Hi there
sorry to join in only late in such an interesting debate. Loads of
times have artists provided inspiration for my workshop approaches:
Richard Diebenkorns use of cropping (viewfinder) and black and white
(contrast) tonality for life drawing classes; Max Ernst's decalcomania
as a way of using Rohrschach type of unconscious textures to develop
material with, ditto: frottage approach with found textures etc.
I used to run off photocopies of relevant artists/designers when
running a drawing module (for design studies I would include Morris
design drawings, Sottsass design drawings and Claes Oldenburg's
wonderful drawings of consumer objects for example). Academic
referencing in the humanities makes us very cautious not to acknowledge
sources, I think the same holds for the practice arena: we need to
acknowledge the direction and type of approach which has informed us as
teachers, and it is better to be explicit about this then to pretend
that everyone should reinvent the whole process of drawing from scratch
- or even worse a fallacy: that we are not influenced by visual sources
developed by others ourselves. Visual plagiarism.
Doris
On 16 Jun 2008, at 10:03, Y.A.Raw wrote:
> Dear all who have responded,
>
> Many thanks. I have gained a great deal from your reactions, ideas, and
> suggestions. Some really revealing stuff...
>
> However, has anyone actually taught a practical class/workshop using
> another artist as an example? If so, what did you do? We all have ideas
> about copying and understanding the works of artists in relation our
> own
> work, but I am particularly interested in what you do at grass-roots
> level when you have adults of very mixed ability sitting in front of
> you. How would you go about teaching students to use Mattisse's style
> in
> their own work? What limits would you set, and how would you facilitate
> freedom of expression at the same time. How (briefly) would/did you
> organise a day-long lesson?
>
> Michael Bray's suggestions (below) were particularly useful because he
> was directly relating his response to a teaching environment, as well
> as
> his own personal experience. I happen to agree with Michael completely.
> I suppose I'm looking for ideas for practical exercises etc. I'm
> working
> in the field of art in the community, which is a different forum to
> that
> of art-school, or practicing artists.
>
> Thanks again for any help.
> Yvonne
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: The UK drawing research network mailing list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chhatralia, Sunil
> Sent: 16 June 2008 08:59
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Painting/Drawing like other artists
>
> I agree with Michael, in that many years ago at school I too used to
> "copy" works that I admired to teach myself new techniques. It was
> perhaps useful to develop a range of techniques. However, I don't think
> I learnt much about the complexities perception. Direct drawing from
> personal observation seems to offer more in the long run.
>
> Sunil Chhatralia
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> In my experience as an art student a kabillion years ago, I would
> occasionally copy works that caught my attention. It wasn't to just
> copy, but to slow myself down and try to understand how the artist
> composed, used value and line etc...but this was only useful as I was
> making my own works at the same time. I found this process
> instructive,
> but I always realized that the artist's whose work I was copying was
> not
> my style, but it would offer me something to help develop my style.
> Copying as an exercise in observation I don't find is as useful. If
> that is the point, drawing from reality is more useful I would say. In
> a class room setting, the greatest danger with a copying method, is the
> student will become impressed with the result, but may not realize all
> the decisions that need to be taken to make their own original work.
> That said, I believe a selective, individualized approach can help
> students become aware of issues in drawing that they may not be able to
> grasp as readily by reading or lecture.
>
> Regarding the original question of applying a learned style to
> original work, I have seen some assignments that get good results, but
> usually not as a starting point. Get students drawing what's around
> them, then introduce a style to explain the concept of interpretation
> from what you see to what you draw. Then I would suggest you move to
> the student's drawing their familiar surroundings but with an
> interpretive mindset (if that makes any sense).
> It
> does not have to follow the style they copied, but it should follow the
> process using simplification, exaggeration, pattern etc...because I
> feel
> that you are using the Matisse example not to have students draw like
> Matisse, but to start seeing/experiencing how the drawn image can be
> influenced by the surroundings but not necessarily having to be a
> realistic copy of reality. I think if a copy is approached more along
> these lines, it can open up the student's mind to just how fluid,
> playful, and expressive drawing can be.
>
> M
>
> On 6/16/08 10:31 AM, "Rachel Pearcey" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> I went to the recent Russian exhibition at the Royal Academy in
> London.
>> There were some works by Matisse and Picasso I had never seen plus of
> course
>> the wonderful dancers, or whatever they are called, which I had only
> seen in
>> reproduction. I stood and copied 3 paintings and it really helped me
> to
>> see/understand how they had been drawn. To copy another artist you
> have to
>> suspend your own practice but to apply it to your own work you need a
>> certain amount of technical expertise and confidence in your own
> practice.
>> You need to be able to 'see' what each line is doing and why it was
> placed
>> there, but also that some might be mistakes which have been left. I
> think
>> the whole process is very interesting but also a lot more complicated
> than
>> it might seem.
>> Rachel
>>
>> On 15/6/08 17:16, "Maureen Kendal" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> I always dislike this method of teaching for the reasons you note.
>>> If we are teaching people to look,
>>> Do not our eyes , hearts and minds emerge from a fresh vision and
>>> unique universe?
>>> Looking at something and seeing anew and fresh as if for the first
>>> time, in a state of emergence?
>>> Why are we asking people to copy?
>>> It is one technique to look closely at a great master etc and
>>> understand the technique and appreciate it etc but what about the joy
>
>>> of playing with and manipulating and experimenting with the
>>> technique, rather than only copying.
>>>
>>> I am interested in looking /listening and challenging what we see/
>>> hear - that is the excitement.
>>> Does anyone out there get excited from copying?
>>> Maybe they do, Andy Warhol and yet every image printed was different
>>> again.
>>> His duplicated images were been playing with repetition and
>>> variation, but not mere copying.
>>> A thought?
>>>
>>> Maureen Kendal
>>>
>>> On 15 Jun 2008, at 13:59, Y.A.Raw wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have an issue with the notion of asking students to paint like
>>>> famous artists.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any tips or advice on getting students to 'apply'
>>>> the methods and techniques used by other artists, as opposed to just
>
>>>> copying them?
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking because I have just taught a one-day workshop on 'Drawing
>
>>>> like Matisse' to adult learners of varying abilities. I just
>>>> wondered what other teachers' methods might be. Explaining Matisse's
>
>>>> use of gesture, line, colour, pattern, mood etc. wasn't really the
>>>> problem. Getting students to apply these to their own work was
>>>> tricky. They wanted to create pictures that looked like Matisse's,
>>>> as opposed to creating their own pictures and applying Matisse's
>>>> techniques. There is a difference...
>>>>
>>>> (I appreciate that teaching/learning this in one day is a relatively
>
>>>> tall order...) Any help would be appreciated.
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Yvonne
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------
>>>> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
>
>>>> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in
>>>> Scotland (SC 038302).
>
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
> Security System.
>
> This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
> Security System.
>
> ---------------------------------
> The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an
> exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland
> (SC 038302).
>
>
Doris Rohr
birds plants vegetables
array studios
http://www.arraystudios.co.uk
[log in to unmask]
associate lecturer in painting
fIne and applied art
university of ulster
http://www.ulster.ac.uk
[log in to unmask]
|
