Using a traditional flexible foundation, the artist makes a series of adjustments by eye. After the artist is satisfied, the image is secured at the end of the process. Many differences can therefore be found between the artist's initial marks and the final composition. Above left sketch: The Presentation in the Temple by Peter Paul Rubens, The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Above right painting: (detail) The Presentation in the Temple by Peter Paul Rubens, Antwerp Cathedral.

Using the modern academic sight-size method a very accurate outline is secured at the beginning of the process. These initial outlines are accurately placed using a variety of rules and measuring aids such as the plumb line in use to the left. The initial outline is a very accurate template for the finished head (below). Left from: The Benefits of Sight-Size Drawing by Stephen Doherty. Below from: Cast Drawing Using the Sight Sizing Approach by Darren Rousar at www.sightsize.com

The technical training of a realist artist is not simple. As with

mastering any profession, the student labors to acquire the

many necessary skills that will enable him to succeed. And,

there are indeed many skills to learn.

It is sad, therefore, that numerous academies today have

abandoned the extensive collection of traditional art

techniques, preferring to teach instead a single artificial copy

formula such as the sight-size method. This simple copy

process is nothing more than a single flashy trick. Although it

enables virtually anyone to mechanically render a visible

object with near photographic accuracy, it leaves students

appallingly ill-prepared for advanced study.

To exemplify some of the dangers of thus limiting a student’s

professional training, here is a comparison between the

traditional flexible foundation and the modern academic

sight-size method.

Comparing Definitions

The difference between the use of a traditional flexible

foundation and the modern academic sight-size method is

straightforward: The artist employing a traditional flexible

foundation continually makes a series of adjustments by eye as

he works, leaving the work extremely flexible and allowing the

artist to easily alter the image countless times until the end of

the drawing or painting process. By contrast, the modern

academic sight-size method teaches the artist to employ a

number of strict rules and measuring devices, such as rulers

and plumb lines, to finalize an accurate image at the beginning

of the drawing process.

The use of traditional flexible foundations is evident in the

early sketches of Peter Paul Rubens, such as in his sketch for

The Presentation in the Temple (above right). As the final

painting demonstrates, Rubens’ final composition is

significantly different from the one in his early sketch. The

figures of Simeon and the prophetess Anna are reversed,

Mary’s gesture is altered, and the kneeling Joseph is turned to

the side.

The early sketches by an artist using the sight-size method are

visibly different from the flexible foundation. Here, the initial

sketch is a precise outline designed to serve as a guide or

template for subsequent “coloring in” or finishing. The initial

sketch of a head (right), for example, serves as a perfect

template for the final image. Extremely accurate outlines of

the head and its shadows are placed at the beginning of the

process. Unlike the work by Rubens, no subsequent

alterations to the composition are made.

The Modern Sight-Size Method

Is This the Best Technical Training for the Realist Artist?

Comparing Processes

The processes behind the traditional flexible foundation and the

modern academic sight-size method are dramatically different.

When using the traditional flexible foundation, the artist takes

advantage of the human eye’s natural, and incredibly remarkable,

ability to recognize seemingly negligible differences between

images. Given three pictures of a vase below, for example, even an

individual with no artistic training will be able to quickly and easily

identify the one that is slightly tipped. The same can be said of the

artist who is comparing his own sketch to an actual vase. If the artist

finds the tipped vase he has sketched is unacceptable he simply

makes a quick correction.

Leonardo Da Vinci is one such artist who took great advantage of the

human ability to swiftly assess and then correct his image. In the

Study for the Sforza Monument (right), for example, numerous

corrective marks can be seen around the placement of nearly every

object in the drawing. Because the foundation remains flexible, the

artist has the ability to continually correct his work, make his

assessment again, correct his work, assess, correct, assess, correct,

and so forth . . . until he is at last satisfied with the image. To

accomplish this, however, the artist’s first marks must be extremely

sketchy and brief. This type of mark is specifically designed for easy

reworking or refinement.

The adeptness of the human eye at assessing and correcting a

flexible foundation cannot be underestimated. This skill can be used

not only for creating an accurate account of what the artist sees, but

also designing an image from his imagination. As Leonardo knew

well, our natural ability to assess and correct an image is far better

than our ability to “get it right on the first try.” Consequently, old

marks need to remain visible for comparison. They are essential for

subsequent alterations. Erasing all of these marks forces the artist to

start completely over from the beginning.

The process used in the modern academic sight-size method is

entirely different. As is well-documented (see, for example,

“Drawing with the Sight-Size Method” by Ben Rathbone), the sight-

size method taught in modern academies and ateliers today focuses

on drawing perfect outlines at the beginning of the process. These

outlines are then carefully colored in. Minor corrections, if any, are

considered mistakes and immediately erased.

The modern academic sight-size method can easily be used to create

an exact copy with near photographic accuracy. This is done by

following a set of strict rules and is aided by such devices as rulers,

calipers, levels, mirrors and plumbs (see right). Artists carefully

measure, then transfer to their paper, an image that is an exact 1:1

ratio to their subject - as seen from the exact point where they stand.

(Indeed, the size of the drawing is dictated by the distance the artist

stands from the subject - its “sight-size”). Of course, the image on

the artist’s easel and his subject must be arranged so as to appear

side by side.

The goal of a sight-size artist is often to become so proficient that he

is able to follow the process without the aid of any measuring tools -

a task that takes many years to learn. (Surprisingly, the assessing

and altering a flexible foundation by eye is truly a natural ability of

mankind, requiring only a few hours of training.)

As seen above, modern academic sight-size artists use a variety of measuring devices such plumbs, calipers, rulers and levels to achieve an exact copy with near photographic accuracy. Minor corrections, if any, are considered mistakes and erased. This process takes many years to learn. Images from Drawing with the Sight-Size Method by Ben Rathbone.

Old marks are an essential part of the process of assessing and correcting a flexible foundation. Therefore, as seen in Leonardo's drawing above, a great number of alterations often remain visible while the artist is working. Assessing and correcting a flexible foundation by eye is a natural ability of man, requiring only a few hours of instruction. Study for the Sforza Monument by Leonardo Da Vinci.

Far left: Moses by Michelangelo, part of the tomb of Pope Julius ll . Left: Lithograph by Charles Bargue drawn of a cast (three dimensional copy) of the right arm of Michelangelo’s sculpture. Below are four excellent, nearly identical, contemporary academic copies of this Bargue print, made at a variety of different academic schools in practice today.

Atelier Stockholm Vitruvian Fine Art Studio Colorado Academy of Art

Academy of Realist Art

Comparing Purposes

The purpose of the modern academic sight-size method is also quite

different from the purpose of the traditional flexible foundation. The

purpose of the modern academic sight-size method is to duplicate

exactly what the artist sees. It is an academic copy process. Although

all academies today do not teach the modern sight-size method, nearly

all teach a version of the academic copy process. Typically, the

training progresses in three stages. Most often the student will begin

by copying prints or photographs. It has become particularly popular

today for students to copy prints made from lithographs that Charles

Bargue made for students in the 19th century. Some of these contain

step-by-step instructions for copying a specific drawing (right).

Although copying using this method can give the student practice in

skills such as delicate shading and identifying values, the student’s

principle goal is to make an exact duplicate. For example, students

often copy Bargue’s lithograph drawn from a cast of the right arm of

Michelangelo’s Moses (below). Each student’s work is a near perfect

reproduction of Bargue’s lithograph. As a consequence, each student’s

copy is virtually identical to every other student copy, even when

compared with students from different academies around the world

(below). Lithograph by Charles Bargue

Academic students in Italy working from in-studio casts. These three exquisitely rendered copies of a cast (Michelangelo’s Giuliano de’ Medici.) were produced by three different students at the Angel Academy

Figurative work by two different students at the Grand Central Academy

After copying Bargue’s prints, academic students typically move on to copy plaster casts of

famous sculptures and then advance to making an exact copy of a single standing live

model. The three copies of a cast of Michelangelo’s sculpture of Giuliano de’ Medici and

the two figure drawings from a live model below are beautifully executed examples of

these. If the artist has chosen to use the sight-size method, he may employ here the

numerous mechanical devices and rules typical of the process.

As seen in the examples on this page, the results

of this process can be impressive. The purpose of

an academic copy process is to generate highly

accurate copies of what the artist sees. Of course,

if the artist is looking at something beautiful, then

the finished work can be equally so.

Praise for the academic copy process thus

overlooks two fundamental weaknesses of the

process. First, if a student is making a copy of a

sculpture by Michelangelo, or if a figure is

professionally illuminated by the instructor, or if

the student is guided though the steps of a strictly

detailed copy process, surely the finished piece

can not be solely credited to the student. The

works here are indeed exquisite, but in this highly

controlled environment, are they a reflection of the

student’s true skill level?

Second, and far more importantly, is the student

learning a useful skill that will later aid in the

making of his own art?

Turning now to the purpose of the traditional

flexible foundation, again differences are readily

apparent. Whereas the goal of the sight-size method

is to enable the academic copy process, the goal of

the traditional flexible foundation is to facilitate

creative design. Although the traditional flexible

foundation is easily used to create a highly accurate

image if an artist so chooses, the ultimate function

of the flexible foundation is to aid in the creation of

an original work of art, particularly those with

highly complex compositions.

Looking at the works of Rubens, Carracci,

Guercino, Degas and others, this purpose of the

traditional flexible foundation is obvious. In

Rubens’ drawing Mercury Descending (right), for

example, there is a disconcerting number of legs

attached to the figure in a variety of very different

positions. Rubens is not, of course, looking at a

model and having trouble identifying the accurate

placement of the legs. Rather, he is experimenting

while searching for a placement that looks good to

him. He is using his flexible foundation to aid in

creative design, not merely copying accurately what

he sees.

The traditional flexible foundation can be used in a

variety of ways. In Carracci’s The Vision of St.

Francis (sketch and final painting to right), for

example, the artist made a quick preliminary sketch

of the overall composition. In this way he can

quickly assess, then accept or reject major ideas of

the whole. This type of foundation sketch enables

the artist to try out a number of very different ideas

quickly. Consequently, they often differ

significantly from the finished work. At this stage

no attempt is made to correctly place (or beautifully

render) details such as eyes and fingers. By

contrast, Guercino’s Amnon and Tamar (below left)

and Degas’ Dancer Seen from Behind and Three

Studies of Feet (below right) show these artists

using flexible foundations to refine or fine tune their

images. These are seen as multiple lines in and

around various parts of the figures.

The figure here appears to have far too many legs. Rubens is not, of course, looking at a model and having trouble identifying the accurate placement of the legs. Rather, he is experimenting while searching for a placement that looks good to him. Mercury Descending by Peter Paul Rubens.

Sketch for The Vision of St. Francis (detail) by Annibale Carracci

The Vision of St. Francis (detail) by Annibale Carracci

Dancer Seen from Behind and Three Studies of Feet (detail) by Edgar Degas

Amnon and Tamar (detail) by Guercino (Giovanni Francesco Barbieri)

Raphael did countless preparatory drawings to aid in the design of a final painting. Raphael, Madonna Studies Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lille Alba Madonna, National Gallery of Art Washington DC

Instead of preparatory drawings, Titian favored making his corrections or alterations directly on the canvas using paint . In Titian’s Virgin and Child, X-radiographs reveal the painting underwent numerous alterations. In the example to the left dark lines are visible that indicate how the hand was altered. Titian, Virgin and Child c. 1511, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna) Cited From: Bellini, Giorgione, Titian, and the Renaissance of Venetian Painting, Copyright@2006 Board of Trustees, National Gallery of Art, Washington, and the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Technical studies of Painting Methods by Elke Oberthaler and Elizabeth Walmsley. www.nga.gov/press/exh/191/methods/pdf

Concerning the authenticity of

Michelangelo’s The Torment of

Saint Anthony at Kimbell Art Museum, Claire Barry, Kimbell’s

chief conservator, notes “The

important technical information that

has come to light includes revelations of numerous pentimenti,

or artist’s changes, that show

Michelangelo working through his

ideas in paint.”

(https://www.kimbellart.org/News/

News-Article.aspx?nid=119)

Concerning the authenticity of Raphael’s

Madonna of the Pinks at the National Gallery,

London, it was remarked that there were “many slight but significant refinements to

the outlines of forms characteristic of

Raphael’s paintings.”

Close Examination: Fakes, mistakes and

discoveries at the National Gallery,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-reviews/7859296/Close-Examination-Fakes-

mistakes-and-discoveries-at-the-National-

Gallery-review.html

Although the purpose of a flexible foundation remains the

same (to aid the artist during the creative design stage of

his work) the look or type of marks will differ greatly from

artist to artist. In fact, examining how a particular artist

manipulates a flexible foundation gives an insight into the

thinking process of that artist. For example, Raphael often

worked a concept over and over on paper, as is seen in his

sketch for the Alba Madonna (right), until completely

satisfied, leaving us with many preparatory drawings

recording his process. These give us a great deal of

understanding, not only of what his flexible foundations

looked like, but how he manipulated them during his

creative process as well. Because he spent so much time

working out his composition on paper, comparatively small

changes were necessary during the subsequent painting

process.

In contrast to Raphael, Titian was fond of experimenting in

paint directly on the canvas, often altering the actual

painting many times before deciding upon a final version.

Although he left behind few independent sketches, beneath

the top visible layer of his paintings exists evidence of the

many alterations he made. An example of the quick, loose,

fluid brush strokes Titian used for his initial marks can be

seen in an X-radiograph of Mary’s right hand in his Virgin

and Child (right). These early marks found underneath are

often significantly different from the final visible paint

layer - revealing the alterations Titian made while working.

Variations in flexible foundations not only aid the artist in

realizing individual creative goals, they give us, as students

of these masters, priceless visual snapshots of how they

actually did it. Artists that study the different corrections or

creative manipulations made by an individual master can

gain concrete knowledge of how to achieve specific goals.

As seen in the examples below, art historians also can gain

valuable information by studying the characteristics of

individual artist’s flexible foundations. The creative

manipulations made to an artist’s flexible foundation are so

distinctive that experts can even use this information to

assist in determining whether a painting is a forgery. As

with handwriting, how each artist creates and manipulates a

flexible foundation is difficult to counterfeit.

Although the light and shadows are illogical, all three balls to the left appear equally round. This enables the artist to design any number of value patterns, confident the illusions will be sufficient to make the object appear real. The illusion realist is able to create a wide variety of creative designs from his imagination, never in doubt that his illusions will give a high degree of realism to his art. The accurate realist has but one choice - the accurate placement of all values.

Venus at her Toilet by Titian National Gallery of Art Washington DC

Peter Paul Rubens (after Titian) Museo Thyssen-Bornemisza, Madrid 1608 Venus at her Toilet

Impact on Creativity

If a student masters the use of flexible foundations, clearly this will aid him later when

progressing into designing his own individual artwork. However, strict adherence to an

academic copy process will in fact impede the student’s progress. This is true for both

creative growth and technical advancement.

Certainly, art students attending all types of schools might find that their early training

includes making accurate copies, but there is a great advantage in making these copies by

manipulating a flexible foundation by eye, without the use of any mechanical aid. In this

way, the student begins his training by practicing the exact same skills he will later use for

creative design. The passage from making accurate copies to creating professional works of

art therefore becomes an effortless passage, as the student has been practicing key basic

skills right from the beginning.

For many artists, the distinction between “copying” and creating personal works can even

become difficult to define. For example, when Rubens “copied” a painting by Titian, the

resulting work of art looks much more like a Rubens painting than a Titian.

On the other hand, if the student’s early training is restricted to an academic copy process,

their training will include only the meticulous following of a preprogrammed sequence of

steps. Students essentially learn only how to follow a formula or recipe. After years of

adhering to this formula, they become increasingly less inclined (or unable) to deviate from

the formula. Over time, the academic copy process becomes their only option. Making a

perfect accurate image, with no “mistakes” eventually becomes all they can do.

Unfortunately, if a student finds himself unable to deviate from this perfect accuracy, it then

becomes impossible to learn a number of advanced skills, many of which are at the heart of

creative design. One example of such a technical skill, unavailable to the artist whose single

option is accuracy, is the creative use of illusions. The control of illusions can be a

powerful tool for the realist artist. Different illusions can enhance volume, light, movement

and drama. They can make a flat two-dimensional surface appear three-dimensional, make

figures appear to breathe and objects appear to glow.

One simple example of how an artist can gain creative control over an illusion is seen in the

below right diagram. The three balls are, of course, all flat two-dimensional shapes – just as

this page is two-dimensional. The shading simply gives the illusion that they are round three

-dimensional objects.

However, looking closely at these diagrams, it becomes apparent that the

lighting and the shadows in each are neither accurate nor logical. The light

falling on the top two balls appears to come from the same direction, and yet

the shadows are different. In the bottom two, the light appears to come from

two different directions, but the shadows are now the same. Astonishingly,

an artist can create the illusion of a three-dimensional object without relying

on an accurate copy of what he sees. The design of light and shadows here is

completely invented and quite illogical, yet the illusion of volume still exists.

The implications of this are fantastic. The artist is free to arrange shadows in

any number of designs pleasing to his eye and still be confident that his skill

in creating illusions will be sufficient to make the object appear real. The

realist artist is thus able to incorporate into his art the most complex and

creative compositions of light and dark his imagination has to offer.

An artist who is compelled to accurately copy what he sees has lost all of

these creative options. The light and shadows must be “right.” Of course, an

accurate copy will produce illusions of reality; a perfect copy of a plaster

cast will indeed look round. However, the artist limited to only one choice,

the accurate one, is at a frustrating disadvantage compared to the artist that

can create an equally “real” looking work but also choose from an unlimited

number of creative designs.

Illusion Realism: Diego Velazquez was free to design any number of value patterns pleasing to his eye, knowing his illusions would be sufficient to make the work appear real. The Needlewoman by Diego Velazquez (detail below right)

Accurate Realism: Paxton relies on the detailed accurate depiction of everything (objects, light, shadows etc.) to create his illusion of reality. The String of Pearls by Paxton (detail below left)

The inability to take advantage of the creative flexibility of

illusions dramatically affects the finished look of an artist’s work.

This can be seen by comparing Paxton’s The String of Pearls

(right) and Velazquez’ The Needlewoman (far right). Paxton, a

noted modern academic accurate realist, renders every detail with

precision. Looking at a detail of the left hand in Paxton’s painting

(below left), each wrinkle, each fingernail, each shadow on each

pearl and so forth are visible. The illusions of reality are not

created and placed by the artist to support his creative design,

reality exists simply because everything is included, much the

same way a camera records a scene.

Velazquez on the other hand, took full advantage of his ability to

manipulate illusions. A close look at the hands in The

Needlewoman (below right) shows a loose paint application.

Here, by merely altering the way the paint was applied to the

canvas, by manipulating the values (in a fashion similar to that

shown on the previous page), and by other artistic sleights of

hand, Velazquez was able to create an illusion of reality without

the need for the precise detailing evident in Paxton’s work.

Velazquez could therefore design all aspects of his painting (from

the arrangement of light, shadows and volume to the placement

of red accents) in any manner he chose, confident he could also

incorporate and control whatever illusions he desired as well.

While the accurate realist is restricted to accuracy regardless of

its appeal, the illusion realist is free to create his own design –

making creative patterns that are beautiful, or frightening, or

dramatic as he pleases.

Here the figures, values, colors and many other elements can be seen together as a unit. All can then be assessed and altered as needed to balance the whole. Sketch of Hercules and Minerva Fighting Mars 1632-40 by Rubens, Louvre Paris France

In this Veronese, the flexible foundation consists of both line and values in their sketchiest form. Both are altered together. While designing a complex composition it is easy for the artist to constantly asses how the two look together. Studies for Judith and Holofernes David and Goliath and Other Compositions (detail) by Veronese

Although the inability to utilize illusions is one of the most serious

limitations of a dependency on accuracy, there are other ways the

academic copy process limits the artist’s creativity. For example, the

necessity of securing an accurate outline at the beginning of the

working process also has severe drawbacks.

These can be seen by comparing the Veronese sketch to the right with

the academic copy process depicted below. In the Veronese, both the

figure and the values (light and dark areas) are visible together in a

single flexible foundation. The artist can then assess and alter the two

simultaneously as a unit while designing his work. He is able to

constantly view how the two will look together while designing his

composition, thus assuring the final composition as a whole will be to

his liking.

By contrast, during the academic copy process below the outline is

secured first, and the values are colored in later. At no time is there

an opportunity for the artist to observe and adjust how both the figure

and the values will look together. It is a surprise at the end, for good

or ill. When using this process the quality of the copy is completely

dependent on the quality of the original artwork, not the skill of the

copyist.

Outline here are secured first then colored in. The figure, values and colors are not designed together as a unit. When using this process the quality of the copy is dependant on the quality of the original artwork, not the skill of the copyist. above illustration from: http://www.angelartschool.com/methods.html

Now, consider a more complex situation. If the artist sets out

to create a composition where the figures, the values and the

colors all need to be working together harmoniously, there is

an even greater advantage to being able to assess and correct

everything together. The more elements the artist tries to

coordinate, the more difficult it is to find a successful

arrangement without some trial and error. Rubens, a colorist,

takes great advantage of this. In the oil sketch to the right, he

is able to easily design a complex composition that

incorporates color because he can in fact see it while he is

working.

Now, to make it even more complex, if the artist desires to

organize not only the figures, values and colors but other

elements as well, such as highlights or points of interest, it

becomes unbelievably difficult to coordinate this multitude of

elements without actually seeing how everything is working

together at the same time. An artist confined to an academic

copy process, forced to secure the outlines first, then add the

values, then add the color in a linear fashion, literally has no

way of seeing if his composition will work as a whole until

the painting is done - a bit too late to be of practical use.

The inability to easily coordinate the design of a complex composition has a

profound effect on the appearance of an artist’s work of art. When an artist does

not have the tools to easily organize large numbers of complex elements into a

single cohesive design, his work takes on a characteristic stiff, static, random, or

even photographic appearance. This can be seen by comparing the two paintings on

this page.

The painting on the right was done by Nelson Shanks, a very popular modern

academic accurate realist. The composition is essentially a collection of very well

painted individual objects. The rendering of each separate object far outshines any

unifying compositional design. For example, the red color in the Shanks painting is

scattered randomly about. There is red material, red on the paint can, red on the

woman lips, fingers, toes, ears and so forth. Shanks took a tremendous amount of

care painting the red material behind the woman’s ankle. However, if the red shape

was a bit higher, a bit wider or a bit darker it would have little effect on the

composition as a whole. Likewise, there is no intentional design of dark shapes in

the Shanks painting. Dark shadows are sprinkled randomly about.

By contrast, Sargent (below) displays a cohesive design that demonstrates a great

degree of creative control over the entire composition. Of course, Sargent is skilled

at creating a number of illusions such as those used to enhance movement, light,

volume and drama. But more importantly, he fully understands that his dramatic

creative design will not harm these illusions of reality. He can have both.

For example, there is a large dark shape that starts on the left side of the painting

and snakes along the floor, rolls up and through the woman’s torso, then back to the

floor ending on the right side of the painting. This shape contributes considerably to

the feeling of movement in the picture. Similarly, the red-orange color appears as a

splash on the right edge of the picture and a small, single dramatic point of interest

on the chair to the left. The movement between these two accents of red-orange

echo the movement of the dancer- expanding to the right.

Unlike the Shanks picture, altering the placement, hue or brightness of this color by

even a small amount would be detrimental to the work as a whole. Sargent has

coordinated everything perfectly, from the overall pattern of his design to the

smallest detail. Whereas Shanks spent considerable time detailing objects, Sargent

spent his time designing a perfect composition.

Sophia, An Anthology by Nelson Shanks

El Jaleo by John Singer Sargent

Modern academic accurate realists rarely attempt complex

multi-figure compositions. Without the ability to fully utilize

illusions, and without the ability to manipulate multiple

elements into a cohesive whole, the task of designing an entire

complex composition is extraordinarily difficult. If the artist

has only one option (to accurately copy what he sees), when he

is faced with more objects he merely keeps recording until the

collection grows to a noisy or awkward cacophony.

The work by Surdo below exemplifies the problem. Each

individual figure speaks well of the basic copy skills of the

artist. However, the work sorely lacks a creative, cohesive

design. Compare his scattered pattern of light and dark to the

picture by Rembrandt to the right. In the Rembrandt, the

dramatic teardrop of light falling in the center not only ties the

composition together, the teardrop shape reflects the poignancy

of the subject matter.

by Bruno A Surdo, Founder of The School of Representational Art in Chicago

The Descent from the Cross by Rembrandt

Daniel Graves, Hans 2005

Academic accurate realists are often attracted to portraiture. Indeed, an accurate copy

of a single head, painted in a controlled studio environment, can be astonishingly

beautiful. The head to the right is exquisite. It clearly demonstrates the artist’s

remarkable copy skills as well as his superb facility with paint.

Again, however, problems quickly multiply as the artist attempts anything but

copying a single object in a controlled lighting situation. Without the compositional

skills to coordinate a multitude of elements into a cohesive whole, the artist merely

copies each and every additional object. This is evident in the portraits below,

produced in copious numbers by modern academic accurate realists. While some may

have a degree of popular appeal, the vast majority resemble little more than stiff,

faithfully painted copies of mediocre photographic snapshots - even when the artist

works from a live model.

By contrast, in the painting to the right the artist has

taken complete control of his compositional design. For

example, the blue and purple colors in the girl’s hair

ribbon are also found in the chair cushion, the front and

back of her dress and indeed splashed liberally in the

shadows of her skin. The chair, her ribbons and her skin

thus becomes part of a greater pattern, a graceful arch

that echoes the direction of her gaze. Likewise, the

horizontal arm of the chair and the vertical wall on the

right together form a second more intimate frame

around her. The artist was far more concerned with the

beauty of the painting as a whole than the correct

depiction any one piece such as the hand (seen in the

detail to the right).

No such attention to the overall design is evident in the

three formal portraits above. The chairs are very well-

painted chairs. And, each and every separate finger is

painted well. Unfortunately, the creative organization of

colors, values, accents, volume, textures and the vast

number of other valuable elements of design are

completely neglected by these artists who are

preoccupied with the accurate depiction of every visible

object.

Marvin Mattelson Pia Mattelson instructor at School of Visual Arts in NY

Iris by Daniel Graves, founder and director of The Florence Academy of Art

Michael Chelich Instructor at The School of Representational Art In Chicago

A Young Girl Reading by Jean-Honoré Fragonard with detail

“Academic training” has had a variety of definitions over the years. The debate

over its value is not new. Alarmingly, even the academies of the past were not

as formulaic as what we see in the academies today. Bouguereau (below), a very

remarkable academic painter of the 19th century, has clearly mastered numerous

technical design skills.

And yet, One could hardly think even academic artists of the past would

advocate a training method limited to formulaic studies such as is demonstrated

in the Gottlieb lesson below.

by Adran Gottlieb

Bouguereau’s development of Nymphs and Satyr.

Today more than ever it is difficult to disagree with Peter Paul Rubens: "But Sir Peter Rubens tol mee that at his being in Italy, divers of his nation

had followed this Academicall course for twenty Yearses together to little or

noe purpose. Besides these dull, tedious and heavy wayes doe ever

presuppose Animam in digitis [literally, where the spirit rests in the fingers,

i.e., where the skill of their fingers is primary, as in dry, mechanical

drawings], a man whose soule hath taken up his Lodging in his fingers

ends, and meanes to sacrifice his spirits and time for a Life and a day in

this study onely." Norgate 1997, pp. 108, 209–10, n. 307.

(This excerpt is from an essay, written by Anne-Marie Logan and Michiel C.

Plomp, derived from the exhibition catalogue Peter Paul Rubens: The

Drawings (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2005).

Trinka Margua Simon

trinkamarguasimon.com

artist, author, copyist, former instructor at the Smithsonian.

It certainly is odd to claim that all artists

who step back to view their work in

progress are “following the sight-size

tradition.” (Nicholas Beer, The Sight-Size

Tradition, 2009) Since even abstract artists

back up to asses their work in progress, this

is a bit like claiming: if you have carrots in

your house, you must be a rabbit.

The reason most artists bake up is simple:

what is perceived while standing near an

image is very different from what is

perceived when viewing the same image

from a distance. An artist will therefore

back up to stand where he would expect the

viewer to stand, assuring the work is

progressing as desired from that vantage

point.

One of the most entertaining examples of

this can be found in the picture to the right -

a recognizable picture of Albert Einstein.

If you step back and view this picture from

a distance the face will change into a

likeness of Marilyn Monroe.

Frequently a painting will look

“unresolved” when viewed up close. It

exhibits a rough or loose paint application

up close. And yet, it is clearly resolved

when viewed from a distance (Velazquez,

page pg 8). This is not surprising, the artist

has simply spent time critically assessing

his work from a distance and not bothered

with how it appears up close.

Although all types of artists back up to

view their work (even the most abstract),

the reason a modern sight-size artist backs

up is completely different. A sight-size

artist must always return to a precisely

marked place on the floor for their

measurements to be correct. Academic

paintings are often tightly resolved when

viewed up close, rarely demonstrating a

loose paint application.

from:

http://www.123opticalillusions.com/pages/albert-einstein-marilyn-monroe.php

Why artists back up to view their work