[HN Gopher] Artists have forgotten how to draw
___________________________________________________________________
Artists have forgotten how to draw
Author : webmaven
Score : 43 points
Date : 2023-08-18 21:21 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (unherd.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (unherd.com)
| pixl97 wrote:
| Did we forget how to draw... or are there so many people involved
| in the arts these days that there are far more poor artists? This
| article is completely subjective in the sense is there is no
| statistics of how many 'good' artists there were in their
| supposed golden days versus what we have now.
|
| I fully expected the article to end in 'git off muh lawn'.
| Zetobal wrote:
| The first three semester every evening our whole illustration
| class had to draw chair still lifes for 3 hours. The prof would
| come arrange some chairs and went home... it's still a fucking
| pain in univeristies that do a classic curiculum.
| creer wrote:
| I ran into a drawing instructor like that. Now I can laugh
| about it. I was fortunate that I didn't have to ever, ever
| choose to take another class with that guy. His focus was his
| dinner. He was still there. But busy.
|
| For everyone playing at home it's a style of art teaching that
| goes "you know what to do. get to it." (On the rationale that
| the brush/pencil mileage is the only thing that will do the
| teaching. Ugh.)
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| One of the things that's sort of annoyed me recently is the
| number of artists who begin every video of their artwork with
| "Everything you're about to see is drawn by me in painstaking
| detail, taking over XXXX hours to complete" and then they show
| off a photorealistic pencil drawing.
|
| Yeah, it's cool. And I guess if you want to talk about art in a
| purely technical sense of taking a recording instrument to paper
| or a canvas and creating an image, then it qualifies. But there's
| no interpretation there. Basically just one of the world's
| slowest photocopying machines. Technical talent with zero
| imagination.
| fivre wrote:
| technical skill matters, and using that technique skillfully
| for realist interpretations is one of the easier bridges for
| neophytes to understand the technique
|
| abstract interpretation within the confines of a particular
| medium is harder to appreciate if you haven't seen
| manifestations you can readily understand
| david927 wrote:
| This is an unfortunate by-product of the times. To paint well,
| you first have to draw well. And drawing well can only be
| accomplished with both serious talent, discipline and an
| egregious amount of hours in classic study. Which is not so
| different than, say, the violin. But the art world is a cover for
| money laundering so there's been a collapse of criticism and
| expectations to the point where, literally, anything goes and
| almost all of it is complete dross.
|
| There are a few warm embers still out there, as the author
| mentioned, but only two true schools and he missed one and
| mislabeled the other. The Florence _Classical_ Arts Academy
| (where my daughter spent part of her high school years) and, even
| better, the Imperial Academy of Arts in St. Petersburg.
| Surprisingly, the former has as many Russian teachers as the
| latter.
| creer wrote:
| This is disingenuous. First, classical anatomy copy drawing is
| rarely mandatory in art school because that's not what art is
| about anymore. (For another discussion, that it never was.) This
| was not inadvertent, not done while nobody noticed. Instructors
| and students noticed that art had changed. Classical drawing
| schools still exist if you insist. Second, drawing still very
| much happens in art - it's just not the kind of anatomy obsession
| these people care about. Just like they call "art" a very
| specific sub-part of the art world. And it's not like David
| Hockney himself draws in that style anyway. He could but he
| doesn't. He has taste, he has interests, and this isn't it. Can
| it come handy, useful? - sure - but so can a million other
| things.
| david927 wrote:
| This is the assuage that contemporary artists tell themselves
| at night to go to sleep. The fact remains that people are
| crushing in to see the art of 100 years ago. Monet still makes
| people swoon.
|
| And for our times we have a banana on the wall and we're not
| supposed to argue because taste is relative and someone likes
| that ... as we slow step our way down the staircase to
| oblivion.
| solomonb wrote:
| There is sooooo much more contemporary art then that one guy
| who stapled a banana to a wall. If that is all your exposure
| to contemporary art then you aren't trying very hard.
| Avshalom wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armory_Show
|
| >reviews were filled with accusations of quackery, insanity,
| immorality, and anarchy, as well as parodies, caricatures,
| doggerels, and mock exhibitions
|
| 110 years ago
| voldacar wrote:
| Sorry but I think Michaelangelo and Leonardo knew much more
| about art than you.
| solomonb wrote:
| And you speak for Michaelangelo and Leonardo?
| david927 wrote:
| Do people really believe there are no curators of, say, the
| Uffizi and the Louvre? Do people think that we don't
| generally agree on levels of accomplishment and mastery --
| that when you go to the Prado, it's not just a random
| selection?
| creer wrote:
| For your definition of "art", most likely yes.
| sakopov wrote:
| I really think that just like everything else in modern times,
| drawing or the act of actually doing something that requires
| talent or skill is too laborious to get monetized for. The other
| day on YouTube, I saw a guy swinging an upside-down bucket of
| paint over canvas while standing next to it with another person
| and discussing the entire thing like they were watching
| Michelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel. He has hundreds of
| thousands of subscribers. Later, came across another artist who
| makes hyper-realistic pencil drawings of people where each
| picture takes 2 to 3 months to make and looks literally like a
| photo-copy. He has a couple of thousand subs and barely gets any
| views.
| seanthemon wrote:
| Honestly this is more the difference between putting your
| personality to your art vs just your art - I also post my
| paintings online but I hardly get the views of people making
| shorts with their face and revealing the artwork, usually no
| matter how mediocre it will have a lot of followers.
| vouaobrasil wrote:
| The reason for this is that content creation is no longer about
| the content _per se_ , and I say this as a content creator
| myself. Content created today serves two functions beyond
| actually producing something that another person will
| appreciate for its artistic beauty:
|
| (1) It serves as a place where other people gather to interact.
| People gather in such ways now more than ever because of the
| loneliness created by advanced technology. Therefore, being
| trendy is more important than being artistic. That's why total
| garbage like the Avengers movies is so successful: it's because
| it panders to the lowest common denominator and therefore is an
| ideal gathering place for the lost souls stranded by
| technology.
|
| (2) If content is not a place for people to gather, then it is
| simply content that teaches other people to produce more
| content. In fact, some of the most successful content on
| YouTube is simply content designed to help people produce
| _other_ content that no one will watch most of the time.
|
| While both these functions were active to some extent in
| humanity's past, it is only now that they function to their
| full extent. They are magnified by modern technology and other
| reasons for art are being minimized.
| 2big2fail_47 wrote:
| because contemporary art has emancipated itself from painting. I
| would argue that the globalized, highly technological world needs
| new formats to deal with these new realities.
|
| The eternal lamentation that art has lost its craft is simply no
| longer appropriate.
| david927 wrote:
| contemporary art has emancipated itself from taste
| jfengel wrote:
| Contemporary art has emancipated itself from your taste. It
| now serves every conceivable taste. Including yours, though
| you may have to (like everyone else) look around to find what
| you want.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| usually does
| Teever wrote:
| Can anyone recommend some good online resources to learn how to
| draw?
|
| It's a skill that I've always wanted to improve but I don't know
| where to begin.
| chaps wrote:
| My brother, an artist who has not forgotten how to draw,
| immediately gave me his copy of _Drawing on the Right Side of
| the Brain_ when I asked the same question a few years back.
|
| https://www.drawright.com/
| webnrrd2k wrote:
| Also, Keys to Drawing, by Dodson is really good, with more of
| an emphasis leading to painting. The Natural Way to Draw, by
| Nickolaides, is really good for life drawing.
| hairofadog wrote:
| Another good one: Fast Sketching Techniques by David Rankin
|
| https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/fast-sketching-techniques-
| capt...
| creer wrote:
| Consider what drawing means to you, or what style really is
| important.
|
| Sketching is very much vibrant, alive, well and creative. With
| many, many books dedicated to that direction.
|
| Life drawing same things.
|
| Which "drawing" direction attracts you?
| watwut wrote:
| Draw a box - exercise based set of lessons.
| Animats wrote:
| Who's doing all the book covers and advertising art, then?
|
| There's plenty of good realistic art coming out from young
| artists. Take a look at anime fan art. This is not a lost skill.
| creer wrote:
| Great, fun, creative, expressive awesome art yes - and in
| insane quantities - but rarely anatomically correct, right? And
| in that generation I would guess few of them took classical
| anatomy classes. But then for the people targetted by the fine
| article, this is not "art". That's the problem.
| Exuma wrote:
| Don't even get me started. The general population values realism,
| replication, and mindless feats of willpower.
|
| Most people don't realize simplification and economy of stroke is
| orders of magnitude more difficult, and takes a true lifetime to
| master. Capturing a complex subject in 3 perfect strokes which
| uses visual language to convey what it is.
|
| Nothing wrong with either, but the amount of sackriding for the
| former just gets tiring.
| david927 wrote:
| You're not disagreeing with the author. No one complains about
| Picasso, Cezanne or Van Gogh. They mastered the process and
| --only then-- took it to new places.
|
| What we're seeing is a sea of people using Expressionism as a
| veil for lack of training.
|
| A virtuoso at the piano may experiment with discordant notes. A
| novice banging on the piano keys and calling it music is not
| the same thing.
| Exuma wrote:
| TBH I didn't read the article, just the title alone got me
| going. Haha
|
| That also drives me crazy is when its super obvious artists
| on instagram (where btw it's quite difficult to find very
| good inspiration) all have a very dark moody or "weird" style
| when its obvious it's covering up lack of drawing skills. You
| cant mess up a nose when you draw a 3 foot long nose and call
| it your style!
| watwut wrote:
| Instagram is full of people who draw realistic faces.
| ilyt wrote:
| > A virtuoso at the piano may experiment with discordant
| notes. A novice banging on the piano keys and calling it
| music is not the same thing.
|
| That's why I always chuckle at people scowling at learning
| music theory because of "originality, like, if you don't
| you'd just reinvent most of it on your own...
| ksaj wrote:
| I hear that a lot. And I always ask the same thing in
| return: Show me a riff, within the context of a song, that
| you came up with entirely on your own, and demonstrates the
| benefits you have obtained by not being held back by
| learning music theory.
|
| They always play a variation of something you can trace
| back to one of their favourite songs. A blind copy. No
| doubt by someone who actually _does_ understand the theory.
|
| So, "theory holds you back" should be followed by "from
| copying your heroes and knowing why they make the musical
| choices they make."
| solomonb wrote:
| There are many musical traditions which evolved
| completely orthogonal to [western] music theory. That
| such traditions can exist and have performers who express
| virtuosity contradicts the claim that all 'riffs'
| originate with [western] music theory.
| devin wrote:
| Some people's ears are better than their theory. Plenty
| of examples.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > 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."
|
| It seems like when we decided that art doesn't have to be
| representational, having traditional drafting and drawing skills
| began a slow and perfectly rational decline. Is that even
| controversial? It may not be coincidental that the role of fine
| art in our culture declined at the same time as well, but that's
| a conjecture I can't defend in this paragraph.
|
| On the other hand, there are more _illustrators_ than ever, and
| illustrators still often technical chops and craftsmanship. Comic
| book artists and digital painters and the like are (or were,
| before AI) flourishing and doing really exciting work in the non-
| fine-art space.
| gsatic wrote:
| Calvin & Hobbes man thats all you need. No better example of the
| smallest of dots and sqiggles having magical effects on people.
| Bill Watersom didnt go to a fine arts school. He just found
| Beauty in the simplest of things.
| creer wrote:
| Very much so! Another artist who couldn't draw :-)
| canvascritic wrote:
| I guess we all admire the classics, but what about all the talent
| on platforms like deviantart? it's a new age, and these artists
| are pushing boundaries in ways unimaginable to the old masters.
| contemporary art is more than just NFTs. it's about expressing
| ideas in fresh, innovative ways. so instead of longing for the
| past, let's embrace the evolution of art.
| webnrrd2k wrote:
| There is a difference that I can see in the work of artists who
| have spent time learning to draw, and those that haven't. I can't
| explain it, but I can see it.
|
| I think it's because classical drawing teaches you some basic
| perceptual skills that are very hard to pick up any other way. It
| gets you out of your head and gets you to see what's actually
| there, not what you think is there. It's kind of a subtle
| difference, but it's important.
|
| Not learning to perceive things in that manner is a big handicap
| for many artists. They don't even need to produce work in a
| classic or representational style. But it's still aparent if they
| are lacking those skills.
|
| Another thing is that drawing, via rough sketches and prep work,
| provides a way to work out the bugs in your finished work. It
| provides a way to actually think out what you're doing, in the
| same way that writing about something is actually thinking about
| it [1].
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36560254
| creer wrote:
| Learning to see does still matter, yes. It's not the same as
| classical anatomy copy drawing. And seeing color (which is
| really hard for the common civilian) is not going to happen
| through classical anatomy. So we can choose our battles while
| still paying attention. Architecture schools try to teach
| seeing also - not through classical anatomy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-18 23:01 UTC)