|
It would be terrific if every artist were wired to see, evaluate, and reproduce an image instantaneously. Linda and Tim seem to be advocating this more intuitive painting method.
But this seems familiar territory to anyone with grade school aged children. For the last few decades, schools have been teaching the "look-say" or "whole word" method of reading. The students have been taught to see, memorize, and recognized words at a glance. The opposing teaching method is phonics. In this method, the student is taught to sound out the letters or letter combinations. This has been a HUGE battle in schools as the whole word proponents battle the phonics crowd.
It also seems entirely unnecessary. The fact is that some learn better by working in Tim's manner (whole word), while some learn better with Marvin's method (phonics).
As a teacher, I agree with Marvin that the easiest way to impart the basic knowledge of putting a painting (portrait) together is by breaking the parts down into digestible chunks.
Finally, I remember John Sanden in a discussion about what was more important, drawing, color or value. I never found that it was necessary to sacrifice one element for the other, and have separately studied drawing (ateliers), color (the Cape School) and value (early Cedric Egeli).
I can tell you this, if the color is wrong but the value is right, the painting will still work. If the color is right but the value is wrong, the painting will fall apart.
Peggy
|