Er...'Imo proper form probably should be learned initially...'

Sounds like you are not very excited about this, are you?

My first post was solely in response to this statement "Painting is 75% drawing and value is the most important component in a color decision in classical painting." I don't know how this figure was arrived at, nor do I believe it to be true.

OK, how about73,6% or 82,096%? It doesn't really matter is it? General idea is clear.

My subsequent posts have been replies to replies. I didn't realize by contributing to this thread, I had an obligation to remark on the opening post also!

Of course we don't have to, but Mr. Seidler's writing work is too important and serious and I'm just offering to be supportive because general talk (a specially about terms) could be lost forever and we have great opportunity to talk about real changes in art education.

I have a problem with the example included in your most recent posting;

I can understand this, and try to rely on your supportive imagination.

Yes, of course, the samples are more philosophical than practical.

as you seem to be implying that painting is simply "coloring", overlooking at least brushwork and the fact that paintings can be produced without the use of any lines.

By talking about growing I mean construction and tonality.

I don't agree those images are equally attractive either, as the colour adds extra visual stimulation and warmth. Modern supermarkets are stocked with aisles of brightly coloured packaging for good reason.

O, I'm sorry I thought you are an artist. You're talking as a viewer here, actually will be good if you'll introduce yourself by showing few of your pieces if you are an artist, if not, maybe you point some your favorite names...

I believe that Mr. Seidler is considering "alla prima" as one of the mainstream discipline.
The thing is that one layer technique required much stronger drawing ability training then any other color techniques.

If you do multiple layers classical technique, you can do one task at a time and your previous layer is always saved (because it's completely dry). And there are no questions about drawing because all routine layers are more or less about construction and tonality. And only few last ones are about color and texture.

In the alla prima you have to deal with white canvas and very light charcoal sketch. Artist is resolving a puzzle of very difficult tasks in each brushstroke, and if he cannot think right (I mean drawing as form of artists thinking), he will have real problems like Mr. Rembrandt has in your sample.

Sounds like you are not very excited about this, are you?

Why? Because I said "probably"?
I used the word because the premise seemed reasonable, but I couldn’t say with absolute certainty.

"There is nothing more difficult for a truly creative painter than to paint a rose, because before he can do so he has first to forget all the roses that were ever painted."
--Henri Matisse

OK, how about73,6% or 82,096%? It doesn't really matter is it? General idea is clear.

General idea-wise I still don't accept it. With architecture, I imagine strong foundations are very important - which is how I interpreted the statement, but they needn't be as exacting or take the form of "drawing" in painting. However; Mr.Seidler's now clarified this (albeit dubiously) to mean: just about any purposeful brush stroke, at any stage, qualifies as drawing.

O, I'm sorry I thought you are an artist. You're talking as a viewer here, actually will be good if you'll introduce yourself by showing few of your pieces if you are an artist, if not, maybe you point some your favorite names...

You make works of Art for Artists alone? I'm a human being first and foremost, and gave my reaction as such.
Regarding your suggestion: After 19 posts you now want me to introduce myself by listing my favourite Artists? oO(To what end?)
I have no scanner or photographs of my works, sorry.

In the alla prima you have to deal with white canvas and very light charcoal sketch. Artist is resolving a puzzle of very difficult tasks in each brushstroke, and if he cannot think right (I mean drawing as form of artists thinking), he will have real problems like Mr. Rembrandt has in your sample.

It may well me difficult, but if you agree the drawing aspect's minimal, doesn't that rather rob Mr.Seidler's 75% (3/4) of validity?

First of all - there are different kinds of drawing: "linear" and "tonal". Most drawings incoperate both linear and tonal elements; Egon Schiele used almoust only line - Prud'Hon only tone.

The line may be used do make a statement about "direktion" and "contour". One uses contours to indicate when shapes or forms are separated from each other.
One can also use lines to emphasis direktion or curvature of form - in shadow areas - or (in more modern abstract drawings this is seen more clearly stated in the drawings but the pre modern masters always had such in mind even if not drawing out theese lines on the paper - they didn't need to to get it right) direction of movement, balance, geometric structure, etc.

A pure tone drawing is almoust as a painting without the use of colo(u)r. Such a tone drawing can ofcourse be made more abstract/impressionistic by as for an example use a charcoal on the side and with one handstroke put the exakt greytone on the exakt spot.
One can also slowly (not that the other method goes faster - since one really have to think and prepare for every stroke in the method above) build up the shadowtones neatly.

In a picture tone and line is the most important for the human eye (and also the animal eye) to help recognise/trick the eye to see "form" (3D pictures not included - since our binocular vision is the no1 guide to "form" and volume). This is proved in psychological tests.
Colo(u)r is only mainly a "spice" and do not help too much in the "form-recognition-business". Althoug contrasting colo(u)rs may help to "expand" the contrast in the painting (in a drawing or painting one can not copy all the shadow contrasts that exists in nature on the paper/canvas - but by using complimentary colo(u)rs one may trick the eye/brain to see more tones).

By starting out with painting one can ofcourse start to learn it all - but it may be confusing since drawing is to use the knowledge, the eye and the technical craft that is learned when drawing but with the "distraction" ot the extra colo(u)r element.
So as a drawing instructor I always tells my students do learn drawing very well before starting with painting. Learn here the knowledge of how to create "form" , strengthen the arm and hand so you really have controll to do exaktly what you want, and learn to use the eye to really "see".
Then - when beginning to learn painting - start to learn the use of colo(u)rs by first learning to recognise "warmth" and "coolnes" with burnt sienna, black and white. Then use a yellow ochre, a terra rosa, a black (as a blue) and a white to introduse a full harmonical spectrum. When being able to mix all the colo(u)rs whith theese pigments you may go "full colo(u)r" - warm yellow, cold yellow, warm red, cold red, greenish blue, violet blue, white and maybe black.

By trying to learn painting without being good at drawing you will be very distracted by the colo(u)rs who will catch your eyes attention like candy. But without a healthy meal of drawing first you will only get an upset stomach. By learning to paint without lerning drawing first is like learning to play the piano using all twelve halftones in an octave directly - without first learning to play in the C-major scale and so on.
Althoug I will agree that playing the black keys man be fun to try out and test before you fully can play all the scales properly.

http://www.glyphs.com/forums/load/cafe/msg0318014013348.html?10

y'all might get a kick of what is going on over at Marks forum for art history brains

OK then, describe your offer of drawing classes' guideline.

"There is nothing more difficult for a truly creative painter than to paint a rose, because before he can do so he has first to forget all the roses that were ever painted."
--Henri Matisse

I believe impressionism could be only in extra Sunday classes for a while, especially for those people who still appreciate the cute story about the cut ear of Van Gogh. (Joking, but talking seriously, impressionism is a style which one student can learn by himself or as an elective discipline because destructive process is much easier to learn than creative.)

General idea-wise I still don't accept it.

You don't accept the idea of renewing art education, or Mr. Seidler's way of renewing, do you? What do you offer?

... I imagine strong foundations are very important - which is how I interpreted the statement...
It may well me difficult, but if you agree the drawing aspect's minimal, doesn't that rather rob Mr. Seidler's 75% (3/4) of validity?

We are learning something here: before arguing let's agree upon the terms or try to understand what does your opponent mean. Clear?

You make works of Art for Artists alone? I'm a human being first and foremost, and gave my reaction as such.

Of course, viewers' points of view are very important but not in this very specific and particular case.

So, now if we've solved 75% of "75%" problem, which was bothering you so much, can you offer us some kind of different point of view on the changes in art education? Otherwise it is to Transcendental talk for a such specific and important post.

OK then, describe your offer of drawing classes' guideline.

oO(Fatuous.)

General idea-wise I still don't accept it.

You don't accept the idea of renewing art education, or Mr. Seidler's way of renewing, do you? What do you offer?

Obviously that's not what I'm saying; and if anyone cares to reread the paragraph in full, they'll see that.

... I imagine strong foundations are very important - which is how I interpreted the statement...
It may well me difficult, but if you agree the drawing aspect's minimal, doesn't that rather rob Mr. Seidler's 75% (3/4) of validity?

We are learning something here: before arguing let's agree upon the terms or try to understand what does your opponent mean. Clear?

Note my indirect accusation of "Semantic subterfuge" remains unchallenged - draw you own conclusions.

You make works of Art for Artists alone? I'm a human being first and foremost, and gave my reaction as such.

Of course, viewers' points of view are very important but not in this very specific and particular case.

I politely disagree.

So, now if we've solved 75% of "75%" problem, which was bothering you so much, can you offer us some kind of different point of view on the changes in art education? Otherwise it is to Transcendental talk for a such specific and important post.

What on Earth makes you conclude the matter's "solved"? I still disagree, but we've all aired our views and I see no sense in continuing this interminable tug of war.
As I've already stated: I'm English; and therefore it's not my place to preach about American schooling, which admittedly, I know next to nothing about. Nonetheless, I found this thread interesting reading.

"There is nothing more difficult for a truly creative painter than to paint a rose, because before he can do so he has first to forget all the roses that were ever painted."

...Matisse and everybody who thinks that statements such at this is true have not reserached psycological facts about "learning" and "creativity".

Psycological and pedagogical tests and research have stated that "knowledge gives creativity" is true - not the reverse. The more creative you want to be - the more you should learn, inverstigate and explore. The idea that often modern artists, as Matisse above, believes in - that you should forget what you have seen and learned, or the idea that you shouldn't learn anything at all to be really "free" and "creative" - is false and that more knowledge, training and education gives the artist a greater advantage in the process of being more creative.

Also - the ide of art must be "original" and "cretive" is also a modern idea. I do not agree that art must be so very original to make good art. Look at Chinese draving and painting that were the same for hundreds of years - I still think a lot of it is good art!

Hence the modernists fail on their own ideas. They always strive to be "original" and "creative" - but the lack of knowledge and good training often makes their art maneristic and sofistically pseudointellectual.

About Impressionist I however must argue against our dear administrator. I think that learning to paint in an impressionistical manner may be tough to learn at home by one self. Impressionists like Zorn, Sargent, Sorolla, and other painting in a simmilar style will recieve my applaudes. I do not think one can learn to paint like this "at home" more than one can learn to paint "at home" in the 19th century realistical style or learn the 16th century Flemmish methods by yourself.
One must however recognise that the above mentioned impressionistic painters all hade a good schooling in the academic realism and hade done a lot of drawing at the 19th century academies.
Also note that when asked by a newspaper writer who was the best painter during the 19th century, Degas and Monet directly answered with a sigle voice "Bouguereau"! Also van Gogh mentioned in a letter that he was jelous at Bougureau and wished he could have been as good as him at painting.

/Håkan

Art is either a revolutionist or a plagiarist.

I shut my eyes in order to see.

-Paul Gauguin

In forming this new art college in Texas, I have asked Alexei to head up or be the Dean of our painting department for have I come to admire is gift as a teacher. Every student who will enter this college will have to study with him and over time other instructors in the Flemish Techniques. As the artists that Texas has asked to set this college up, I have selected to step aside as the lead painting instructor and turn it over to Alexei for his opinions are solid, his technique is masterly, but most of all, he is a born teacher. After studying his techniques, there is no reason to master any other style if not desired for both the direct and layered techniques can be taken to such heights that few in generations can reach a so called perfection like Bouguereau or Sargent or Monet. As far as Matisse is concerned, I think he was an idiot and Van Gogh is one of my favorite artists in history. If you know color mixing, you can see he was a master of color. You may not like what he painted, but if you study in person up close, his knowledge of color was fantastic. He just used it strangely.