Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
It is essential to be able to draw.
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
I thought it might prove interesting to discuss one of the 'rules' of painting. If it proves popular perhaps we could consider others I know we all say from time to time that rules are there to be broken but is this so? If so how often? In what circumstances? etc.
As a starter how about the widely held belief that it is essential to being a good artist to be able to draw and sketch - is it really essential? I've got my own thoughts but it would be interesting to hear the views of others. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being absolutely essential- 10 being not essential at all) what score would you give the 'rule'.
Posted
I really don't think it's essential to be able to draw and sketch to be a good artist. Abstract art is all about having an eye for composition and colour for instance. If your art is all about producing realistic images well, yes, it is probably essential, but if like me you enjoy more simplistic images and design it is not so essential. My score would be 5/10.
Posted
Michael, you provocative old thing..... !
This is so hard to answer, but - if you're hoping to produce figurative work, an ability to draw IS essential. Most of us have that ability before we seek to paint, if that's the direction in which our artistic vision leads us - but I'm sure we've all encountered people who really can't draw and don't know it; I'm aware of an artist who can produce pictures in three dimensions in felt, and make them convincing, who yet has no control at all of perspective and produces (well - go to be honest here!) absolutely bog-awful watercolours suggesting she's never even heard of perspective (I do hope she doesn't frequent POL, but - all she knows when she's producing her pictures in felt etc just deserts her entirely when she applies watercolour to paper, and I simply don't understand how this can be).
I think that drawing is necessary as a discipline - if you can't draw you're going to lack a sense of volume, shape and perspective - I don't think a good drawing or painting can be made by someone who h)as no understanding of basic drawing disciplines - but maybe the ability to draw really well isn't necessary (even so, I can't help the feeling that it must help an awful lot).
Posted
Well yes, but - a relaxed approach without a basic understanding of drawing is surely likely to lead to a shapeless mess?
Why would you want to discard drawing ability anyway? It's not that difficult - if you can manage a pen and are able to form letters, you can more or less draw. I don't really see why one would even question the proposition - I've never yet met anyone who simply couldn't draw, who actually wanted to: all it takes is a bit of practice, after all.
Posted
I think my response is 'it all depends'. No, not a cop out; before you can start to consider the question you need to decide what type of artist, what medium(s), what subject matter etc. For the vast majority of artists I do believe that a basic drawing skill is highly advantagous although even this, it could be argued, is on a sliding scale from say 1 through to say about 7 as you go from photorealism towards semi- abstract. When it comes to pure abstract I would argue that drawing skills are a benefit but, there again, I have a very good friend who exhibits widely and is a very successful abstract artist but who admits to being quite hopeless when it comes to drawing skills. Robert gives a similiar example of a felt artist. So if I were to give a catch-all score it would probably be about 5 . One thing I would suggest: drawing skills are not the Holy Grail that some would have us believe but can be a useful bit of ammo in the artists armoury.
Posted
Well, 'less is more' or is it? Not always I feel... In ten minutes (or was it 30) you could have captured the models pose more fully, perhaps just drawing one angle and yes, adding some detail, facial features are a necessity in my book. This reminds me of a stencil, and leaves me thinking that you are concerned about your ability to take it a stage further. Obviously Michael, reading your reply you are very pleased with your work, and can't understand why the others were struggling so much. If you attended part-time classes at art college for instance, you would not get away with this style of drawing, I can assure you.Louise is absolutely right, drawing is THE most essential basic discipline and will provide the groundwork for future advancement in your work - if you choose to break this rule as you intend to, it will almost certainly hinder your advancement and show as a 'weak spot' in your work.Many people will not realise that Picasso had great drawing skills, particularly relating to the human body, before getting involved in his abstract work. My advice to you would be to look at some of that work and learn from a great master.
Posted
the first drawings I did was of the seven dwarfs ,and I loved drawing pinocchio and his long nose ,,( he got from lying ) and his dad .
I would be about seven years old .at the time . I copied a lot from magazines like . Film fun ,, Stan and Oliver ,,,,Dandy and Beano. .I loved . caricatures of Churchill ,,Stafford Cripps ,and Attlee
in the news papers cartoons ,, corky the cat .. but kids today don't get encouraged to read comics ,,
Posted
I think you may have missed the point Alan - having drawn in great detail in the past I am now seeking to reduce the detail to a minimum leaving the viewer to interpret.Without having first learnt how to draw in detail I would be hard pushed to draw in this minimalist style .
Edited
by Michael Edwards
Posted
Drawing for painting is going to be different from drawing in order to produce a picture in its own right - there are those, I know, who lay down a very detailed drawing and then religiously fill it in, in whatever medium they've chosen - and some manage to make this work, but I couldn't, and wouldn't want to; if I've done a fair drawing, I want to see it and not to cover it with paint. The great danger of the detailed drawing method in painting is that you end up just colouring-in: I much prefer to draw with the paint. I know there are some who can do both - and probably they'd find it actively painful to produce a minimal drawing .... they'd want to fill in every line, corner, crevice and blemish.
Which just goes to illustrate the "to each his own" mantra.
I'm not a great fan of minimalism as a concept - if on the other hand you can convey what you intended with a minimum of lines and shading: well done! Very few can - on the very rare occasions I've managed to do it, it was by luck. A lot depends on context as well - pin-point accuracy in the age of the camera is rarely necessary: but draw a portrait which looks nothing like the subject and you get the embarrassment suffered by President Gauck when presenting a horse painting to the Queen the other day.... Her Maj. knows her fetlocks; Herr Gauck obviously didn't.
Edited
by Robert Jones
Posted
Sorry I did not notice this thread earlier, I think that one of my pet hates at the present time is the persistent wish from all commercial firms for "Feedback".
This usually consists of a series of questions which must be answered by filling in boxes which grade from 1 to 10, you're not allowed to skip this, it has been decided by a higher power who is usually guided by a set of assumptions which I tend not to share.
This doesn't apply to our excellent forum, and even less to Michael, whose work and opinions I respect, however it is a rather wide question.
I heartily agree with the ten out of ten believers, mainly because I believe that drawing is an achievable goal by anyone with reasonable eyesight. I have taught the subject for many years to all types of people. I am convinced that it is a skill that should be taught in schools, it is so necessary and useful.The best reason I can offer is that it is the only way to aquire an "artist's eye". A dispassionate objective way of looking where shapes and arrangements are paramount in the difficult task of translating the 3D view into an creditable 2D creation on a flat surface.
John
Posted
I included the 1 to 10 score rather tongue in cheek and puposely set it the the ' wrong way round' with 1 being absolutely essential and 10 being not essential at all. I've since been amused by those who fell into the trap of rating drawing skills at 10 when they really meant 1 - it rather supports john7k's stance on such rating systems.
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2