I have been drawing and painting for quite some time, But lately I have realised that I constantly need something to copy from, such as a photo or picture. I cant seem to draw from life. Is this cheating ?

Many Thanks

nope..not cheating to me anyway, and i believe that most artist use some form of reference.

its not cheating ..and do not let anyone tell you different ..you can get so many opinions from so many different people but trust me looking at a object or person and drawing it is not cheating .

It's not cheating for me either. I always need a reference because I don't seem to be able to make anything look cool when I draw it on paper it looks terrible. So yeah I always need a reference of some kind.

The problem that you have is not related to a moral issue like cheating or being honest but is more complex and has to do with creativity in art. There are in this respect two kinds
of artists: the ones that render a model, and the one that invent it, create it artistically, compose their art piece.
The theory of creativity in art goes back in history and the first treatises belong to the fathers of philosophy, Platon and Aristotle.Later on modern thought dealt with ths mental process, in fields like aesthetics and psychology.
When you have a reference you have all the solutions given to you and as long as you translate them from reference to your paper/surface with no intervention(adding or subtracting elements) this means that you do not create a new piece, interpretation. This is what the ancient Greeks called mimesis .
Another story is when you intervene in your model, you interpret it, change colors,
position, add elements, etc.You create a new model or interprete it in a certain way either by technique or by subject. This process is artistic creativity and it
is considerend an expression of talent, a gift that makes artists unique and their style particular.
Now the explanation of this two approaches is considered in psychology and the theory of art as the first case is reproduction and you develop a skill for it the level or artistry here can be from normal to outstanding execution of your model.
The second case which deals with talent is that you have a need to express an artistic soul in artistic form and to achieve this you employ learned art techniques and personal imagination, new interpretation and approach
of your medium, subjects, etc to translate a work in your mind, emotions and your sense of composition in order to produce a new original art piece.

I will give an example. You have two painters. Both painters paint a bouquet of flowers. Both paint after that a background that is less than satisfactory to the point that it ruins the painting. Now what to do. The first painter discards the painting and starts painting a new piece being more careful this time with the background.This is the painter who needs always a reference.
The second painter looks at the painting and discovers that only the background is ruined but not the flowers. What he does is to cut out the bouquet and gather a few other elements and create a collage, that is a new piece and an original work of art that stands by itself.In this case we deal with imagination, creativity and artistic talent.

In the theory of creativity this is called by the Greeks poesis. WE sometimes hear about a work of art that is a poem. The need of the artist in this case is to rearrange elemnts, to introduce his taste, ideas, sense of color, proportion, etc which do not have a base in reality.
This gift is what was believed in older times that is the true nature of the artist. And it penetrated
the common language expressions that "you are an artist" when we refer to excellence in other fields, occupations. One can say that about a doctor, a cook, a hairdresser. Which means they beyond the execution
of their job they use their creativity, and talent.
There are people who create out of the necessity of expressing themselves, expressing what is inside and never have a realistic work or based in reality.
The works of Klimt, for instance.
They are an expression of the artist talent, a reinterpreation of an ideal model.
When it comes to composition there is no better example than Salvador Dali. He is the artist,par exellence.

So the issue is not cheating but the ability or inability to create something new.

Painters are like poets only they have a different medium. They depict reality or their mental life. It is a question of communication. A painter or a poet that translates his
emotions, feelings, ideas with the means of words or paints into an original work and unique style that identifies himself and singles him out of the crowd is said
to have an artistic talent.
He is not satisfied with reproducing a model, he needs reinterpret it. These people are not everyday artists, they are among the most gifted and revolutionary individuals in every field, arts, literature.The history of art actually is a collection of artistic personalities, oustanding talents. The rest of the painting population of a country or era does not make it
to the history of art books.
And any excellency in rendering a model will not make you
an artist in this second sense, as long as you don't contribute to the field of arts with a new, fresh look, original approach.
In this sense I believe that art cannot be taught in art
schools. There are millions of art students around the globe that graduate every year from art schools and programs, some
very good to excellent but only a fraction will remain the history of art and those will have to bring something new, a style, a technique, a message, creativity
in one word.
Because this originality, this combination of rather strange elements into a new unity, this artistic creativity cannot be taught in any school, it comes from within, it's called talent.

There is no such thing as cheating.. just look at some of the things that are called art by the people who invent art, and the amount of $ paid said artists.. piles of junk welded together, pictures painted by elephants or cats.. amazing art.. ...
Personally I am just a hack that paints pictures of photos and feels very proud of what I have accomplished with no training and discovering I could do this at an old age. If you enjoy what you do and are happy with the results it really does not matter how you got them.. Oh and think about this.. when you hear the phrase " artist in Paris painting ", what do you think of.. someone in an empty room painting what they see in their head, or a someone on hill or street corner painting what he/she sees??? How is this different than working from a photo???

nope i dont think its cheating at all and any one who does say its cheating then dont take any notice of them coz lots of us dont think its cheating!also thats a very good picture u have painted

Yes. Go three paces back and miss a turn.




Ok. I hope it's not cheating! That would put the weekly challenge up a certain creek without means of propulsion!! And 99% of everything I do is from photographs! Keep at it and do what ever suits you.

I too need something to draw from, can't draw from imagination. Good to know that it is fine to do so.

Shades,

it most definately is not cheating..........but be careful if you sell or put something in a show from someone else's photo you can get into strife. For that just take your own pics or use references from somewhere like W@et Canvas where people post reference photos that anyone can use.

If we couldn't use photos we would really be in trouble. But if you feel that you want to do more (and that may be why you are starting to feel this way) why not start a sketch book.........hide in the back of a coffee shop or under a tree in the park (with your back to the tree people can't stand behind and see what you're up to) and just sketch for yourself! Don't worry what it looks like just go for it and you will find it handy later when working from photos. Photos tend to flatten things out, and if you sketch a little (it will get addictive I can tell you) you will have more understanding of light and shadows in real life and developing an understanding of that can't be bad.

Just my opinion (in novel form....now that I see how much I have written! ) but I hope it helps.

No, its not cheating. I note that you are asking about drawing from ref images, rather than drawing from life (and not about drawing from reference rather than drawing from imagination, though I'll touch on that, below)

There are differences between drawing from ref images and drawing from life. In drawing from a ref-image, it is possible to meticulously copy it, if one wishes to. While this teaches lots of skills, and can lead to spectacularly good results, it can also encourage approaches that don't work so well when trying to draw from life, where it is not possible in general to exactly copy - because models tend to do inconsiderate things like moving and breathing, where lighting changes, and where even a slight movement of the artist's head can change the shapes and relationships of objects in 3D space, patterns of reflections, and so on. This may lead to frustration and loss of confidence, and also, unfortunately, often to a lot of small-minded moralistic nonsense from others about "cheating" and so on

If you try to approach drawing from life the same way that one might approach drawing from a photo, its a frustrating exercise - it's necessary to adapt one's approach.

One issue is the reduction from 3D to 2D - in a photo, this is done for you - in drawing from life, you need to pick a viewpoint, note some landmarks for alignment in space, and be able to return your head to that viewpoint. There has to be an acceptance that things will change - the exact pose of a model, wrinkles in facial expressions, folds in clothing, and so on, and realise that one can't exactly copy, because the model can't hold perfectly still

One useful half-way-house is to go to your local museum and draw statues! - as they hold still, you only have your slight changes of head position to cope with - white marble is also good as it shows the way form is set up by patterns of light and shade, and shapes of shadows.

If you try to exactly copy, from life, you will end up doing what's called "chasing the pose" - that is, making endless adjustments to your drawing as the model moves, light changes, etc... So, what does drawing from life involve? How can you do it?

The trick is to realise that its reconstructive - what I mean by this is, that you have to build your drawing using the subject to refer to, rather than exactly copy - for example, you get the general pose down - and then you stick with that, even if the model moves a little.

You apply what you can see, to what you've already got. If you're looking at the folds in a dress, get down the general shapes. When the model moves and the folds change, stick with what you had, but use the appearances of the cloth to help you work out what the shading on the folds you had, ought to be.

Its like you are re-synthesising the scene, rather than copying it. The drawing/painting is based on the model, built up as a self-consistent whole - rather than copied precisely in every detail. It doesn't need to be exactly correct, it needs to be self-consistent and plausible.

Drawing from reference - either from photos, or from life (both are good) is essential, as training, in order to learn to see - to gain keen observational skills, and to learn what things really look like.

You need to build a repertoire of images in your head first, before being able to draw from imagination - doing so, prematurely, will simply reinforce misunderstandings and misapprehensions about the appearances of objects, and usually results in weak, formulaic, and inaccurate drawings. The idea that you ought to be able to just draw from imagination, is frankly a silly one - most of us think we know far more about what stuff looks like, than we really do - and its when we start trying to draw from imagination that we realise the shortfall in knowledge, that we can't draw, say, a convincing-looking polar bear - so, how do we correct that?

One of the very best ways of studying things carefully is to look at them and draw them, as this teaches you to really look at things in an active, attentive way. Drawing from life, in the reconstructive way I've described, will help in developing skills needed to draw from imagination - but good imaginative drawing also relies upon core skills in perspective, anatomy, lighting and so on, which need to be gained from study as well as observational drawing, and effective work is still likely to require pulling together a range of reference resources which can be used to check costumes, architecture, landscapes, and so on. Even the most "creative" people don't do it all out of their head, they look at reference material.

If we think back to the polar bear example - its not a matter of finding one good photo and then copying it - but of finding lots of photos, showing all sorts of different aspects of polar bears, overall views and details - watching video-clips - visiting a zoo to see one, if you can - drawing studies from lots of this material - what its head looks like from the front, from the side; what are its teeth like; what shape are its paws; are its claws visible; and so on... until you understand enough about what it looks like to draw it from any angle and produce an image good enough to convince others. You're still probably not going to draw it completely out of your head, but instead putting different reference resources together and checking them as you draw.

Creativity is a result of getting as much of this stuff into your head as you can, to give you an armamentarium of things to work with, to imagine all the ways they could interact, and provide a springboard, to know what stuff looks like. "Talent" is the term used to describe people who have done the relevant work, usually by those who have not and have not yet come to terms with what is required in order to progress, mistakingly thinking that others who have mastered these things somehow "had it easy", as if this knowledge and experience was somehow present spontaneously, rather than being won by dedicated work.

It may sound rather daunting, but its not - it just takes time, and patience Drawing is a teachable, learnable skill.

So, drawing from photos is not "cheating", but there are different ways they may be used both for precise copying of specific detail, and also as general reference, and one should be open to both these and use them together with other visual resources in order to gradually expand one's knowledge and understanding of how things look.

Dave

I draw from photos or pictures all the time; especially if I'm trying to draw a realistic person or figure. If I'm drawing, say, Manga, or fantasy drawings, I use my imagination. But if I'm doing realism, I almost always draw from life or a photo/picture.

I agree with this it does help with perspectives in drawing and painting to exercise your brain by sketching along with the drawing from references..but this is my opinion

Am I going mad, or are posts really disappearing?!?

5 hours later - and reappearing?

Thank you so much for all the replies. Its appreciated. I think sometimes I worry to much rather than just having a go at things.
This is a really great forum and look forward to posting more.
Thanks for all the comments!

I don't think it is cheating either. As a matter of fact, many books on art mention to collect photographs to use as references in the future. Though I do agree with not using other people's photgraphs. I have been taking my own pictures of whatever I think I would like to draw, and have an extensive "To Draw" folder on my desktop. If I do use someone else's photograph it is either with permission, or just for light reference. For example, recently I was painting a staircase that I remember in the building I lived in as a kid. I printed about 10 different pictures of staircases. Didn't draw any of them, but when painting from memory, I had good references as to how steps go up and to the right, and approximately what the railing looks like, how it turns, etc. Those references were just for observation, to refresh my memory.

I am very saddened when I hear a member of my forum giving opinionated and fallacious advice to others. Many an aspiring artist has been turned off drawing completely by the disparaging comments of others.

We have almost 200,000 students of art registered on this site. Almost all came here with the same goal; to improve their drawing skills. Every one of these people has a natural talent in simply possessing the desire to draw. In the words of Sir Francis Bacon:

“I don’t think people are born artists; I think it comes from a mixture of your surroundings, the people you meet, and luck.”

All artists need to learn skills before they can draw well. Use whatever you can find to help you draw. Trace, use a grid, whatever! Just draw! Learn all the boring skills such as perspective and composition!

And, yes, the best way to learn is by using references – in essence teaching yourself to see as an artist! Learn about as many techniques and styles as you possibly can. Read about the history of art! Take time to learn from the almost 200 lessons I have provided here on Drawspace. Learn what you can from me and other teachers.

This, my friends, is why you have Drawspace – a resource I could only dream of having when I was learning to draw.

This is why I am in the process of bringing more of the best artists and teachers in the world to Drawspace. I am honored to already have two internationally renowned artists, authors, and educators: Cindy Wider and Mike Sibley. Their techniques and styles are very different from mine and words cannot express how much I admire their work!

As an aside - I have been drawing for most of my life and have gone through many different stages of development. I first began drawing from my imagination as a child and was very unhappy with the results. So, I spent the next 20 years teaching myself classical drawing skills – mostly from life, photographs, and artworks by the great masters of the Renaissance.

And no, I was definitely not cheating – I was learning! In the words of Leonardo da Vinci:

“The artist ought first to exercise his hand by copying drawings from the hand of a good master.”

Remember: nothing in art is cheating unless you are copying from the copyrighted material of another artist or photographer. You are always wise to use your own photography.

By the way, now that my skills are strong I often draw (and paint) from my mind. And, I still love working from photographs. How boring art would be if we were all the same!

Brenda

Brenda Hoddinott
Artist and Art Educator
Owner of http://drawspace.com

Thanks Brenda, your site is fantastic. Still getting used to how it all works. But really enjoying it!!!!
Many Thanks

Brenda

I was just wondering today if you were still around.. glad to see you!

As a fledgling young (at heart) uummm (shiver) artist I have you and this wonderful space to thank for my renewed interest. I don't post to often but have been lurking about for awhile. I've been taking Cindy's classes and am rather surprising myself. I think I'm getting the bug... and all because of this space, your lessons, and all the wonderful folks on these forums.

My heartfelt thanks!

Shadesofblue, now I saw that you stated: I cant seem to draw from life. And i misread you as saying "I cant seem drawing from imagination". That's why i wrote my first post related to imagination and talent. Sorry about that.
The problem with rendering life subjects I think is experienced by most of us in the beginning of drawing.The solution is practice and also the good advice that Dave gave about 3 dimension drawing.
I find drawing from life difficult too, mostly human faces.The answer stays with you : you choose to keep drawing solely from reference photos or be bold and try life sketching 5-10 minutes per day.
There is a Skeching from life thread in the main forum area in which people post their quick skeches of mostly still life. It's a good exercise and involves not only light and shadow practice and observation skills but also proportion and perspective issues.
Wish you happy drawing on DS.

There's nothing wrong with using references for your artwork. But at the same time, and this is just my opinion, you shouldn't restrict yourself by drawing only what you see in the reference photo you're working from. I've seen drawings that match almost perfectly a photograph so much so that you wouldn't realize that you were looking at a drawing instead of photo unless you were looking up close. But you know what? I find such artwork absolutely BORING. Yes the skill in order achieve such a likeness to the reference photo is amazing but they also lack any creativity. Why would I waste my time looking at a drawing that looks like an exact copy of a photograph when I can look at the original photo instead?

When I work from a reference photo, I don't just copy it. I like to put my own personal spin on it and in my case, I like to use bold, crazy colors in my work or use other techniques that set my work apart from the reference image.

I think if someone is paying you for a portrait .. or a painting of their house ect...they choose you the artist and if you are a pen and ink artist they know what they are going to get ..I LOVE pen and ink and it can look very much like the subject ...if they choose a artist who can draw the picture to look just like the photo then that is what they want and anything less would not make them happy .

Myself I do not feel right saying realstic drawings or any other kind of art is Boring ...its kind of insulting to those who do it ...does that make sense ? lol

I have seen your style of work and its amazing ...if I wanted a portrait done like that I would then come to you ...but if I expected a portrait say like the kind Bobby puts out ..and wow his stuff is breath takingly beautiful I would not come to you and expect that .

If someone commissions an artist to do a portrait a certain way than that's fine. I'm just saying that for me personally, I don't much care for drawings that appear to be exact replicas of the original photographic source material. Yes the skill is incredible to create such a likeness but for me, they're just not very interesting.

For me, the kind of artwork that impresses me the most are the ones that show both skill and originality. I guess this is why I'm such a fan of Vincent Van Gogh. He didn't simply paint what he saw visually, but used color to display emotion and how he felt at the time he created each painting. Yes he may have been a failure as an artist in his time because his style was so revolutionary that people just didn't understand it but today he's considered as one of the great masters.

I'm quite a fan of Vincent myself! But I know people who think his work is not art at all! Different strokes eh?

Maybe if old Vincent had used photographs to practice from he would not have been a failure Sorry, couldn't resist!
We are getting off subject here..

Different strokes is right .. we all have our likes and dislikes ..that would be a good thread to start ..I think I will ...look for it and give us your answer there ok guys

Yup.

Here's an example of some work I did that almost completely deviated from the original source material. Although I used a reference image for this piece, I wasn't satisfied with simply copying the photo so I added my own spin on it by radically altering the colors and adding a vampire element. Although I used a reference image, the completed drawing has very little in common with the original photo. In other words, even though I used a reference image, I was still able to create something that I can truly call my own.

No we're not. I'm simply pointing out that there's nothing wrong with using references. I use references for a lot of my work. I'm just saying that sometimes an artist need not limit themselves to just copying a photograph but to go beyond it to create something that is truly special and that stands out.

This is why I like Adolfo's work here because even though he uses references for his work, he still has a style that's unique and original.

I thought you couldn't capture a Vampire with a camera?

Also as you put more practice in and become more experienced with drawing, you're gonna find it much easier to draw without the need for references.

Here's a piece I've recently done without using any references.

I think it's that they can't be seen in a mirror. I did a lot of research on this - I watched "Dark Shadows" soap opera when I was a kid.

I'm back - had to bail out - approaching boss.

ShadesofBlue, drawing from life is difficult - I can't tell you it gets any easier, cause I don't know - haven't gotten to that stage yet. It's frustrating, because the life drawings just never seem to turn out right. I thoroughly enjoyed the posts from Dave and Elena - have printed them out for my notebook - and think that they have given excellent advice. Practice drawing from life as much as possible - be patient and gentle with the results. Looking back on some of my woeful attempts, I see now that they have a certain nice quality. But, I am inspired to keep trying life drawing and hope you will too. Thanks to airscapes for the advice of keeping your back to a tree - nothing spoils concentration like someone (well-meaning, curious, and often complimentary) looking over your shoulder!

uh oh boss approaching agan

I think that was Sue that mentioned the tree.. I have never ventured forth from my cave!

lol

Creativity takes many forms and the use of photos is just one of them. A couple of years ago I took a class with Armin Mersmann on symbolic self portraiture. I had to create a self portrait using objects that would represent me, not a face, not a self portrait in the traditional sense.

It took a long time and a lot of referencing for objects to use, composition, then the drawing which was 22 x 30 and still isn't complete! My point is that creativity works to a degree from imagination, but the best creativity comes from use of references both photos and real life to create the illusion. Not everyone wants the high level of detail and realism that I seek, but to make something believeable, even when morphed into something else, you need to base the groundwork in reality.

Very well and I agree to it fully when it comes to realism, but how about trends in art, cubism, surrealism, symbolism and I will give one exemple, Pallas Athena by Gustav Klimt.
First one deals with a Greek goddess, i.e. there is not such thing in reality or even if it was Klimt lived in another era.One might say by seeing the work that she makes sense as a woman anatomically but for the ground in reality i am not sure.
This is my opinion.

On the other hand if you go back to empiricists and John Locke whose philosophical sentence is famous:
"Nothing is in the understanding that was not earlier in the senses".
this is also believed by art specialists that imagination cannot produce shapes, forms and sense that doesn't exist. So to a certain extent the elements are in reality, in the senses how Locke puts it, you as a creative artist just assemble them to your taste and imagination. The play of rearranging the elements is original.And cubism is all about rearranging reality.But the idea of cubism is the creative process.

Now speaking about myself I did a sketch of peonies from memory /imagination as i intend to do a Chinese brush painting and this traditional art works from imagination so there is no requirement for botanical accuracy. Here it is. You decide if this can be translated into a believable peonies watercolor.The purpose of tradition Chinese painting is express the artist soul, emotions, a delicate feeling, thought.

If you check other images on that site:

http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/klimt...ings/index.html

or on this one:

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=939

and read the biographic sketch here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Klimt

you will see that his later symbolist/art nouveau work was based on a strong training and background in classical academic art.



Dave

Yes, Dave. A solid education is required but your creativity is the departure from that.A plus, your mark.When Dali has a painting with a melting watch or watches you realize that such a thing does not exist in reality. His art is to suggest that melting which stands for a next level of suggestion,symbolsm. This doesn't mean that he is not trained academically or cannot draw that watch realistically.

But you can't draw a melting watch, unless you know what a real watch looks like, and examples of other melting objects such as toasted cheese. Its convincing because its based in reality.

It's not totally out of Dali's head, it's based on an ability to draw other real things well and accurately.

If you want to draw compelling works of fantasy and imagination, then FIRST learn to draw reality at least passably well.

Dave

I don't see any contradiction with my point.When I mentioned Locke I gave full support to that school of thought that belives that all imagination has a base in reality.The school of aesthetics that holds that the elements of a phantasy work of art are to be found in reality. Now the problem with the melting clock is that Dali took the freedom to depict something that suggests motion, deformation and this is his originality. An artist that can achieve this is expected to have a previous art education(yet nobody can say that is the only way, and here I will mention the art of the mentally ill and uneducated academically) only at that level he innovated, based on knowledge.
Now there is a problem with what people think is imagination. Imagination is not what never existed or exists but is another way of looking at reality.A watch will be a watch for everyone, more or less the same concept. But only Dali's watch is melting or exploding like that.And this symbolism, shape, idea was original and in his head only or he was the one that painted it. Now if you or I come and do a melting watch this will be called copying the masters.

Elena, I'm less interested in philosophy, and more interested in helping others, including yourself, draw better, by trying to share practical insights I've gained in trying to improve my own drawing skills.

I'm also making the point to you that creativity comes out of experience (particularly, for visual creativity, experience of carefully observing and drawing real-world objects)



In order to draw a watch, it is not the concept of a watch which is important, but its visual appearance.

In visual art, you communicate the concept by depicting its visual appearance - if one draws so badly that people say "What is that? Oh, its supposed to be a watch, is it? I didn't recognise it, I thought it might be a duck!", then any high-flown conceptual meaning about the impermanence of life or whatever, will have got lost!

The biggest single basic mistake that beginners have to get past, in learning to be visual artists, is "conceptual drawing" - that is, drawing pictograms to represent their idea/concept of an object (like hieroglyphics), rather than drawing what the object actually looks like.

Learning to draw is largely about learning to see - learning to pay attention to what the world around us really looks like. Once we know what things look like, how light and form interact to produce visual appearances, then we can start to depict convincing and compelling images of fantasy and imagination.

Not getting to grips with, or worse, trying to shortcut an understanding of visual appearances is precisely what leads to people saying "I can't draw", or "I can't draw well".

Encouraging beginners to try to draw from imagination without also encouraging them (and, speaking from experience, preferably first encouraging them..) to draw from observation, does them a severe disservice, and represents BAD instruction in learning to draw and paint.



Yes, but first worry about being able to paint a watch passably well - only after you can do that is it time to start trying to paint melting ones (or whatever).


Dave

Well said Dave ...I would like to add that our lessons here are just that ..people look at the lesson follow instruction and do the best they can to draw the picture ...What is being said almost goes against what we are doing here ...or am I not getting something ?

Also I have to say that if I decide or anyone decides to draw a melting watch ( after you have learned how to draw the watch lol) it is not copying the masters ...you are only using the idea ...your watch may be completly different ...his could be a Timex mine could be a Rolex totaly different inside or at least I would hope so .. the price difference is at each end of the scale .

You are soo cosmopolitan. Wish I had a rolex!

Great points Dave and Kim!

To support your comments, when it comes to drawing, experiential education far outweighs academic. I believe it was Einstein who said: “Experience is knowledge – everything else is just information”.

I started Drawspace more than 10 years ago with one simple goal – to help people learn how to draw better, regardless of their academic backgrounds.

Music students can’t learn to play piano from a book without actually applying their skills to the action of playing a piano. People who expect to know how to ski after reading a book on skiing are not going to have any success until they actually go skiing. Both of these activities require some sort of action in order to be learned. Action is experience.

Drawing is also an action word. The process of reading every book in the whole world from cover to cover cannot improve your drawing skills. You need to actually draw to achieve strong skills. In other words, you must put your knowledge into practice.

Drawing is an easily acquired skill that everyone can learn. All you need is some vision and a way to hold a drawing tool. Talent is nothing more than a word that describes the process in which you accept your ability to do something. In other words, learning to draw does not require an elusive, magical force to have been born within you. Strong drawing skills eventually come to everyone who works hard.

Back to the topic at hand…

Learning to draw requires that the student practice the skills and techniques of drawing. What and how an aspiring artist chooses to develop these abilities is a personal decision and needs to be respected. Whether artists decide to do a hundred drawings of their big toe or copy from a million photos, they are learning!

I am still learning and often use photographs. I love what I do and (thankfully) am rarely happy with my drawings. As long as I see ways to improve my work, I know I am still learning. The day that I am completely happy with my work is the day I quit drawing. Learning to draw is an infinite quest.

Brenda

Steve !!! you have this wonderful uncanny way of taking a stiff debating conversation and turning it in to light and fun with one single sentence.. Great stuff here to think about and the thread is all positive ,,,but,,without stepping on anyone's toes,............... I was about to fall asleep..
Thanks Dude..

Good comments Dave, Kim and Brenda. As someone who teaches and shares the techniques of drawing, I fully endorse them.

Creativity and expression are just one part of drawing. They do not relate back to philosophy or the Greek gods for most people. One of my favourite artists is Vija Celmins, sorry don't have a link handy. She's a Latavian artist now living in the USA and creates exquisitely detailed drawings of water and sky and earth. In an interview she laughs about how people always try to interpret her creativity and expressiveness in her work. She laughs because she says there's none. She just likes to draw particular things, there is no hidden meaning. I feel the same way. I am NOT expressing emotion. I am creating shapes and colours that I enjoy creating.

Now everyone draw a watch! - melted or not

what if I don't wear a watch?

Click to view attachment

This is the first time i have had the opportunity to see ms Brenda..thank you very much for giving to us this place to grow and learn

a hug to you
Kay