fresh air, the art of painting, as an art unto itself, as I'm sure each of you has.

Graphite is my comfort; paint is my passion.

A Warty P.S.
 

For anyone reading these comments who might be in the dark about the "warts and all" reference, take a look at...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/...000/326121.stm

...in which you'll find this...

"Evidence also suggests [Oliver] Cromwell [Lord Protector of England] was a man of honesty. When commissioning a portrait of himself, he told the painter: 'I desire you would use all your skill to paint my picture truly like me ... warts and everything.' The artist duly obliged."

Commonly given as "warts and all", it is perhaps the most famous quote about a portrait in history.

And, of course, it works not only for rough-hewn Puritans overthrowing bewigged aristocrats but also for "wicked witches" as well!

Douglas, I have drawn portraits for a living for thirty years. I really love it. But when I paint a very serious oil, I will trace or transfer for the layout. Nothing wrong with that. However, the art of drawing is a dying art, I feel, in today's world. No one knows how to draw, not even the professors of art. I was trained as a child in a children's art school. We learned classic techniques of drawing. However, my teacher, (my grandfather) could not sit down and draw from life. He was too much illustrator, drawing out of his imaginmation, to be a live portrait artist. He used the grid method for painting serious oils, which worked splendidly for him. And he was a master in the art of pencil drawing.

I do not say that everyone has to be able to draw. But, my painting was very much improved after a year or two of drawing every day, all day!!! Still, I will trace for a tight oil, because I cannot trust my trained eye enough. It lets me down a bit.

I met a man who trained in Italy who was not allowed to do anything for the first year but copy drawings of the masters, line for line!!!!! It drove him crazy. But, he learned the value of the classic styles of line work, shading and technique. It is the "boot camp," as you said it. I highly recommend it. It is something that can be learned. But there are no short cuts, if you want to master drawing. It is time and experience.

I didn't want anyone to think I'd disappeared!

Thanks to this thread and a few other sources, I think I've softened my position a bit - some people trace when they are starting out with art, and it builds their confidence. Some people have other specific reasons for it. I don't envy them for not having this skill, I don't think that deciding to not learn how to draw is a good thing, but hey - whatever. My main bone of contention (as I previously mentioned) is the almost disdainful dismissal of the art of drawing, and its importance.

IT'S IMPORTANT That's it for me. One will never be "better off" because they don't know how to draw. They may still do great stuff, but they are not in an enviable position for lacking that specific skill.

Lon - I happened to see some of your sketches, and I think your work is a prime example of why not tracing portraits can be such an asset. They have a fresh, unique look to them that is not the product of tracing or slavishly copying a photo. They retain the likeness, but with your stamp on each portrait. I guess traced portraits can have their own "stamp" too, but it probably won't be in the interpretation and proportion of the features. Only a freehand drawing can do that. And I think that's a big part of portrait art.

It's funny, I think one of the biggest assets of knowing how to draw is the ability to draw from my imagination. I love to draw from life too, but I am often doodling and drawing all over my sketchpads. It keeps me out of trouble. I bring my sketchpad to work. (It's allowed at my job.) These are joyous activities, so I guess I can't understand why some people (the ones who eschew drawing) want to deprive themselves of such fun.

It often gets me into trouble. We must be sketching different things. I suppose that life drawing in the margin of my performance appraisal marked the beginning of my new career.

Fortunately, my high-school history teacher appreciated my caricatures of Nixon in the margins of my political essays!

It sounds like all of us appreciate the freedom of expression that we enjoy by drawing, as from imagination (harkening back to those controversial comments about the "reality" of lines -- to me, it's all what we see, or choose to see).

My defense of "painterliness" as opposed to "draughtsmanship" (as I have learned the terms of the classical debate) is not to denigrate the art of drawing -- arguably the Mother of Visual Arts -- but rather to praise the virtues of painting as an art unto itself -- something most laypeople don't seem to appreciate.

For me, drawing outlines forms, enhancing my visualization of them; but painting (even more than simple shading with a pencil) further solidifies forms, allowing me to "feel" their surfaces and weight with my paintbrush -- that to me is the greatest creative satisfaction...short of sculpture (as Genesis and Darwin agree, people were ultimately created from the clay of the Earth).

There are many "dimensions" to art!

An illistrator tends to draw from his imagination, and may have a hard time drawing from life.

I was a sign painting apprentice in college, (Bible college, not art school) and learned the art of "one stroke" sign painting. It is a term I have come to appreciate. I use it in drawing. Each stroke counts, and hopefully is the final stroke. I will try to upload an example. It is a very simple drawing, but to me is my best. It took about five minutes. You will have a hard time doing this if you trace. I am a diehard believer in line technique. I was trained very strictly this way as a child, and it now affords me a freedom of expression I am very grateful for.

Very expressive (and impressive)!

Without realizing what it was called, I've always envied "one stroke" work (I believe that could apply to some etchings by Rembrandt).

I also appreciate the countless glazes applied by such colorists as Titian (and Rembrandt).

If there were just one way to create art, it wouldn't be art (and there wouldn't be call for our variety of styles).

Here's to diversity, amongst artists and our subjects and patrons!

Here here!!!

Since the "sculptural" aspect of our 2-dimensional representations has just been mentioned, I wanted to share a neat quote from a book I just received yesterday and stayed up with way too late. Anthony Ryder writes in his beautiful "The Artist's Complete Guide to Figure Drawing" (Watson-Guptill 2000):

"The patient elaboration of value with a very sharp pencil induces a mental state in which you feel as if you are actually sculpting the surface of the body within the virtual reality of the drawing. With practice, you can develop an acute sensitivity to subtle variations in the surface of the form, as if there were nerve endings at the point of your pencil."

Isn't that great? I could never have articulated it that well, but when I read Ryder's description, I was very pleasantly taken back to the experience of precisely that feeling, and I remembered again why all those sometimes tedious hours in the life room were worthwhile.

Steven

That's an amazing description Steven!! I love it!

Okay this is a little off the subject, but your post reminded me of something, so please allow me a little foray into fantasy. As I've done web sites over the years, I have at times softened wrinkles, trimmed a scruffy beard, lessened dark circles under eyes and diminished a sagging jaw...on photos of real people, of course, not portraits. As I was doing it, I would fantasize that what I was doing would actually occur in the real world. Wouldn't I make a fortune if it were true?!

Yes, but then we'd be calling you Dr. Daniel and making appointments at one of your eight day-patient plastic surgery centers -- and we wouldn't have SOG. Incidentally, I've been vigorously resisting for two hours today's visit to the NordicTrack in the other room, but if you could work a little of that PhotoShop magic in my "real world" of The Middle Age, it'd sure save me a lot of grief, and my painter's smocks would fit better, too.

Steven