Drawing then painting

Oh yes I agree Syd. I wouldn't even attempt to paint anything without drawing it first even if it was just to put in a horizon line or a mountain, as you say anything with intricate detail has to be drawn first as surely that is the main structure of the painting.

Plus if I’m feeling very virtuous I make a small thumb nail sketch on a separate scrap of paper to work out the composition. . And yes, I ialways do a sketchy drawing usually with a brush . I can’t see how you can produce a painting without a minimum of drawing skills. I get slightly piddled off when some people seem to think its showing off to admit to being able to draw. But that is all part of picture making. And yes it can be learned. I had to .

Usually - and of course landscape offers you a good deal of freedom - I'll draw out the basics of a picture in a sketchbook, then go straight in with the brush on the support - still drawing, essentially, but not with a pencil. But it does depend a bit on the medium - I'm more likely to do a drawing with watercolour than with oil or acrylic; and if I do, am quite happy to leave the pencil construction lines showing. If it's good enough for Rupert Cordeux, it's more than good enough for me. Certainly, you need to be able to draw if you're doing figurative work - and that means understanding perspective too, unless you're going for that mediaeval look (and indeed - why not?). But while I'm reluctant to prescribe rules to be followed in every case, I'd advise anyone to keep drawings to be painted over very sketchy, or you're in danger of just colouring-in. Even saying that, though - one of our number here produces very creditable portraits in acrylic on the basis of a detailed drawing to which he then adds glazes and scumbles. Each, in short, to their own.

I am guilty of not drawing .even for faces it seems to inhibit me ,maybe thats why I use plenty of paper, I sketch continually . today at the hospital waiting for my wife I picked up a few pamphlets of the wall and drew on the back side, with the questioner clip board and biro pen . yes I am mad .I also commence a painting at any place other than the sky, in some of my efforts, just to get a nice balance or I would call it design,, I have started with a tree and worked around it ,,,,,

I have been steeped in art all my life ,.so it may account for it .I recall working on a carmalite monastery church ceiling and pouncing drawings on the dark blue panels between the ,wooden beams ,to creat the OG pattern in gold ,and the convoluted edges of the beams pressed with gold leaf also ,then collecting the gold leaf particles at the end of the day in a bucket ,on the later churches the whole ceiling was scaffolded out with boards and sheets spread to stop the congregation getting spots on them ..during the time in the carmalite monastry we were painting the cells all cream .(bedrooms very sparse ) the nuns would scurry away if they saw us going to the old kitchen for water , with the beautiful old pans ,and pots,,everything was grown in the vegetable garden they attended in the grounds . ,we had at diner time a soup made by the nuns passed through a small revolving table in the wall, and a large cake ,,it tasted fantastic like it had meat in it ,off course it had not ,same with the cake ,outside the gate was the tramps sign in white chalk , found nuns wonderful people and I enjoyed working there ,oh I have the talkers on tonight . night night and god bless from Alan O

It's a sad fact that many 'wannabe' artist's think that drawing is unnecessary. They just want to dive head-long into colour from the outset, there have been quite a few on the forum as I recall in recent times and invariably they seem to fall by the wayside fairly quickly. Drawing can be learnt as I think it was David who made that remark. The technical side is not difficult if you put your mind to it, there are so many books out there on perspective, shadows, reflections and so on, dozens of useful and important tips to get you started with these all too necessary basics. Drawing is the fundamental backbone, without this knowledge it will be difficult to advance with any degree of credibility in your work. Having said all that, generally speaking I do now go headlong into a painting with just a few brushstrokes to give me the basic outline, a few minutes at most perhaps unless it's a complicated city scene or similar, in which case I will probably transfer an accurate drawing onto my support from preliminary sketches using a grid. Bear in mind though, like many of us on here, I've done year's of going through the basics and had years of practice, so I have gained the confidence and ability to skip the drawing bit at times.

To pick up Alan's point - there are Facebook groups (a platform possessed of multiple disadvantages, but I linger there) of amateur painters; some of course show superb work. Some are groups of people desiring to improve, so while the quality varies, the effort they're making is beyond dispute. And then there are the others - awful, awful paintings, regularly praised as "Lovely, stunning..." - which might stun if they fell on you, but are otherwise just so bad that you begin to regret the ready availability of paint. And what makes this last group so hopeless? It's not just one thing - the inability to judge, still less mix, colour features prominently - but the primary thing is that the artists have never learned how to draw, how to relate objects in their paintings to each other - so that they so often look like badly executed theatre backdrops, layered to show recession: everything is painted as though it were an entirely independent object, without colour recession, without reflection or any convincing depiction of light, and looking as if the painters had never in their lives actually looked at a tree or a building, so bound in chains are they by the confines of their painting surface. Landscape drawing - we leave aside, tactfully, portraits in which the eyes lie on two different levels, because we all know that portraits are hard to do - requires that first and foremost one has to see the landscape, and not just individual features within it. This is all drawing - not just the technical ability to draw an object (though oh Lor', that would help!) but to learn how elements fit and work together. The real difference though lies between people who haven't learned to draw - with which we can sympathize - and those who really seem to think it's not necessary; and the latter group are the people with whom I've very little sympathy, because not only do they not improve, they show absolutely no recognition of the need to. Of course, for so long as others are prepared to trot out the "Lovely, Cuthbert! Stunning Esmée!" (other names are available; just being careful to avoid any actually known to me...) they don't have much incentive to. We don't get many of this group here, or if they descend on us they leave as quickly - and it's a waste of breath and time trying to steer them towards better work: I think there's something the matter with their visual sense, and not infrequently with their intellects. But (I was building up to this all along, little stinker..) how much does it matter? If people just want to deface an innocent board or canvas with lots of paint, and fool themselves - maybe they don't? - that they're artists, of the my-stuff-is-as-good-as-that-Picasso variety, they're not hurting me; they're, presumably, enjoying themselves playing with paint and brushes; they're not really trying to do what the majority of us are trying to do - and don't understand or care that the level they've reached is the one at which they'll remain for their entire lives, as you will if you lack all self-analysis and self-criticism. It's not that I look down on them and think I'm so much better (the snag with that is that you have to look up sometimes, and realize you're so much worse) but that they're just not doing what I try to do, don't see the need for it, and at a fundamental level don't care. You'll never reach them - increasingly, I don't think it's worth even trying to. Thought for the Day ....

I wouldn’t disagree with much/most of what you say Robert in respect of the standard of work touted on social media. I would add though that the main motivator is ego; to receive those praising comments you refer to; there is no real interest in art and certainly no desire to develop, only to receive the acclaim. It’s a consequence of the celebrity culture I think, and of what I refer to as the me culture (the attitude that I can do anything if only I believe in myself). I’ve said it many times but Warhol cannot possibly have known how right he would be in his famous for fifteen minutes remark. On the broader matter—standards of drawing etc.—a gallery owner said to me last year “…it’s all but impossible to get any Arts Council support now for anything that’s not an installation”. I saw the Turner Prize exhibits in situ, in Hull and (not just my opinion here) the drawing, with one exception was noticeable by its absence. One exhibitor showed drawn work (woodcuts) which, had I seen it from, say, a second year student, I would likely have said something like “That’s a very good start…what are you going to do with it now? How are you going to develop it?” The winner, whose painting on china clearly referenced the 19th C. cartoons of Gillray, Hogarth and the like were not—in my view—either well observed or well drawn. I might take slight issue maybe with your (apparently) dogmatic statement that landscapes are “…all drawing…” Whilst, like you, I consider drawing to be an essential discipline (which is why I attend life drawing regularly), the degree to which it is essential in landscape surely depends upon the degree to which the artwork attempts to be an accurate representation of the scene. A cursory look at Mondrian’s grid paintings might easily lead to the belief that drawing played no part. Look at his earlier works, specifically the tree drawings/paintings and it’s clear that his observation skills in particular were such as I might achieve if I live long enough, and I would probably also have the kudos of being the oldest man to have ever lived. All this is the reason why I try to avoid being labelled—and certainly labelling myself—as an artist, and to avoid the creative appellation as well. They’re such loaded words. It does make conversion somewhat laborious at times though.

There used to be an excellent photography site called "photoSIG". It had some simply superb photos and photographers but by and large the chief element were the "me me"s. All they wanted was praise. They'd post a photo and suddenly there'd be dozens of their mates telling them how good it was. I took exceptional delight from going up and telling them the truth...this is out of focus, this is badly framed etc etc. All of which I know I can do because if I can do one thing, I can take a good photo when I want to! Of course, the people I spoke the truth to didn't like it. They had no desire to IMPROVE their photography, simply to be praised for it as it was. Which was a shame because some of the good snappers thereon weren't just good, they were stunningly good! Alas, a domestic tiff accompanied by toys leaving the pram and photoSIG and it's images are no more. (There was an artSIG and if I recall a DrawingSIG too). SIG stood for special interest group. David