Saint Louis DaVinci Machines Exhibit

Posted on by Brian Anderson

Today and yesterday I went down to the Saint Louis DaVinci Machines Exhibit.  Both days I sketched the recreations of the machines in Leonardo’s sketchbook. It is amazing to see how many mechanical  concepts he originated and also how many are still in use in today’s devices. Although the materials have changed to plastics and metals the basic mechanics are all the same.

What mechanical problems of today lay unsolved and waiting for an inquisitive mind?

While there sketching, a man asked me the best way to learn to draw. I replied that it was just to draw. Practice  and a love for the art and craft are all that is required.  Those two things are the best teachers. The only things other are within us. They have nothing to do with ability and all to do with asking questions about what in life there is to experience. We must be inquisitive like Leonardo.

The Controversy of Vanity Gallery Shows

Posted on by Brian Anderson

There is a subject that is sometimes controversial both with artists and galleries. That is the subject of Vanity Galley shows. For those who do not know what a Vanity Gallery is, to make a simple explanation, it is a gallery or show that provides artists with a space to show their artwork. What makes them different from many other galleries is that they charge artists an up-front fee to display their artwork. They also on occasion have short term one night events that make a big presention of the show but provide little or no information about the individual artists, nor attempt to promote the image of the artists represented.

The mechanics of all  galleries requires that they turn a profit.  Where traditional galleries differ from vanity shows is that the traditional ones make a profit from the reputation of quality artists that they screen before accepting, Vanity Galleries show the art of often anybody who will pay. In the eyes of the art world this means that anybody who uses these shows could be either seasoned, or those who are completely untrained.  What this means is that such a show tells nothing of an artist’s skill, or even worse may presumably speak to the low quality of the artist.

For this reason that there is more of a negative comment about the reputation of an artist, most seasoned artists completely avoid such shows.

Do I attempt to say that Vanity Galleries are evil? No. I do want to make clear to new artists however that purveyors of such shows are quite often completely apathetic to the sales of the work of the artist because they have already been paid by the submission fees. This being said, many completely new artists who have no reputation at all can use such a show to bring their friends to and show their art and get an idea of how it feels to see their work on a wall. They can do so to get someone to look at their art, critique it, and take a little notice of it.

In general though, just as the other artists at such shows are new at making art, so are the viewers of such show. Not as much constructive criticism is to be found. For the most part, there are more effective ways of promoting the artwork of beginners using the same amount of money

I would suggest portable portfolios, visiting galleries that contain the artwork of those whom they find to be producing interesting works, and beginning to talk about art in such circles. Art sales may not happen as immediately as a Vanity Show, but all good things take time if we are to produce quality. If the artist is sincerely in love with at and not just hope for profit, recognition will come. In the meantime the artist will be building some valuable knowledge about the world of art and their artistic motivations.

Good art and artists are like any other career. To be great there is no avoiding training, hard work,  networking and skills at selling.

 

Bammes on Figure Drawing – Reading 3

Posted on by Brian Anderson

Reading further along with Gottfried Bammes we understand that in studying the construction of the figure we can take general measurements and use them to understand generalities of the figure, but these generalities say nothing about the idiosyncratic characteristics of each unique person which make up their physiognomy. We must take our own subjective responses to the figure we are drawing, but that is what makes a particular person’s drawn work unique and of interest.

As was mentioned in a previous post we link our internal feelings to the image we are drawing. It is an expression of that connection. In no way is there possible a non-subjective interpretation of what we are drawing. Even in photography which is much more mechanical and a result of the capturing of an optical image, there are lighting and composition choices to name a few things that make the image an interpretation of the artist’s own mood and understanding.

On one hand there is the fairly restrictive study of measurements that lead to some of the anatomical studies by Albrecht Dürer and other classical anatomy students who focussed on divine geometry. On the other hand there are others who took up the study of the expression of form with much less understanding or concern for proportions relying merely on an intuitive sense of the function of anatomical form. Both ends of such a spectrum have their limitations. Some choose to work within such limitations and steer clear of situations in which they may be challenged.

I believe it is possible to work with a balance between the two so as to use one to keep the other technique in check. Intuition and physical empathy can lend life to otherwise pure mathematical geometry. The math and geometry can tell one when a feeling for form needs to be trained and studied a bit more.

Reference: Gottfried Bammes “Wir zeichnen den menschen” , Grundorientierungen, Paragraph 4

The Importance of Structural Underpinnings

Posted on by Brian Anderson

Figures by Luca Cambiaso

In looking at the work of many people I have met who make art, there are only a select few who make the work of structural framework underneath their work of much importance at all. Have a discriminating eye next time you look at art that you see. More often we focus on a flash of energetic inspiration or color. Even saying this, I often have failed myself in particular works by not doing service to mechanics and geometry.

There is no point in pointing out people by example but instead the underlying principles that should be considered. Imagine a body without a skeleton. Imagine a drawing or painting without a framework.

Sometimes people say that it is good enough to train their eyes to duplicate what is seen in two-plane perspective and mimic that on paper or canvas. That practice however it may yield results does not allow the artist to engage with the scene, rearrange elements, rotate them, etc., and create convincing scenes and limits them to dependency on what they can see in the single forward visual plane. They can make choices about color, small details and little flourishes, but ultimately there may be left unsettling asynchronicity with our inherent feeling if what is convincingly valid. In no way will the artist be able to right what is not even understood as wrong.

In my opinion, I stand in believing all good art has good architecture and must be well reckoned out.

Bammes Second Reading

Posted on by Brian Anderson

Perspectiva (Lautensack) 1564 c

"Des Circkels und Richtscheyts, auch der Perspectiva und Proportion der Menscher" (1564) by Heinrich Lautensack

In the following reading Gottfried Bammes discusses the need for practice and how through the freqency of practice we will reap great benefits. He notes however that there must be a spirit of investigation from the very start. Repetition without studious attention is not of much use. It is important to keep the artistic mind full of questions.

Some example questions:

  • Is what is seen understood?
  • What is it that is seen?
  • Can the artist draw a particular part of the whole and demonstrate its functions by the variety of motions and positions it may take?
  • Can the artist understand the relative volumes in relation to the whole?
  • Can the artist demonstrate the limits and range of movement in the mechanical parts by drawing the mechanisms in multiple positions?
  • Does the understanding lend a feeling of truth or validity to the whole figure (Körperganzen)?

Note on translation: Here below is a quote translated to the best of my ability from Gottfried Bammes regarding the subject of drawing people. If you feel that I misunderstand a point or translate it wrong, you may compare the original text by clicking the German flag beside this post. Feel free to comment with your own understanding of the text.

Quoting Gottfried Bammes:

“With the increase in our visual practice, we grow sensitivity; A change begins within us, also if we from the very start take up drawing as an investigative pursuit.

It(such a course of investigation) differs from a purely scientific investigation of biology; because we whilst building a bodily physiognomy, work on figure qualities and their unity to the whole; because we educatedly communicate the complex and informative, purposeful functions of the limbs of the body. With mere visual observation the validity of the forms would escape;
it(our observations) would not be equipped with receptiveness and sensitivity of execution.”

Source: Gottfried Bammes – from “Wir zeichnen den menschen”

I have seen several books recently by noted authors which professed to demonstrate systems by which one could build the figure from knowledge without the use of figure reference, and correctly, or realistically position the figure in a variety of positions only limited by the imagination. One difference between that and the text of Bammes is the focus on the physiognomy and mechanical validity of the forms and thus the whole. This is made obvious when we look at such texts with an eye for such things.

Leonardo memorably noted how many artists of his time got lost in reproducing the muscles in their supposed positions, but without any regard for their true function in relation to the particular action of the whole figure. He called the approach to drawing puffed up muscles that did not relate to knowledge of kinetics as a  “bag of nuts” approach. Muscles that should be relaxed were as equally tensed as those which were supposed to be tensed; all bulged from the body like a sack containing a bunch of nuts.

Reference:

  1. Flickr:  See Peacay’s photostream for more pictures from “Des Circkels und Richtscheyts, auch der Perspectiva und Proportion der Menscher” (1564) by Heinrich Lautensack.
  2. Blog: BibliOdyssey