What makes him/her a true artist?
 

It is but a few that see the big picture and will with all humility truthfully admit what they see.

It is but a few that have true knowledge and true humility to be honest and usher the words the king is naked. Flaunting ones mediocrity and selling it as mastery is a out rite lye. Still, many buy into the lye for lack of knowledge and mediocrity, while deceiving others, buys into the self same lye.

The grate artists of the past and of today are rarely noticed and in many instances ridiculed. It is bat a few that have exhibited true mastery even as a youth and went on to forge a path of excellence. Then you have the artists that start out late in life. Even though late, they are not discouraged by the lack of time, they strive for excellence and create some wonderful works of art.

In my humble opinion, the art of the masters, past and present, has been pushed aside by mediocrity and psychopathy. It is quite evident that the market dictates what true art is and this is plane to see throughout history and today.

It is rare, even when looking back in history, that we find true comities of talented, learned, dedicated artists that humbly direct, educate and do their best to preserve true excellence in art.

What is true art?

When faced with this question, many will and are quick to give their definition. They feel it is an attack of their intellect and they automatically must respond. Others wait for someone else to respond first but are ready to point out errors even before the answer is given. Then you have the silent type.

It is on a rare occasion that you will hear someone say, I do not know. Now, this is honesty!
Others will spit out words, in the same fashion as an "artist" splatters paint all over the place and calls the finished product art.

Where do you stand? Are you amongst the learned or are you a student? Do you know of a artist that offers all the qualifications? Where do we find him/her? Do you have a sample?

Be not selfish rather let us walk together.

It

From Artists Quotes
[QUOTE]
:: Antony Gormley :::
You're sitting there with your muse and your muse is telling you something and you

Steven, thank you. You make some solid thought provoking points. I hope we can analyze a point or to in the near future.

Enzie, thank you. This is quite interesting what you have here. One can get an idea a crumb, if I may, into the thought of each artist.


Art is really having its chance. The urge to draw seems to have taken hold of many more thousands today than ever before. It has spread across the world. While many are interested in art as a pastime or hobby, others would gladly choose it as a means of livelihood if they were convinced that their ability was sufficient to provide any real hope of success.

There will always be a certain amount of confusion about what is talent or native ability in drawing and what is knowledge of the craft. Too often, knowledge is construed as talent. On the other hand, drawing that lacks constructive knowledge is seldom successful as drawing. The truth is that we do not see the talent until the means of bringing it forth has been developed. That means is reasonably accurate analysis and understanding of the laws of nature as they apply to man's vision.

We who choose art as our medium of expression should realize that it has certain fundamentals from which we progress, just as there are fundamentals of literature, drama, or music. Unfortunately, the fundamentals of an approach to art have not usually been so clearelly defined for practical study as have those of some other creative activities.

Suppose we have two drawings before us. One appeals; the other does not. This one is good, the other bad. Why? I believe I can point out underlying reasons that are perfectly understandable. Strangely enough, the reasons are usually not found in art books or taught in classes. The response to drawing is related to the emotions and experience of the individual, and is wholely apart, so far as I know, from the teaching of art. Yet I do not believe art can go very far unless the artist has some sort of an understanding of this response. An artist can go all his life without realizing why his/her work does not appeal. Even successful artists may not really know why their work does appeal, though they thank heaven is does.

To understand why a drawing does or does not appeal, we must recognize a certain ability that is developed in every childhood through adult life. The term "intelligent perception" I think comes as close as any to describing this faculty. It is vision coordinated with the brain. It is a sense rightness developed by contact. At some time or other, our brain accept certain effects or appearances as truth, and abide by these decisions. We learn to distinguish one appearance from another, in size or proportion, in color, and in texture. All the senses combine to give us intelligent perception. We have a sense of space or depth, even if we know nothing of the science of perspective. We are quickly aware of distortion or deformity, since the appearance does not coincide with what experience has taught us is normal or truthful. Form is registered in the mind, even if we know nothing of anatomy and proportion, so that we recognize a face immediately, though we could not even give a good verbal description of it. Our sense of proportion tells us that this is a child and that a midget, or this a puppy and that a small dog. Intelligent perception includes a feeling for bulk and contour.

The minute the spectator sees change of proportion, distortion, change of form, color, or texture, he/she realizes that something is wrong. The cleverest imitation will not fool him/her. The dummy in the department store window is a dummy to everyone.

To be continued

P.S. feel free to contribute

Let us consider for a moment what made the great artists great. In almost every case they were masters of form, which means that they had to be masters of light on form. Light and form were no different then. The artist of the past had no clippings or cameras. They had to find out from life. By observation and study they learned truths which are still staring us in the face, but which we do not know or see, because we think an D70 or the Rebel is going to take the whole heavy business off our shoulders. We actually have twenty times the opportunity to produce masterpieces that they had. We are not bothered with making sketches or studies from life. The truth is we are just not bothered. The only legitimate excuse the artist of today has, and its wan thin, is lack of time. But where is lack of time taking us?

To be continued

P.S. feel free to contribute

The flag
 

They held the flag of excellence and they held it high

I guess I

Let us strive for excellence
 

Thank you Steven. Again you bring up some weary important points. There can be little doubt that the chaotic condition of art today has caused confusion in the minds of artists, young and old. We are all asking - by what qualities, according to present standards, can a painting be judged? Is there still a solid foundation on which to base the teaching of art? Is art deteriorating, or is it being revitalized by new concepts?

At the bottom of the national and political crisis today is the struggle for individual liberty and freedom of expression.It is therefore no coincidence that art has moved with the times and given the artist more freedom of expression than was ever known in the history of art.

There is always the danger that freedom can be abused. In art this means that the man/woman without knowledge or ability is granted the same freedom as the skilled technician. Freedom is based on the assumption that the individual is morally and socially responsible, and to grant it to irresponsibility is like opening toe doors to everyone who ever perpetrated a crime against society.

There are painters wielding the brush who do not possess one iota of the fundamentals of art. We, today, have "art" that would make the old masters jump back into their graves, where they to see it. The good seems almost hopelessly mixed with the bad.

Then again, to condemn the past because it is not of the present would be as short-sighted as to stick only to the past for the sake of tradition. Because certain forms of art can become passe, there is no reason to believe that basic knowledge is passe also.

There are two satisfying and basic concepts by which artists have always worked and probably always will. Two dimensional art, art rendered on a flat plane, which will survive as ornamentation of one kind or another. Three dimensional art,art that will seek beauty of form. If we concede that ornamentation is the process of beautifying, then we find that beauty is the basis of both concepts. Mankind has from the beginning sought beauty, and by degrees added it to create beauty, another the desire to seek it or own is, a desire which evidence itself every day in the selection of our possessions. Whether it is creative or possessive, there is an innate desire for perfection, which broadly speaking is the basis for all progress. We seek to improve upon the efforts, accomplishments and worldly goods of our neighbors. For the creative man there is instinctive pride in doing something better than others have done. On the possessive side, man wants the better product, the craftsmanship, the better home, the beautiful wife/husband. His/her desires in this direction seem to be limited only by the power to acquire, or the wherewithal to purchase. This drive toward creating beauty or possessing it is as basic to our lives as the air we breathe.

I think the great danger lies in allowing beauty to get bogged down in personal opinions, trends and isms, in narrowing our individual understanding to the dogmas prated by the few. Beauty must be free, belonging individually to you and me, as far as we are capable of grasping it. Beauty is all around us, waiting to be discovered and every artist interprets it on paper or canvas in his/her own particular way.

In our search for subjects to paint we may concentrate our attention merely on beauty of form, texture or color. There is beauty to be found in pure geometrical forms, in spacing, in creating surfaces, planes and abstract forms.

Realism can be creative, in the selection of the subject and in rendering that subject as it is seen and felt by you as an individual. You may paint an impression in broad terms or you may paint with great fidelity do detail and either way achieve a fine creative work of art. The subject is not the picture it is the way in which it is rendered that makes or breaks a work of art. Abstract art and realistic art are simply two different forms of approach and who is to say that one approach is any better than the other.

Today there seems to be a strong trend toward spontaneous, creative expression, without much regard for classical training. The creative urge is stronger than the will to study and acquire knowledge as the masters did in the past. Therefore we see paintings by men/women who have little or no academic knowledge, by men/women who are endeavoring to paint what they feel rather than what they see. We cannot deny them their right to express themselves in this manner, for it is entirely possible that a thing of beauty may be acheaved by working from an emotional standpoint. In fact, the lack of one element may be more than compensated for by another, for, as everyone knows, there are many academic and expertly painted pictures that express so little emotion that they fail altogether as creative works of art. They can be trite and stiff and lacking altogether in both spirit and originality.

It is true, however, that the abstractionist without a classical training works against greater odds than the experienced realist does. He/she is like a man/woman building a house without any knowledge of the carpenter's trade. All knowledge must come by way of experiment and innate craftsmanship, and he/she faces the extra hazard of being completely misunderstood. His/her creativeness must overshadow his technical faults and lack of technical knowledge is extremely difficult to conceal for long. Imagine the "pro artist" that has not attained and mastered is craft. He/she is asked to produce a work of art outside his/her studio. No photos, no copy machines, no tracing papers etc. Sure we can learn much by copying but without a structured education such a artist will be lost. Such an artist will resort to the gift of gab.

One style is usually the outcome or, one might say, the refinement of another as the artist gains in experience and dexterity.

In viewing gallery exhibitions today, we must understand that many canvases are hung without the remotest expectation of ever being sold. Many are exhibited for the sole purpose of educating the public to new concepts in art. But if the viewer bears in mind that many such works by modern artists are more in the nature of experiments than they are representations of an ideal, his/her attitude toward modern art is likely to be more lenient.

My own opinion is that the canvases that will stand the test of time will be only those with inherent beauty, those which stand on their own merits and can be appreciated without high-sounding literary explanations by the avant-guard reviewer.

I

Incidentally, the images you've posted are absolutely exquisite, but for purposes both of intellectual property rights and the greatest usefulness as references to the forum members and readers, please provide an attribution -- title of the piece, name of the artist, and any other pertinent information, such as the collection in which the piece resides, if you happen to know. If the image was scanned from a particular text or catalog or borrowed from a website, it would be appropriate to give credit to that source as well, as very often those publishers have done a lot of their own work on the image to maximize its appearance (and as such, have their own intellectual property rights in their enhancements, which should be acknowledged.)

Zorn
 

I do apologize for not naming the attachments. I had thought that someone else would chime in with a comment regarding the images even to name them. Being that no one has:


The first is Bouguereau, zenobia. There is much to be said about this painting. It is so rich with information technically and historically.

Second is Ilja Repin

Third is Anschutz Thomas

Forth is a etching executed by Zorn and sent to me Grethe Angen.

I so weary much wish I had more of Zorns works. His color/value execution is exquisite. His brush work free and not tight at all.Anyone that has a chance to study his art is quite fortunate.

Misha, I love the painting by Anschutz Thomas. I find it so vibrant and alife. I will have to search out more works by this artist, whom I'm not familiar with. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.

Who's to say? I dunno
 

To me, art is what I respond to visually in a positive way. I believe we all react to certain stimuli based on a variety of factors, which are directly tied to our experience. What we see is based on what we learn and this informs what we look for.

As my understanding evolves it's interesting to note which aspects remain strong and which dissipate. I see a great number of commonalities in the approaches of the artists that I favor, and these I try to incorporate in my working methodology. It's also the basis of what I teach.

My preferences are solely the function of my taste and not biased by what anyone else thinks is correct or what is commonly agreed upon to have merit. Time alters perception, and the general consensus always reverses itself. I believe that the more agreement there is, the less the likelihood of any real merit. My true path revealed itself when I became frustrated with the status quo and sought a different direction.

I always weigh the opinions of others and consider what they say. If I'm swayed and shift my position it's ultimately a function of my intuitive judgment responding to the revelation of a bigger truth. As a result my clarity is ever evolving. My path is dynamic, not static and the end is nowhere in sight. I'm closer now than ever before and that's very exciting. As a result I consider myself an artist in training.

The flag of excellence
 

Here is a few more masterful peaces bu Zorn and Anschuts Thomas.

Enzie it is my pleasure. I'm glad you like his work. In the second painting of his you can notice his approach the under-painting, drawing, massing and value. Notice that he did not bother covering the under-painting in its entirety. What grate lessons!

Marvin, I have learn't much from you in the past year or so, by being on this forum. One can benefit much from your wisdom.

Of course, we all see shining examples of technique, some of which we admire very much and which we attempt to copy for technique's sake alone. As a result technique actually gets in our way and we end up by not seeing the subject we are painting truly and often overlook many of the other ESSENTIAL elements of painting as well. When a person thinks in terms of technique he/she probably is not giving his/her best attention to VALUES, RELATIONSHIPS, or even COLOR. He/she thinks about the strokes he/she is making and not much else. Technique is a strong indication of individuality and if one allows, it will get into your work subconsciously. It is much like handwriting, of which no two specimens are alike.

Raise the flag of standard high, she did
 

One of my favorite women master portrait artists is the famous Vigee le Brun. If you search out her biography and you closely scrutinize her art you will notice why her portraits meant so much to many.

Enzie, the artist's name whose work you posted is Thomas Anschutz.

Thanks Mischa, I'm always happy that my words have a positive effect. I just share my experience. I don't speak hypothetically nor do I try to assume knowledge of subjects of which I have none. I have little tolerance for anyone who speaks for the sake of hearing their own voice, or bullies others into agreement, in order to compensate for their insecurities. I just tell it like it is. I like to stir the pot.

When I spoke about the common traits which attract me to certain works of art, I wasn't talking strictly about technique. Obviously technical skill is very important when it comes to expressing one's ideas, just as a good grasp of prose can be a powerful tool for a writer. Poor use of language, just like bad technique can be very distracting.

The most important quality that a painting can possess, in my opinion, is that of sincerity. I look for a genuine connection between the artist and the subject. There needs to be a certain sense of awe for what one is painting. This quality is first and foremost when I view the best works of Paxton, Bouguereau, Kramskoy and DeCamp. I feel the love baby. It needs to come from the heart and convey to the viewer why it had to be painted.

It's sad that so many of our artistic brethren are too quick to dismiss certain skillful artists simply because they have great facility and they therefore totally miss the true beauty. A painting isn't necessarily bad if it's tight or a portrait, nor is it necessarily good if it's loose or allegorical. Style is not the determining factor in judging good from bad.

The painters I like also all seem to demonstrate a convincing understanding of what they are painting. Certain elements may merely be suggested but they are never just techniqued out. In addition, there is a huge difference between copying and understanding. It doesn't matter if you copy from life or from a photo. If you don't understand something, it's just copying. Working from life can help you understand, but only if you truly search.

I also think far too many artists look at the paintings they admire in a strictly superficial way and are seduced primarily by the surface, be it tight or brush-strokey. Too many artists are trying to emulate surface effects and to me this is the major shortcoming with realism today.

I post here to get people to open their eyes and think. The smarter we artists are, the better the odds the general public will be enlightened as well.

A characteristic that the posted images have in common, to my eye, is that they are artistic expressions that could have emanated only from the brush or charcoal or ink nib of a particular artist. No one would even think to

Thanks Misha for posting more another work by Anschutz, I still haven't looked him up, no time! I like the idea of sometimes having the underpaintg show through and have done it on occasion, when it added a special effect.

I admire those artists (old or new) most and consider them a true artist, whose entire body of work shows growth and a collective understanding of great drawing skills and an acquired handle on technique (paint application, color knowledge, brush handling, composition/design).

These are attributes gained through study and careful observation and a true love for what one does. The paintings produced by such artists have a quality on to themselves that are capable to attract attention and withstand the judgment of time.

If such an artist is able to push further with innovations that make the work ahead of it's time, than I call him/her a true master.

I am but a student
 

Steve, I could not agree with you more. It is like you say that art comes about when the heart and the hands/mind work together. Happy accidents are just that happy accidents.

I have found that by doing master copies I can learn much. I not only benefit from their skill but from their faults as well. I think that at times one can get so engrossed in a painting, when doing a copy, we tend not to notice what is amiss. Sure it takes much time and study to be able to see these things, of which I am but a babe, but it is there for the discerning eye.

When I was at the academy and I was on my first charcoal cast, while in the finishing stages, the face of Michaelangelo's David, I was asked to render the background perfectly smooth. When I thought that I had accomplished what was asked of me the instructor came by and by example afforded me in a 1" square what I was to accomplish. In my minds eye what I have accomplished with the background was perfect and it was but there was more to learn. At that moment, I could not understand why I must refine the background to such a degree of perfection. It was later that I understood and began to appreciate the benefit of such understanding. Then again having the understanding is one thing being able to use what you understand is what takes time and lot of hard work.

When I hear the words like "oooo you have it so easy just siting around drawing and doodling" I laugh for they have no idea. No one does! unless you have walked the walk. That is why today I can honestly say I can just scratch the surface and appreciate the work of the old masters and a few of the masters of today.

So, let us not forget the old saying, we can learn much even from the mistakes of others.


Enzie, you have put it all in a nut shell. That is exactly what it is all about. If one exemplifies the qualities the public will beet a path to your door. Sure one needs to let the public know that you are available and exhibitions are good but the best advertisement is word of mouth. Even though word of moth is best advertisement but remember it can be ones worst enemy. So, let us do our best and strive for nothing short of excellence.

Cecilia Beaux,
 

Here is a lady that valued and understood her love for art. Her dream of achieving excellence is recognized in every brush stroke.

One of my favorite paintings of hers is this one. Sorry, I do not have the name but would love to know and if someone has this painting in higher resolution please send it to me.

Thank you

Mischa,

Cecilia Beaux’s work is exquisite.

I had the privilege of viewing the painting posted above in the “stacks” (where paintings are stored behind glass) at The Metropolitan Museum of Art this past February. The title of the painting is “Ernesta”, completed in 1914.

I found it interesting that the same girl, all grown up, was also immortalized as a small child in “Ernesta with Nurse”, painted by Cecilia Beaux in 1894. This is another amazing work of art with gorgeous brushwork and a unique composition.

Laurel, thank you! How fortunate to have seen this painting in person.

When ever I have the pleasure to stand next to a well executed painting I seem to be mesmerized and cannot take my self away from it. On a number of occasions I have had the security people come and ask that I step back. I do comply but then there is always something that draws me near that I must have a closer look. Naturally the security must come again and I must explain my self again. After a while they just laugh and let me be.

A passage from Alain de Botton

Thank you Steven. These statements by Alain de Botton express the knack for diplomacy while at the same time relating some fact.
A great artist once said something like simplicity of design is what we should strive for. Also, if it is impossible to make a small sketch without infinite labor, then we can be pretty sure we are starting off on the wrong foot. So, it is safe to say that any subject that will look effective in an exhibition gallery or on the wall of an average size living room is also definable in a 5 by 7 inch sketch at a distance of 6 feet or more.

I think that painting is very much like writing. There can be so many detailed passages in a book that the reader who wants the story to move along becomes irritated. A conversationalist can get lost in detail and trivia too and so can the artist.

Then again we can ask the question, what type of reader are we? Do we prefer Shakespeare, Tom Sawyer, children's books, etc.

As we think on the subject of art, let us not lose our self in the philosophy of thought and dare to forget that all we need is evident in nature.

Do you carry your sketch book with you everywhere you go? If not, why not?

What is true art?
 

I think that it is human nature to try and define or label every aspect of life that we engage in while living on this planet. In a sense when you can make a definition to describe a subject, place, person or thing then we can possess and capture it by defining and then cause closure of the mystery. A pseudo way of conquering is the implication I'm making here. It seems until we can finally understand our minds will not rest.

Art has many definitions endless diversity, but yet there is no final definition, no exact explanation.

That is the beauty of art you can't make absolute definition, to me that is why it is called art, that sense of mystery is the fascination behind creation. And what is more pleasing or beautiful than a mystery? That search for meaning to the elusive mystery causes us to go on searching, and creating art.

If mankind ever comes up with an exact definition it will no longer be art. I predict that will never happen, art is as endless as the universe.

My answer to the question that you pose is that a 'true' artist is an artist who uses his/her creativity and Imagination .

There are artists who replicate without creativity or imagination and they are copyist artists. The differences between ordinary replication and in creative/ imaginative replication is profoundly different in my humble opinion.

Great discussion! :)

"Do you carry your sketch book with you everywhere you go? If not, why not?"

During the Korea war, Ridgway gained the nickname, "Old Iron Tits," for his habit of wearing hand grenades attached to his load-bearing equipment at chest level. {Photographs however show he only wore one grenade on one side of his chest; the so-called "grenade" on the other side was in fact a first-aid packet}.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Ridgway

Henry, thank you. Your words express sincere thought.

I like this question "And what is more pleasing or beautiful than a mystery?" and a thought came to mind as I understand it. Answer: beautiful and true to life art. Please do not get me wrong, I believe one is but a student his or her entire life but when one learns from the master artist then and only then one has a chance to understand the mystery of true art.

"That search for meaning to the elusive mystery causes us to go on searching, and creating art." Here, I believe "the elusive mystery" will always be if one does not recognize the simple signs of masterful work. Many times we have heard that if we learn from nature, still life setups, live models, put into practice proven methods one will understand and learn much faster. Here too, it has been my experience, one must have true to life guidance.

If we pick-out ten of our all time favorite artists, what is it that they all had or have in common? It will be plain to see that they all had a clear knowledge, a solid foundation in the basics. Some examples of the basics: true to life line and tonal drawing, value relationships, composition, and at least a basic understanding of color/value.


Celeste, you raise a excellent point of observation! I believe that before one even thinks to assume the title artist, let alone master artist, one must consider your statement.

Thank you!


Wang, thank you. That is a nice painting of Ridgway by Clarence Lamont MacNelly.

Antonio Cisari, anothr flag of excellence
 

His religious paintings are Raphaelesque in their compositional outlines and their polished surfaces, but are nearly photographic in effect. He fulfilled many important commissions from churches in Italy and Switzerland.

Ciseri also painted a significant number of portraits.

"The Painter in Oil" written by D.B. Parkhurst
 

HOW TO STUDY

"There is a right and a wrong way to study, and it all centres around the fact that what you aim to learn is perception and expression. What you are to express you do not learn; you grow to that. But you must learn how to use all possible means; all the facts of visible nature, and all the characteristics of pigments. All qualities, color and form and texture, are but the means of your expression, and you must know how they may be used. Your perception and appreciation must be trained, and your mind stored with facts and relativities. Then you are ready to recognize and convey the true inwardness you find in conditions commonplace to others.

You are to see where other see not; for it is marvelous how little the average eye sees of the really interesting things, how little of the visual facts, and how rarely it sees the picture before it is painted. All is material to the painter. It is not that "everything that is, is beautiful," but that everything that is has qualities and possibilities of beauty; and these, when expressed, make the picture, in spite of the superficial or obvious ugliness."

This drawing is by the artist spoken of this book

Great art
 

Yes I understand what your saying, but yet I can't agree completely. You see many people have different ideas about what they recognize and consider a masterful work. What is recognized and appreciated as great art by some may not be true for others, this is how it should be, freedom of thought and opinion. The mystery I'm speaking of isn't entirely based upon the simple signs of a masterful work as you have stated. I don't think masterful work's of art were simply or easily achieved. The mystery I am speaking of is the force that drives an artist to continue developing his art, the artists evolution of progress. The compulsion that stimulates one to create and grow until mastery is achieved. You might say the spirit behind great works of art, The word spirit itself implies a sense of mystery. What is mysterious is why certain works of art stand out individually as great or masterful. It cant be just technique alone. This is where a work of art touches the human soul in a profound way like spirit, and invisible elusive force. A combination of both technique and human emotion.

And for the viewer, the individual who has an appreciation of certain works of art that they consider outstanding. For them this awareness, conviction and recognition of certain works of art and the artists who create them is extremely diverse in taste and opinion. Just as the multitudes of people themselves with no two personalities alike. Basically what is great for some may not be for others.

Well Henry,
 

I too understand what you are saying and I appreciate your words of wisdom.

I am the type that likes practical things, things that I can put into practice. When ever I hear the words "mystery", "spirituality" even when the words are well meant,
alarm bells go off. This being that in my life, I have personally witnessed many hide behind such statements. I am not saying that you are and you do make a good point but many use these as an excuse not to do their homework.

I also believe that when considering what one likes and another dislikes is also based on the individuals experience in their upbringing. For an example, when we consider the work of Wyeth there is not much that one can say one does not like but still you have those that will bring a charge and say "he did nudes of his neighbors wife behind his wifes back" and the lynching party, democracy in action, is right there to join the fun.

Thank you for taking the time. I appreciate your thoughts.

Do not stop! Strive for excellence.

There is so much wisdom in the words that follow. I must share these with you all.

"It is easier to draw the figure than it is to paint it. And you can only paint the figure as well as you can draw it. If, through the medium of drawing, you do not understand the surface of the human body, nor comprehend its subtle formal structure, there is very little likelihood that you will master it in paint. All the great painters have been great draftsmen. This is because drawing is the essence of painting."

The artists complete guide to Figure Drawing by Tony, is a also a must have book. www.tonyryder.com/a-book.htm