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.
|