Thursday, November 6, 2014

Is Tracing Ever a Good Idea—It depends. November 2014 Newsletter

I've been reading about American illustrators recently. While the Impressionists and post-Impressionists were making headlines in France (and later in the U.S.), there was something equally exciting going on here in the States. It was called the Golden Age of Illustration, although at the time it wasn't called that. Instead it was a boon for illustrations in books and magazines in order to meet the “new” mass circulation. The whole concept was brought on because of the advancement of high-speed presses, cheaper papers and photographic innovations, including line-engraving and half-tones. And the best news of all was that publishers were willing to pay more for illustrations.

It’s interesting to note that fine art and illustration were not considered separate entities back then. An illustrator who created for a magazine, such as Winslow Homer for Harper’s Weekly, was considered the same type of artist as an easel artist. It wasn't until the next century in the 20s and 30s that a schism occurred.  Illustrators became commercial artists and easel painters were considered the fine art artists. I’ll be covering more on this topic in another post.

What intrigued me about the artists of the 1850s and onward was how they embraced the camera. Many of them considered it just another tool and many used the new invention here in the States as well as in Europe. Here’s a short list with some examples below:
  • Fredric Remington
  • Winslow Homer
  • N.C. Wyeth
  • Toulouse Lautrec
  • Edgar Degas
  • Vincent Van Gogh
  • Paul Cezanne
Toulouse Lautrec Poster

Edgar Degas Dancers

Cezanne The Large Bather

In later years, illustrators would welcome photography as a tool even more with Norman Rockwell leading the way serving as a director in his photo shoots and then tracing the photograph to create his paintings.


Why trace when you can certainly draw?
I spoke with an illustrator not long ago and posed the same question. He is an excellent artist who could draw circles around what I do—in his sleep. So why trace? He said it succinctly, “Time is money.” When you are under a deadline like so many of these illustrators are, they really don’t have time or even the money to hire a professional model and spend hours putting down on canvas what can be translated from a photograph in a matter of minutes. Rockwell used to hire neighborhood kids, neighbors and friends to pose for him. What’s more, if you want expression (like a goofy or surprised face) or a running/walking motion, an artist can’t expect the model to hold the contortion for an hour or two. It’s difficult. Notice that art before the camera isn’t quite as action-packed as illustrations or comics are today.

Tracing is the easy part, finishing the project is harder than you think
Years ago I was in a painting class that everyone projected their photos onto watercolor paper. I never used it because I was a “purist.” Okay, I was stuffy. I wanted my paintings to be fresh from my hand, not stilted from a camera. I continue to believe that if not done properly and with a good drawing ability, paintings created from tracing do look somewhat off. But that’s the key—the ability to draw. I can look at a Rockwell painting and even with the knowledge it’s been traced, I’m still awe struck.

Take for instance, The Perfect Prom Date, listed below. Yes it was all staged by Rockwell, but if you look closely at the end result, he’s added his own style, more props, more people and certainly his own color. All his photos were done in black and white. Moreover the people are not exactly the same in the photo as in the painting. Rockwell had this incredible talent for drawing the same subject three or four times and each would look like a different person.


After reading about how these illustrators used photography to aid them (yes, I've used reference photos for years), I pulled out my handy Pico projector and decided to do some tracing myself. Fortunately, my Pico is a hand-held projector so I didn't have too much to do to get the project going. I plugged in a photo of Bette Davis and traced it onto some drawing paper. I was astonished at how hard it was to add the values and all the detail after tracing. Below is the photo and the drawing. Half of it is the traced side; the other is the “drawing.” I added the darker lines so that you can see the outline.

It was harder than I thought and this was just a 15-minute study. All I really had were the lines, the outline of the face. I had to put in the rest. As you can see, I still have a long way to go in order to capture Bette in the drawing. I’m just amazed that Rockwell was able to put color to this as well.

 

Tracing can be a learning tool.
Tracing can be a learning tool as well. In fact, the idea of using tracing dates back to the 15th century or earlier. A book by Cennin Cennini, c.1437, entitled The Craftsman’s Handbook (Il Libro dell’Art) gives instructions on how to learn about drawing by tracing.

“Chapter XXIII
How you may obtain the essence of a good figure or drawing the tracing paper.
You should be aware that there is also a paper known as tracing paper which may be very useful to you. To copy a head, or a figure, or a half figure, you can find it attractive, by the hand of the great masters, and to get the outlines right, from paper, panel or wall, which you want to take right off, put this tracing paper over the figure or drawing, fastening it nicely at the four corners with a little red or green wax…. Then take either a pet cut quite fine or a fine brush…and you may process to pick out with the ink the outlines and accents of the drawing underneath….”

Author and painter Gregory Manchess wrote the article, 10 Things to Remember…About Tracing, where he explores the different things you can learn by using tracing paper. One point he makes is tracing a foreshortened object, such a flower or finger. It’s one of the hardest things to capture in drawing and/or painting. But if you take a piece of vellum and trace the object, it helps to see the problem. Sometimes we have to do things to help us really see. Three other points he made that ring true to me:

It helps the memory. About a year ago, I included a video in one of my posts where we saw how John Ruskin used tracing to see how far off he was when drawing a leaf. The same is true for helping you to memorize, such as in anatomy.  If I go over the same object many times, I don’t need to trace it anymore. My muscle memory takes over.

Draw for shape, not detail.
As much as I can see with my projector, I found that just including the lines and shapes were much easier and gave me more liberty to finish the drawing in my style—not the camera’s.

Use it as a guide.
When tracing Bette above, I again kept my tracing simple, as a guide to help me with the subtle facial positioning.  

I know you are probably wondering if I’m smoking something these days (I’m not). How can I back up tracing? Like I said in the title, it depends. That is, it depends on the project at hand, is it a commission that must be perfect, is it a learning possibility, is it a way to see something you haven’t seen before or is it because you just don’t want to be bothered learning to draw. Of course, the latter doesn’t help you that much. It’s better to come to one my classes or workshops to learn how to draw and use tracing to help you perfect it (okay, I couldn't resist that one itsy-bitsy commercial).

For the next few months I am going to be covering the lives and art of American artists, beginning with more on Norman Rockwell. It seems we never spend enough time learning about our own.  

______________________________
In loving memory
Maria Goodell
1972 to 2014
_______________________________


 What's ahead for 2015
See website for details on workshops and classes 

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Contemporary art sometime escapes me!--October 2014 newsletter

I'm sorry to say that sometimes contemporary art escapes me. Almost always if I can get an explanation of what I'm viewing, it usually makes sense. Unfortunately, in museums, magazines or even on the Internet you don't always get the straight scoop. This leads me to the question: "How am I supposed to appreciate a straight red line running down the middle of a canvas?" Why is this more important than our children's work in first grade?

There is a great article in Aristos, an online review magazine, by Michelle Marder Kamhi entitled, Understanding Contemporary Art. It is the first article I have ever read that seriously covers the inability to understand what's called today's art. When it comes to this subject, I am truly lacking in understanding. I really do wish I could go on and on about what some of this "art form" means, but I usually don't get it. And it appears I'm not alone. According to Kamhi, the ordinary person (that's me!) doesn't either. What's more, many of the artists have no intention of expecting us to know what their art is about. Kamhi says, 
"Despite the abstractionists' lofty intentions, their work is incomprehensible to the poor viewer .... We cannot begin to guess their intended meaning just from looking at their work. We know it only from their theoretical writing--the equivalent, in effect, of today's artists' statements."
For example, let's consider Marcel Duchamp's (1887-1966) Fountain, 1917. I first noticed it at the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) in San Francisco. Okay, I am going to share my ignorance here. I was struck by its lack of "art." Design itself didn't even save it. After all, it's a urinal! What's with that?

The good news is that we are living in an age where you can get a lot of what you need from the Internet (or as my husband likes to call it the little black box--the laptop).That's where I learned that this urinal was actually a statement by Duchamp. According to the Tate Museum in London, England, another modern art museum, 
"Fountain is an example of what Duchamp called a 'readymade,' an ordinary manufactured object designated by the artist as a work of art. It epitomizes the assault on convention and good taste for which he and the Dada movement are best known."
What he did was to turn the urinal upside down and signed it Mutt, 1917. Later in an article, an author, some believe to be Duchamp, claims the following:
"Whether Mr Mutt with his own hands made the fountain has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an ordinary article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view - creating a new thought for that object."
Therefore in essence, if I choose to hang a set of keys from the lamppost in front of my house, I, the artist, have chosen it and thus it is art. This is where I get lost and so do others. When I go to an art gallery, I expect to be told a story--not have to stand there wondering what a blue square on white background means to:  me, the artist or whomever? Instead, most of us just shrug our shoulders and move on.


Sometimes, I think it's got to be a joke. Take for instance, Yves Klein's (1928-1962) The Void shown at Iris Clert Gallery in 1958. He took everything out of the gallery except for a cabinet that he painted white. Three thousand people waited to enter the empty room. It was a show of nothing. Why can't I have a show about nothing for 3,000 people??? Here's what Klein said,
"Recently my work with color has led me, in spite of myself, to search little by little, with some assistance (from the observer, from the translator), for the realization of matter, and I have decided to end the battle. My paintings are now invisible and I would like to show them in a clear and positive manner...."
Believe me, I get Picasso and Matisse. Perhaps I have to know a little bit of what they are trying to say, but they are at least saying something! They are at least showing something!

Another artist I don't get is Piero Manzoni (1933-1963), especially his Merda d'artista (Artist's Shit). I kid you not, Manzoni canned 90 cans of his excrement in 1961 and was able to display the "work" at a gallery! In 2007, Sotheby's sold one of the tins for €124,000 or over $160,000 and in 2008, tin 083 sold for £97,250 or $158,000. Are we pretending to ignore the Emperor's clothing here? Why in the world would anyone pay good money for a piece of @%$#.

Interestingly, Kamhi notes that some of the artists who participate in non-objective art, installation art, readymades, spot painting (Damien Hirst) and so on, don't have a formal art education and some don't even know how to draw. She states:
"An entire generation of would-be artists like Hirst have graduated from art schools here and abroad with little or no real art instruction. Contemporary museums and galleries are filled with their videos, photography, and installation pieces, while ignoring the work of contemporary artists who adhere to the traditional media of painting and sculpture and who have attained the skills needed to achieve value in those forms."
And I guess her last statement is most important to me. We as artists struggle to create something from inside us. Yes,we may use a vase and some flowers to accomplish this, and for that we go unrecognized. Cezanne's fruit would rot before he would complete his paintings. And within today's terms, he would most likely be considered too traditional, too representational, too trite. 

In the end, if there were design, some substance; some real sense of thought and perseverance, no assistants painting the spots for the artist, and especially thinking much more out of the box than trying to can one's own bodily waste,  I'd probably stand behind all these works and say, "Yes, we have the right choose our form of art." But instead what I see is great marketing techniques, good salesmanship and a whole lot of--well, you know. 

I'll stick with my love of line, shape, form and color. I will never be in MOMA, Tate or for that matter any museum. I'm happy to submit my work to the occasional art show and teach art to my wonderful students.  I'm glad for that because I would have a real hard time trying to create nothing and expecting accolades for it.


For classes and workshops go to website: www.jillgoodell.com