Bargue plates- another interpretation

[Marvin Mattelson]

I have been aware of the Bargue plates for a very long time and have used them extensively in my teachings. Many of my former students have gone on the experience great success in the fields of fine art, portraiture, illustration, animation as well as many other artistic disciplines. Joseph Daily won Best of Show at the Portrait Society while still only 23 years old. Lori Early just had a sold out show at the Opera Gallery in NYC. The list is endless.

Regarding the Bargue book, it was actually me who announced its long eagerly waited publication here on this forum. It is my humble, but I believe, informed opinion, based on both my teaching experience and my observation of other educational methodologies, that the plates are not being utilized to their best advantage, if seeing correctly is the goal. In my view there is a huge difference between learning how to see and learning how to copy, which is the way, I feel, the plates are being currently utilized today.

If rendering were the goal, why is that the second section of the book deals with drawing technique? Wouldn't it have been more logical to have that part first? The truth is that the plates came with no instruction so who is to say I'm incorrect? I'm relying on my logic and I've had great success doing so. I just follow the breadcrumbs. I believe that true artistic nature compels us to question all.

What is the intrinsic difference between religiously copying a drawing by Bargue or a photo of a tree? I see none. Great drawing is about seeing correctly and then making an informed interpretation, based on your artistic goals and your understanding. This is what I teach my students to do.

When using the plates, I have my students cover the construct diagram for each plate and look at the final rendering as done by Bargue. I have my students try to create their own construct drawing while looking at Bargues rendered cast drawing. The point of these plates is to convey how to simplify the complexity of the world around us and give us a handle on building up from large to small. Bouguereau said that the key was keep the small accents subservient to the large planes. My approach teaches just that. When finished, my students compare their simplification with Bargues.

I believe Bargues intention was to move from being able to simplify to working from casts, but like another rebel, Thomas Eakins, I eschew laborious copying of casts in favor or working from the live model. Once they get the hang of it, my students work from a live model applying their newly minted observational skills. That way my students don't fall into the trap of drawing (or painting) from dead cold plaster, but work exclusively from live subjects. The most important aspect in art, to me, is maintaining the life force of your subjects, something I feel sorely lacking in today's realism.

My students make very rapid progress using my approach, and most importantly their work has real spirit. Meticulously copying anything, in my opinion, tends to make students over tighten and squeeze the life out of their work.

I feel that the purpose of all drawing instruction is to teach the students how to see the world objectively, as well as offer the tools with which to interpret it. This is the way I've been educating my students for years.

I have great respect for the goals of the contemporary ateliers. They are very dedicated in trying to recreate their ideas of what a 19th Century art educational curriculum was comprised of. I think they should be lauded and praised for bringing a more formal academic art education back into vogue. Certainly the loosey goosey approach that has been in vogue for so many years was not working, but is this new approach beyond reproach? I can still have great admiration for their goals and ideals, which I do, and still question whether their methodologies are the best they can be. I'm sure those heavily vested in a specific kind of academic training will reflexively rail out at my questioning. They have every right to do so.

As great as it was, there were many shortcomings to the 19th Century academic training as well. I try to address those things, by not throwing the baby out with the bath water so I teach an evolved academic approach.

When I was teaching myself drawing and painting, after learning absolutely nothing in art college, I learned that the majority of artists almost always agreed on methods that neither panned out for me nor seemed logical. I learned to view everything that was the agreed upon "correct" way with great skepticism and I also learned to question everything. I have relied on my intuition and it has served both me and my students well. I explore all the possibilities and both my students and I battle-test my theories. Try it my way and see what you think or come study with me and see the difference.