https://unherd.com/2023/08/artists-have-forgotten-how-to-draw/ [menu-burge] Our Mission Log In [UnHerd] Log In [ThePostALP] * Home * The Post * Our Writers * UnHerdTV * Podcasts * Polling * Events * UnHerd Club X Close Spotlight Artists have forgotten how to draw Pain is at the heart of a traditional education BY Alexander Poots . Don't tell Hockney. (Tim Graham Photo Library via Getty Images) [guy-100x] Alexander Poots is the author of The Strangers' House: Writing Northern Ireland. August 18, 2023 [share-twit]alexander_poots --------------------------------------------------------------------- August 18, 2023 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Filed under: Global affairs ArtartistsCultureDublinEducationIreland --------------------------------------------------------------------- Share: [share-fb] [share-twit] [share-mail] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Think of poor Antonio Mini. Once a student of Michelangelo, Mini is now remembered as the most famous slacker in the history of European art. One day, the maestro sketched a couple of Virgins and instructed his pupil to copy them. The results were mixed. Mini's efforts are lovely in their way, but they have a rushed and careless air. Five hundred years later, his homework sits in the British Museum, still inked with Michelangelo's staccato critique: "Draw Antonio draw Antonio / draw and do not waste time." I had already wasted a few decades by the time I started drawing. No matter. I wanted a pastime that didn't involve a screen. I was left with a choice between drawing and fishing. I chose the former because you need a car to reach most fishing spots, and I don't have one. This was how I found myself boarding the bus to Dublin for a weekly evening class at the Drawing School. Classes take place in a roomy basement studio beneath Merrion Square, where serene plaster casts watch over rows of students as they work. The primary activity for a novice like me is deceptively simple. You are asked to copy a model drawing. The copy should be as exact as you can make it. The angle of every line, the internal proportions of the form, and the interplay of light and shadow must be faithfully reproduced. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Like what you're reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email [ ]Sign up, for free Already registered? Sign in --------------------------------------------------------------------- This is incredibly difficult to do. The human eye is an awful cheat. You can be quite pleased with your copy until you put it next to the original and see what a mess you've made of everything. An ear too high, a shadow not half as dark as it needs to be. It's a frustrating process, but compelling too. Students of all ages are genuinely absorbed in their work. The quiet is broken only by the occasional rasp of a pencil sharpener or the hushed advice of the instructors as they rove among the easels. The model drawings are taken from the Cours de Dessin of Charles Bargue and Jean-Leon Gerome, a three-volume manual published between 1868 and 1873. The Cours offers a series of drawings of progressive difficulty. Plate 1 is devoted to the human eye, Plate 28 depicts a crouched female leg, Plate 52 is a bust of Brutus, and so on. Bargue drew all of the images himself, selecting examples from ancient statuary that would provide students with the best lessons in form, line and tonal value. This means that a student copies Bargue's drawing of a cast made from a statue inspired (in most cases) by a human model. Such a daisy chain of reproduction might seem absurd. In fact, it places the student in a tradition of artistic training that stretches back to Antonio Mini and beyond. Picasso is known to have used the Cours as a teenager, but the method's most enthusiastic proponent was Vincent Van Gogh: "It invigorates my pencil," he said. In September 1880, he wrote: "I work regularly on the Cours de Dessin Bargue, and intend to finish it before I undertake anything else, for each day it makes my hand as well as my mind more supple and strong." Although copying was an arduous and frustrating process, Van Gogh described it as "nothing other than a labour of giving birth. First pain, then joy afterwards." Ten years later, just weeks before his death, he was planning to work through the Cours again. The point of all that copying is to charm the cheating eye into submission and learn to really see. But most art schools today do not seem particularly interested in teaching their students this foundational skill. Drawing remains a central component of the BA Fine Art at City & Guilds, Falmouth University offers a dedicated BA Drawing degree, and The Royal Drawing School has become famous for its postgraduate Drawing Year. But the majority of art schools now focus on other activities, and those who want to learn traditional skills must look elsewhere. "Why have people stopped drawing?" as a perplexed David Hockney recently asked. Around 1920, art education in Britain began with observational drawing; first of prints and casts, then of the living human figure. You had to earn your way to the life model through practice and dedication. And there was an academic component, too: anatomy, geometry, art history. Only then could the serious work of painting and sculpting begin. Although a very different experience to Michelangelo's workshop, it was a training that Antonio Mini would have recognised. --------------------------------------------------------------------- [BlairAdMob] --------------------------------------------------------------------- By the Eighties, however, this traditional education had largely disappeared from Britain's art schools. Samuel Horler, who founded the Dublin Drawing School I attended in 2010, says his father witnessed the shift first-hand: "As a student he did life-modelling to get a bit of money. He would go out to all the art schools in London and he said it was the easiest work because no one would show up to class. So he would just sit there and wouldn't have to do much posing because no one was coming, they were all into new media suddenly." Suggested reading The philistine war on AI art By Justin E.H. Smith William Coldstream, whose eponymous committee recommended a series of sweeping reforms to art education between 1960 and 1970, usually gets the blame for the elevation of ideas over practice. But as painter and writer Jacob Willer has shown, the death of the old order was a complex and lengthy process that began long before the Coldstream Committee was first assembled. Heads were already being turned by French abstractionism in the Twenties, a movement that did not require its adherents to be able to draw a convincing human hand. Photography's ever-increasing reach had an equally dampening effect on realism. And by the Thirties, a peculiarly British interpretation of the Bauhaus Movement was taking hold. Walter Gropius's 1919 Manifesto is a short exhortation to return to the crafts, or Handwerk : "[Artists] must return to the workshop. This world of mere drawing and painting of draughtsmen and applied artists must at long last become a world that builds." In its British incarnation, Bauhaus became a rallying cry for those who wished to banish "mere drawing" from the art schools -- the only problem was that most forgot to return to the workshop after they had done so. Jacob Willer has argued that the true break from the past came when art education opened its doors to fashion's unceasing churn and found that it could not close them again. Bauhaus Modernism was swept away by Pop Art, and the modish tide has continued to go in and out ever since. We're all supposed to be artists now, isn't that right? I am not so sure. Nouns tend to lose their meaning when universally applied. That is certainly Horler's view on the matter. His grandmother is the celebrated sculptor Imogen Stuart, a member of both the Royal Hibernian Academy and Aosdana. In 2015, Stuart was elected Saoi, Ireland's highest cultural honour. Despite these accolades, Stuart knows that there is always more to learn: "She's hesitant about calling herself an artist," says Horler, "And that is quite a traditional view. It shows how misunderstood art is today, that people can just call themselves artists... From the Renaissance right up until at least the Twenties, you had to qualify. And that's missing now." Horler's Drawing School is one of an increasing number of institutions trying to bridge the artistic skills gap. These range from the glossy Florence Academy of Art and New York City's Grand Central Atelier to boutique outfits such as the Glasgow Academy of Fine Art. Teaching approaches vary, but all these academies and ateliers are united by a conviction that learning to draw accurately and beautifully is an essential starting point for any artist. Naturally, not everyone has the time and money to attend these schools. But teaching yourself to draw has probably never been easier. Books on the subject are legion and thriving drawing communities exist online. YouTube channels such as ProkoTV pull in millions of subscribers, while digitised museum collections make it possible to learn from the work of supremely gifted and classically trained artists like Kathe Kollwitz and Thomas Anschutz. (Still, I suspect there's no real substitute for a teacher looming up behind you and murmuring "what's going on with that nose, Alex?") Suggested reading The dark side of the art world By Tom Newlands The growth of atelier education has not been universally welcomed. Despite being a critic of the contemporary art world, Willer has little time for the revival of 19th-century teaching methods either. Of both approaches he writes "they do not know what they do not know". So, while many art schools are now little more than community theatre for the upper-middle classes, ateliers that offer a supposed recreation of a Parisian studio circa 1880 risk becoming a stultifying dead-end. Clearly, a curriculum that marries hard-won skill with creative expression is the ideal to strive for. Some argue that the only solution is to resume the Renaissance practice of seeking out a master willing to impart his or her wisdom in a private setting, away from the institutions and their various diktats. Art schools and ateliers have their respective ultras, but Horler is not among them. For him, observational drawing is a useful tool for beginners and a handy refresher for the experienced, not an article of faith. Copying provides a solid technical grounding and a set of objective criteria through which a student's work can be evaluated. A student working through the Cours de Dessin is not making art, he says: "I always tell students that I'm not an art school, I'm not teaching art. But you learn certain skills and techniques that will help you as an artist." I still draw most days. Nothing special. Household clutter, mostly. I attempted the dozing figure in Francisco Goya's "The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters" a few weeks ago and was pleased with the result, until I noticed that my copy's legs were much too small. In my case, the sleep of reason produces shrunken tibia. So I drew it again. And again. There is a compulsive element to drawing that I had not anticipated. I think it is a result of trying to see, really see. After three hours, I would walk out into Merrion Square to find that it had been rolled up and replaced with ink-damp forms and strange prospects. A busy garden square in central Dublin was now a question, the same question that Antonio Mini must have asked himself 500 years ago -- how would I draw that? [ellipse-br] Join the discussion [illustrati] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber. Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits. Subscribe Subscribe Notify of [new follow-up comments ] [ ] [>] guest Label [ ] {} [+] [ ] Name* [ ] Email* [Post Comment] guest Label [ ] {} [+] [ ] Name* [ ] Email* [Post Comment] 28 Comments Most Voted Newest Oldest Inline Feedbacks View all comments Seb Dakin Seb Dakin 22 hours ago I started drawing, just as a hobby, I drew mainly faces (copies of other drawings/photos of faces actually). It causes you to notice so much, and non-judgmentally too. The faces of everyone I met thereafter were vastly more interesting and for some reason I felt a much greater affinity with the people behind them. Sadly I subsequently got 'too busy' and stopped. Pity, since it is the antidote to a rushed, over-stimulated lifestyle. 19 Reply Simon Denis Simon Denis 12 hours ago Reply to Seb Dakin Very well said. The contemplative peace accruing to those who pay sustained and scrupulous attention to the world around them, a peace absolutely secured by the business of accurate drawing, is a healing experience. And the art which results from it marries personality with reality in a most revealing way, which is why a good portrait is always, in some respects, a dialogue - either within the mind of the artist, as in so many of Rembrandt's studies, or between artist and sitter. The starting point for so much modernism therefore, that photography had replaced realism, could not be more mistaken. Realism achieved by sheer personal discipline, as - for example - in the cases of Sargent or Velazquez (to take two figures from distinct eras) carries a magic, arising from interpersonal communication, which mechanical efforts at the same can never match. The same applies to symmetry - the astonishing patterns of Greek or Gothic architecture, born of the skills of great masons, carry a force which machine made copies and pastiches from the Victorian era cannot replicate. And this was the keynote of much - not all - nineteenth century revival; mechanisms began to distance the artists from their mediums - but not, thank goodness, where painting was concerned. Last edited 12 hours ago by Simon Denis 6 Reply Aphrodite Rises Aphrodite Rises 20 hours ago I think we live in the age of arrogance. 7 Reply Charles Stanhope Charles Stanhope 15 hours ago Reply to Aphrodite Rises Who is "we"? If you mean the West, we have been there for some centuries now, and jolly good to for everyone's sake. 1 Reply Aphrodite Rises Aphrodite Rises 12 hours ago Reply to Charles Stanhope Yes I do mean the West. I am surprised by your response Charles given you are a historian. I mean the past and it's contribution to the present is not recognised. In the past, artists would have been expected to learn to draw and paint in the style of past masters before developing their own style. My background is mathematics so I am very aware of the contributions of the past great mathematicians, there is no way of avoiding their contributions. With the development and adoption of social constructivism and critical race theory, the past is judged and found very much wanting within the context of a single theory. It is not considered necessary to understand the past just identify those who should be cancelled and excised for various manufactured reasons. There are complaints that maths is not diverse enough. Too many European names attached to theorems. The Greeks are not considered to add to the diversity and the contributions from the Muslims are generally not recognised. Last edited 12 hours ago by Aphrodite Rises 5 Reply Charles Stanhope Charles Stanhope 11 hours ago Reply to Aphrodite Rises "the past and it's contribution to the present is not recognised." Really? I would have thought it was an undeniable self evident truth. "Standing on the shoulders of Giants " as we used to say. All this nonsense about critical race theory is just divisive, and will lead us nowhere. I think you maybe in error about the Ancient Greeks, undeniably the fountainhead of Western Civilisation, but you are correct about us ignoring early Islam. 5 Reply Aphrodite Rises Aphrodite Rises 11 hours ago Reply to Charles Stanhope My point was that the ancient Greeks were not considered to add to diversity, they are lumped in with the Europeans, not that their contribution wasn't recognised. When I was young, I was taught gratitude to the Romans for their contribution whilst occupying England, particularly for the roads, though we were glad they left. Recently, I have had independent conversations with Malaysians, Sri Lankans and Singaporeans all expressing surprise at the current attitude in the West to British colonialism. They were taught to be grateful for the British contribution to their societies, particularly bridges and railways, which doesn't mean they didn't want to be independent. I don't think you know what a strangle hold critical race theory has on the institutions in this country. Children are taught to feel ashamed of the past, and the bad is emphasised. Have you watched the BBC series horrible histories widely used in schools? Last edited 11 hours ago by Aphrodite Rises 3 Reply Allison Barrows Allison Barrows 9 hours ago Reply to Aphrodite Rises I've seen them. They're revolting, like most of what is taught to children. 1 Reply Charles Stanhope Charles Stanhope 9 hours ago Reply to Aphrodite Rises "the ancient Greeks were not considered to add to diversity". How simply astonishing, there are estimated to have been around a thousand Greek 'Poleis', (singular Polis). Each fiercely independent, and ruled by various 'experiments' such as Democracies, Plutocracies, Oligarchies, Tyrannies, Monarchies, Autocracies etc. The most prominent off course were Athens and Sparta, which couldn't have been more different or diverse! Who told you 'we' were 'glad the Romans left' You don't need to have to seen "The Life of Brian" to know that the Romans gave Britannia everything, even Christianity! No I haven't watched the Horrible Histories series because I know it to be socialist tosh, even if slightly amusing. It is deplorable if it is being used to denigrate our national history, better described as the 'soul of the nation' for blatantly political ends. A few years I took a young state educated boy to Cambridge for his entrance interview. Having failed persuade him that Oxford would have been a better choice, the conversation turned to English History, which he freely admitted he knew nothing about! After a crash course, hurtling along the A14, I managed to give him the basics facts, reminding him of Cecil Rhodes trenchant opinion, and telling him him that in short that English history was really a case of "Look on my works ye mighty and despair".* He has never looked back I gather! (*PBS.) Last edited 9 hours ago by stanhopecharles344 3 Reply Aphrodite Rises Aphrodite Rises 11 hours ago Reply to Charles Stanhope To recognise'We stand upon the shoulders of giants' is an expression of humility. Those who loudly condemn the past tend to either ignore the debt or be ignorant of the debt. Last edited 11 hours ago by Aphrodite Rises 5 Reply Benedict Waterson Benedict Waterson 10 hours ago Reply to Aphrodite Rises A few years ago there was a national drawing prize, which was won by a 'sound drawing'. I.e., someone recording their voice describing something Last edited 10 hours ago by Benedict Waterson 1 Reply Aphrodite Rises Aphrodite Rises 10 hours ago Reply to Benedict Waterson That's bonkers but so is the idea a man can become a woman and vice versa and that women who object to men exposing themselves in women's changing rooms should be sent for re-education (Lia Thomas case). Those who awarded the prize no doubt consider themselves intellectually superior with a greater understanding of art than those who object on the basis a prize for drawing should satisfy the minimum criteria of actually being a physical drawing drawn by the winner. Last edited 10 hours ago by Aphrodite Rises 3 Reply Benedict Waterson Benedict Waterson 5 hours ago Reply to Aphrodite Rises Yeh the common thread is a capture of elite institutions and traditions by a sort of bourgeois progressive posturing.. I.e., 'this is "radical" so it distinguishes me' mindset. Culture of narcissism 1 Reply Allison Barrows Allison Barrows 9 hours ago Reply to Benedict Waterson Good God. Not surprising, though. I recall a few years ago two demi-verbal girls won a high school debate competition for essentially hooting at their opponents and screeching. 1 Reply Davina Powell Davina Powell 6 hours ago Reply to Aphrodite Rises "Learn to draw and paint in the style of past masters"... hmmm, I think that says it all Aphrodite Rising... with a name like that I'm surprised you're buying into this current 'art' bullshit that began with the renaissance (blokes, a LOT of gay blokes but hey) Or, as Ruskin once said, "All women's art is but pale imitation of men's"... he was quite right at the time, he was referring to art 'business' I think, which is a whole other ballgame and not the same thing at all... As for those vaunted ye olde Greeks, well, they didn't even have a word for 'art' as we 'understand' it today... Art, that's always been something in flux as the FUNCTION of art changes through time... check out some cave paintings or blah blah ad infinitum. Don't even get me started on traditional 'women's' art and the disregard in Britain for the 'Bayeux Tapestry'... Ffs... Maths, doesn't it work something like this if I remember my first lessons? If I have 2 apples and you have 2 apples and I give you my 2 apples you have 4 apples... 22 equals 4. Well, no, not from MY perspective, from my perspective it equals 2 I guess that's why I became an artist and not a mathematician!! Nothing exists in a vacuum, truth is a matter of perspective and yes, we are, only where we are because of what's gone before [?] Last edited 6 hours ago by Jane Powell 0 Reply Aphrodite Rises Aphrodite Rises 4 hours ago Reply to Davina Powell The Greeks didn't have a word for science but Aristotle is still considered to be the father of science. Just because something is not named does not mean it doesn't exist. I don't agree that truth is a matter of perspective. Maths is as close to truth as it is possibly to be in this world. Mathematicians are often extremely creative, Lewis Carroll was a mathematician. It's clear you have absolutely no understanding of maths as you are confusing it with arithmetic.There are people who are brilliant at arithmetic but cannot do maths. Both are about abstraction, numbers are an abstraction. Neither arithmetic nor maths makes any claims about your apples and how you feel but it can be applied: you don't possess minus 2 apples, you had four apples and two have been taken away which means you have two apples. Negative numbers had to be invented because originally numbers were used for counting and if a minus means not to have then it didn't make sense because you cannot count what you do not have, that was the argument centuries ago. Similarly, zero was objected to initially on the basis you cannot have nothing of something. I can see maths eludes you. I appreciate genius regardless of the sex of the genius . I consider Plato to be one of the greatest thinkers ever and it is a privilege and delight to read his work. Without maths you would not be part of this discussion, it would not exist, because there would be no mobile phones, no computers, no electronics. Also there is a difference between a professional artist and people painting and drawing. I see it as a sign of dumbing down, the less talent, effort and skill required to become an artist the greater the market for the courses. Last edited 2 hours ago by Aphrodite Rises 1 Reply Charles Stanhope Charles Stanhope 4 hours ago Reply to Aphrodite Rises What no mention of Euclid or Pythagoras? Last edited 2 hours ago by stanhopecharles344 1 Reply Aphrodite Rises Aphrodite Rises 2 hours ago Reply to Charles Stanhope Euclid is considered to be one of the greatest of all time, maybe even the greatest. He kind of created the template for maths. It is doubtful Pythagoras proved the theorem attributed to him, though it could have come out of the Pythagorean school. The Babylonians knew it was true because they used it when measuring out fields, but it was the Greeks who proved it, it was the Greeks who came up with the concept of a proof. Last edited 2 hours ago by Aphrodite Rises 0 Reply laurence scaduto laurence scaduto 8 hours ago Reply to Aphrodite Rises The arrogance of forgetfulness. 1 Reply Daniel Lee Daniel Lee 10 hours ago "...the true break from the past came when art education opened its doors to fashion's unceasing churn and found that it could not close them again." Applies to pretty much every institution and underlies most of the accelerating slide into mediocre and mindless chaos that afflicts every aspect of our culture today. 4 Reply Catherine Conroy Catherine Conroy 9 hours ago A wonderful article. Well, that's just inspired me to go back to drawing. Thank you. 3 Reply Steve Murray Steve Murray 16 hours ago Let those who wish to draw, draw. There is a certain element of serenity-inducing absorption involved which can act as an antidote to the "always on" life we now lead. However, it would be very wrong to make it a requirement for engaging in the business of art production which leads to exhibition with a gallery and the critique involved in that endeavour. The author seems at one point to be suggesting that being an "artist" should have some kind of barrier, or hurdle to be crossed. Well, that's the only hurdle that matters: whether others think one's work is worth the precious wall (or room) space afforded to it. Of course not everyone who thinks of themselves as an artist can find themselves in that position. More than technical skill, having a hinterland that can be communicated in this manner is the essence of the matter; technical skill at drawing on its own without having something worthwhile to comminicate does not make one an artist. There's also something to be said for being able to see beyond the surface of what our immediate vision shows us. 2 Reply Benedict Waterson Benedict Waterson 10 hours ago Reply to Steve Murray Yes, the requirement for foundational academic drawing skills referred to a cultural landscape, pre-photography, where historical figurative painting was still important - or large-scale figurative art making public cultural statements. Now, like everything else, painting has become substantially commercialised and focused towards the private sphere 0 Reply Allison Barrows Allison Barrows 10 hours ago Lovely essay. I started drawing at age three - a fresco of sorts: hundreds of tiny smiley faces on the walls of the foyer closet. After my parents painted them over, they supplied me with materials and I graduated to copying Archie and Veronica comics, which I later made pornographic and sold to boy classmates in Third Grade. The best advice I have given to every aspiring artist is draw with a pen. You can't erase, so you train your eye to be very accurate, and you don't waste time with unnecessary rendering. Your line becomes a sort of short hand and can convey whole emotions with a few short strokes. Then, if you wish to render, you can go in depth with whatever other medium you wish. Try it! It really is a great technique at any stage in your artistic life. 2 Reply Nathan Sapio Nathan Sapio 8 hours ago The process of learning to draw is absolutely the foundation for any artistic endeavor, even if you move on from drawing as a medium and never use a pencil or charcoal again. It is the process of learning to see, yes, but specifically it's the process of first unlearning the process of seeing with the part of the brain that reduces things to graspable symbols and concepts (reducing phenomena to what you already expect), and then being woken up to the near-shocking intricacies, variations, and fluctuations in the world (encountering the phenomena you are actually and uniquely experiencing). A novice, for example, draws an eye as a symmetrical almond shape, whereas one who draws using unfiltered vision (interesting comparison there to what some with autism experience) traces the unique shape of the subject eye, it's convex and concave shapes, and creates a precise representation. In that way, learning to draw is also the process of linking together the movements of hand and eye. That's not even getting into the acct if drawing as a way to develop a visual composition. That's also not even getting into drawing as the act of idea generation, the process of non-rational thinking being concretized and physically manifested, in the same way that writing does the same for rational thinking. Do yourself a favor and draw! 2 Reply Steve Murray Steve Murray 5 hours ago Reply to Nathan Sapio It's quite simply NOT the foundation for artistic endeavour. I don't denigrate those who wish to draw, but you seem to wish to denigrate those who don't, yet become successful as artists. Let gallery space decide... and history. Last edited 5 hours ago by Steve Murray 0 Reply Penny Rose Penny Rose 7 hours ago Really enjoyed reading that. Thank you. 1 Reply Ali Maegraith Ali Maegraith 7 hours ago Reminds me of our trip to the end of year exhibition at a top Berlin art school. Lots of young students clearly trying to find taboos to break as well as finding their own unique ,voice' but as our whole group agreed- very little skill to be found. 1 Reply Tagged Art, artists, Culture, Dublin, Education, Ireland Explore * Groupthink * Capitalism * Flyover country * Faith & Meaning * Confessions Podcast Quick Links * About UnHerd * Contact Us * Columnists & Writers * Old Queen Street Cafe * Terms & Conditions * Privacy Policy * Community Guidelines * Vacancies Contribute to UnHerd We welcome applications to contribute to UnHerd - please fill out the form below including examples of your previously published work. Please click here to submit your pitch. Advertise with us Please click here to view our media pack for more information on advertising and partnership opportunities with UnHerd. [ ] Insert Report this comment ( ) This comment is spam ( ) This comment should be marked mature ( ) This comment is abusive ( ) This comment promotes self-harm ( ) Other [ ] [ ] Send Quantcast