|
I missed this thread first time around, and I answer now with a great deal of trepidation, since the subject seemed to arouse quite a bit of passion. So I quickly add that this is just my opinion. Still, I was surprised that tracing had the approval of so many as a way of learning to draw. It's a way for beginners to get satisfactory results quickly, but getting quick results isn't part of learning anything, building a solid foundation is. And learning to do anything well is a laborious process without shortcuts. We mustn't confuse "quick fixes" with effective pedagogy. Going back to the music analogy, tracing is the equivalent of singing karaoke. The essence of learning to draw is hand-eye coordination, getting the hand to obey the impulses it gets from the brain. The way to do that is constant practice. Copying from the masters, or from photographs, is extremely helpful insofar as it brings the eye and the brain into the process. Tracing doesn't do it, because it bypasses both the eye and the brain. It's a purely mechanical process that doesn't even really develop appreciation for form, since all you do is see lines through an opaque piece of paper. And understanding form is the essence of good drawing.
And by the way, Michelangelo didn't trace on the Sistine ceiling, he transferred to the wet plaster drawings from full-size "cartoons" that were a penultimate step that followed on the heels of many, many drawings made from life models.
Again, just my opinion. I'm not trying to change anyone's way of doing things. Honest.
John C.
|