Thank you Paul for all of your videos, as they address important issues that are often ignored by many schools. Here is my take on sight-size...1)I knew right away that something was frightfully wrong with the measurements of widths, because if I used a long rectangle for a still life, I would get innaccurate readings over and over. I have since managed to correct this problem by having both canvas and set-up perpendicular to my line of sight. So far so good! Otherwise you'd have to be 75 feet away from both to minimize distortion. Much to my delight, I found out that lots of people at Florence academy do the same thing. 2) As for its value in teaching, I think everyone should master it as an approach, then drop it and draw normally, and then return to it afresh. It does give one a kind of "objective" experience that is beneficial. I use it every four paintings or so and then leave it. 3) Also, there's super-strict sight size and general, point-of departure sight size. It is simple enough when painting a head or a landscape to set a spot on the ground, make a few marks, and then dive in from there. 4) As for color matching, sight size does give you some interesting, albeit limited, advantages. While painting the sun ( or any actual light source for that matter) is not possible in a one-to-one way, quite a few things are "reachable" in our given color range. And even here, when certain things are unreachable, having your canvas set up in the sight-size way does make color comparisons much easier. Even when sight-sizing, one still needs regular drawing skills..no doubt! But I wish someone had shown me the method long ago, as it would have given me a big leg up. Thanks again!!
Thanks, John, for the thoughtful response. No one should dispute the 'place on the floor' sight-size advantages for a student but what I have found is that most people simply adopt measuring first and not trusting their eyes and making themselves expert at conceptualizing and expressing relationships. To the extent that you do both - including especially not even working in a sight size relation at all - you will be forced to overcome the tendency. So good. Per color your point, also made by Gammell, that you should find some note in the landscape that you can match and work from that is flawed. You need to set out the field of colors and find the ones that together bring you nearest the great impression. That is a clear place where all over the place in the start is so important. Monet was right, no advantage at all in knowing that one or two of the notes is literally accurate. We don't match values; we paint effects. Per Degas, "We don't paint light; we paint light effects. The deeper you get into the relational world the closer you get to the whole point of the exercise and finally escape 'realism'
Paul -- Whoops! I did not mean match colors outside, which is not possible -- I only meant drawing a few points when outside. From there on, I firmly believe in laying in all the colors and then adjusting them to their greatest effect. For matching, I was referring to the dark lighting conditions found in the studio. Some can happen there, and this is no big deal -- so long one is aware of how far to take things. Much of this of course depends on how much light is on your canvas -- this can drive you absolutely nuts, as too much light can produce a dingy picture; the reverse is also true. I recently started a picture under 25 watt bulbs, and then finished it under 75 watts. That seemed to help for now. My goal is always to make the painting as light as I can, so for me, favoring the lights in the lay in is key. @@PaulIngbretson
I am just a beginner at drawing and less than that at painting and have only my own experience to report, but I am mostly self taught using sight size with Bargue plates and casts, and I found the method helpful. I certainly agree that one needs to work by relational methods but I felt that the sight size method helped me do that. The key is to guess first, then measure, then correct. Of necessity you make your mark standing next to the paper. There you can only use relational judgement to guess at the right location. Then you step back to the viewing distance, measure your mark against the model and see what correction is needed. Too high? Too steep an angle? Too wide? Etc.It is the immediate feedback that makes the method an effective learning tool. Otherwise you can get half way through a drawing and realize it is trash, but not be able to figure out exactly where you went wrong. It is almost like having an instructor looking over your shoulder to say when necessary, " not there dummy, closer to the chin". I very much enjoy your talks. Keep up the good work!
Yes you are right in the first part which is what Hunter held as logical if only for the beginner - so long as ultimately your relational skills are what you are developing and not becoming dependent on a method that works only in the perfect environment and even at that only with shapes and NEVER with color, form or light.
There comes a point where the tools of measurement become a crutch that hinders your ability to visually gauge information. The end result is a drawing that's more descriptive than expressive. Observational drawing isn't the same thing as technical draftsmanship.
I've watched all of your videos, they've been a tremendous help in me growing as an artists and exploring more of Sargents and other classical painters work. Keep up the great work, this is undervalued.
Totally agree with what you say. I have no training, but constantly think I discover a way of working that is unique only to discover that it's all been done as you keep illustrating in your videos. Thank you.
I started with comparative measurement but always felt I was missing out not doing sight-size, because it is still taught in some of the famous academies. I even bought the Bargue book in case I wanted to dive into sight-size. You very clearly explained in this video, why it always felt somehow off to me when I looked into the actual "technique".
Just sharing this FYI: “There is a painter called Humbert who takes pupils. He tells them: You must get the color of the model. And he sets up the canvas right beside the model. To do a thing like that is so stupid that it isn't even worth thinking about.....What I mean is that everything in a picture is the inter-relationships. We paint the sun with the yolk of an egg. Go put your canvas alongside the sun.“ Edgar Degas as quoted by Georges Jeaniot in his memoirs curiously not included in Gammell's Shoptalk of Edgar Degas though he considers Jeaniot a reliable source.
What the sight size crowd misses ...with all the rigid measuring ...is that ...a direct relational painter ...has the flow of life...and his/her soul in the work..
It may be the accuracy without a personality missing the point that 'art is truth seen through the prism of an emotion' or a 'personality' as some painters put it.
Hi Paul, thank you for the video. I was wondering if you have experience with the Russian constructivist method? I'm thinking of going to the "Florence classical arts academy" run by Repin Institute graduates.
I was taught the “sight size” method much as you described. Fairly early on it seemed in many ways very cumbersome and as you say, to much measuring taking life (and fun) out of the drawing. But setting up color in the start wouldn’t you make direct comparisons to the large notes in nature i.e. transfer color for color as you might in sight size to get the thing going on the canvas?
Yes and no. What you are trying to do as a student is paint what you see just as it appears. However, because so many values and intensities cannot be hit one to one you must take a different approach, that of giving your lightest light and darkest dark your best shot and then working until the set of relationships give you the big impression. Example: when you are painting a cast in side light you cannot match the light on a clean white cast because your cast will have a plane facing the window while your canvas faces away from it. You then say, let this white, which by the way has this bit of color in it, be my lightest light and don't let any literal (sight-size) note presumptuously intrude on its dominance. That is anchoring to a chosen value and you do the same with the darks since often you can't paint as dark as nature either. Maybe chroma, intensity, is easier to grasp. since the most chromatic notes are also most important and yet can often not be hit at all you are left with approximating them to the best of your ability and then backing all others into a proper relationship to that one. Called anchoring to chroma.
Hi Paul, Thank you for your videos which are extremely insightful. I ,have been trying to follow up the method you describe when beginning and working through a painting. Am I correct in thinking as described by Robert Douglas Hunter that the canvas is set up at a sight size position next to the still life and then you walk back to a set position to view the whole and make relational judgements of every aspect? How do you know where to stand each time to be completely accurate and how do you keep your eyes in the same alignment after each mark on the canvas? Thank you , Louisa
Key questions, you really are going after this, aren't you. Let me try to explain here, maybe send you an image via email if this isn't adequate. Yes, just as Hunter says if you are doing it life-size. Otherwise, if smaller it would be nearer you, not next to the still life. Question 2, yes, you walk back to the viewing location so that you are drawing only ones set of shapes, etc. Key to maintaining that one view is keeping your distance as well as your left=right position. The left/right can be easily returned to by noticing how one object overlaps the one behind it, where it cuts into it and alway, on returning to view, find yourself getting that right again before studying your ensemble. Be precise about that or you will be looking at an entirely different set of shapes, etc.
We used to use 19 x 25 in the old days. Some of my people have found larger ones and even rolls of the "ingres" type paper. Minimally 18 x 24 would be recommended. Then stand waaay back.
Is it not just as well to draw the objects, say in a still life set up, in whatever size one wants, either life size or smaller, so long as all the objects in the picture relate to each other in the same way the actual objects relate to each other? I'm not referring to the sight size method or Sargent's method, but more of an "any size" method if you will. I've worked this way before and haven't had any real problem with it. No doubt my eye can use some improvement in rendering things more accurately, but overall I feel this system works well enough.
Yes, although we were encouraged to paint clearly smaller, not 'barely smaller' due to the odd effect of something nearly life-size hanging on the wall. In a room full of portraits the guy painting just under life size will suffer next to the life size ones.
Ours isn't differentiated simply by making use of instinctual responses. Any use of the instinctive is fully informed by involving yourself with myriad relationships the search for which is your occupation first to last. The real problem with sight-size is how many aspects of the apparent world can't be reduced to a spatial measurement or a one to one fact, making its benefits, if any, marginal at best for a general approach.
I think sight sized is helpful if you are going to do a range of copies maybe 5-10, learn to render, learn how it 'should' but that is all, put it away and move on or you will get trapped.
When actually copying drawings under Gammell we did match their sizes and copied them side by side. We did copies when we were researching particular problems of paint, etc, but not in a slavish manner at all.
I never even heard of sight-size in all my years as a student in art departments with professors who were pretty committed to learning fundamentals and using the live model/still life to learn drawing/painting. Drawing from photos was also strictly verboten. Sight-size seems totally awkward to me. An analogy comes to mind regarding the use of it for students just learning to draw. It’s like putting leg braces on a baby just learning to walk and thinking it’ll get him started, then they’ll be removed once he gets moving. Why?!
Hi Paul, What is your opinion on the comparative measurement method? ruclips.net/video/l-tI9wNeloc/видео.html Sorry for posting a video link but I think it’s worth a watch as the artist in this video has very similar complaints around sight size to you, and says that he thinks this method is better as it trains your eye. He also uses a technique called Mass drawing (and painting) in the video which I think he got from Harold Speed, is this more in line with how you teach drawing from the cast and painting? Many Thanks, Richard
Thank you for forwarding. I will talk about the difference between this and the Boston School soon. Did you see my Video 126? Wonderd if it answers your 'fundamentals' question. If not let me know and I will go for it.
Thank you Paul for all of your videos, as they address important issues that are often ignored by many schools. Here is my take on sight-size...1)I knew right away that something was frightfully wrong with the measurements of widths, because if I used a long rectangle for a still life, I would get innaccurate readings over and over. I have since managed to correct this problem by having both canvas and set-up perpendicular to my line of sight. So far so good! Otherwise you'd have to be 75 feet away from both to minimize distortion. Much to my delight, I found out that lots of people at Florence academy do the same thing.
2) As for its value in teaching, I think everyone should master it as an approach, then drop it and draw normally, and then return to it afresh. It does give one a kind of "objective" experience that is beneficial. I use it every four paintings or so and then leave it.
3) Also, there's super-strict sight size and general, point-of departure sight size. It is simple enough when painting a head or a landscape to set a spot on the ground, make a few marks, and then dive in from there.
4) As for color matching, sight size does give you some interesting, albeit limited, advantages. While painting the sun ( or any actual light source for that matter) is not possible in a one-to-one way, quite a few things are "reachable" in our given color range. And even here, when certain things are unreachable, having your canvas set up in the sight-size way does make color comparisons much easier.
Even when sight-sizing, one still needs regular drawing skills..no doubt! But I wish someone had shown me the method long ago, as it would have given me a big leg up. Thanks again!!
Thanks, John, for the thoughtful response. No one should dispute the 'place on the floor' sight-size advantages for a student but what I have found is that most people simply adopt measuring first and not trusting their eyes and making themselves expert at conceptualizing and expressing relationships. To the extent that you do both - including especially not even working in a sight size relation at all - you will be forced to overcome the tendency. So good. Per color your point, also made by Gammell, that you should find some note in the landscape that you can match and work from that is flawed. You need to set out the field of colors and find the ones that together bring you nearest the great impression. That is a clear place where all over the place in the start is so important. Monet was right, no advantage at all in knowing that one or two of the notes is literally accurate. We don't match values; we paint effects. Per Degas, "We don't paint light; we paint light effects. The deeper you get into the relational world the closer you get to the whole point of the exercise and finally escape 'realism'
Paul -- Whoops! I did not mean match colors outside, which is not possible -- I only meant drawing a few points when outside. From there on, I firmly believe in laying in all the colors and then adjusting them to their greatest effect. For matching, I was referring to the dark lighting conditions found in the studio. Some can happen there, and this is no big deal -- so long one is aware of how far to take things. Much of this of course depends on how much light is on your canvas -- this can drive you absolutely nuts, as too much light can produce a dingy picture; the reverse is also true.
I recently started a picture under 25 watt bulbs, and then finished it under 75 watts. That seemed to help for now. My goal is always to make the painting as light as I can, so for me, favoring the lights in the lay in is key.
@@PaulIngbretson
I am just a beginner at drawing and less than that at painting and have only my own experience to report, but I am mostly self taught using sight size with Bargue plates and casts, and I found the method helpful.
I certainly agree that one needs to work by relational methods but I felt that the sight size method helped me do that. The key is to guess first, then measure, then correct.
Of necessity you make your mark standing next to the paper. There you can only use relational judgement to guess at the right location. Then you step back to the viewing distance, measure your mark against the model and see what correction is needed. Too high? Too steep an angle? Too wide? Etc.It is the immediate feedback that makes the method an effective learning tool.
Otherwise you can get half way through a drawing and realize it is trash, but not be able to figure out exactly where you went wrong. It is almost like having an instructor looking over your shoulder to say when necessary, " not there dummy, closer to the chin".
I very much enjoy your talks. Keep up the good work!
Yes you are right in the first part which is what Hunter held as logical if only for the beginner - so long as ultimately your relational skills are what you are developing and not becoming dependent on a method that works only in the perfect environment and even at that only with shapes and NEVER with color, form or light.
There comes a point where the tools of measurement become a crutch that hinders your ability to visually gauge information. The end result is a drawing that's more descriptive than expressive. Observational drawing isn't the same thing as technical draftsmanship.
I've watched all of your videos, they've been a tremendous help in me growing as an artists and exploring more of Sargents and other classical painters work. Keep up the great work, this is undervalued.
"Do comment, like, hate or whatever" hahaha
Brilliant as always Paul, very insightful
Hey, Sam, do you read these responses? Am I wasting time responding to people here do you think. Thanks for the kind words by the way.
Totally agree with what you say. I have no training, but constantly think I discover a way of working that is unique only to discover that it's all been done as you keep illustrating in your videos. Thank you.
The all-important personal discovery.
I started with comparative measurement but always felt I was missing out not doing sight-size, because it is still taught in some of the famous academies. I even bought the Bargue book in case I wanted to dive into sight-size. You very clearly explained in this video, why it always felt somehow off to me when I looked into the actual "technique".
Just sharing this FYI:
“There is a painter called Humbert who takes pupils. He tells them: You must get the color of the model. And he sets up the canvas right beside the model. To do a thing like that is so stupid that it isn't even worth thinking about.....What I mean is that everything in a picture is the inter-relationships. We paint the sun with the yolk of an egg. Go put your canvas alongside the sun.“ Edgar Degas as quoted by Georges Jeaniot in his memoirs curiously not included in Gammell's Shoptalk of Edgar Degas though he considers Jeaniot a reliable source.
I like the full page drawings Mr Producer, I can see them clearly on my tablet!
I will pass this on in case he doesn't see it, Jaz, and discuss it with him. Thanks for the feedback.
What the sight size crowd misses ...with all the rigid measuring ...is that ...a direct relational painter ...has the flow of life...and his/her soul in the work..
It may be the accuracy without a personality missing the point that 'art is truth seen through the prism of an emotion' or a 'personality' as some painters put it.
Hi Paul, thank you for the video. I was wondering if you have experience with the Russian constructivist method? I'm thinking of going to the "Florence classical arts academy" run by Repin Institute graduates.
No, sorry, but I am not familiar with what they do there.
it is so easy to teach sightsize.... Gives results fast but it so handicaps you
I was taught the “sight size” method much as you described. Fairly early on it seemed in many ways very cumbersome and as you say, to much measuring taking life (and fun) out of the drawing.
But setting up color in the start wouldn’t you make direct comparisons to the large notes in nature i.e. transfer color for color as you might in sight size to get the thing going on the canvas?
Yes and no. What you are trying to do as a student is paint what you see just as it appears. However, because so many values and intensities cannot be hit one to one you must take a different approach, that of giving your lightest light and darkest dark your best shot and then working until the set of relationships give you the big impression. Example: when you are painting a cast in side light you cannot match the light on a clean white cast because your cast will have a plane facing the window while your canvas faces away from it. You then say, let this white, which by the way has this bit of color in it, be my lightest light and don't let any literal (sight-size) note presumptuously intrude on its dominance. That is anchoring to a chosen value and you do the same with the darks since often you can't paint as dark as nature either.
Maybe chroma, intensity, is easier to grasp. since the most chromatic notes are also most important and yet can often not be hit at all you are left with approximating them to the best of your ability and then backing all others into a proper relationship to that one. Called anchoring to chroma.
@@PaulIngbretson Thank you for taking time to reply, most helpful and clearly stated.
Hi Paul,
Thank you for your videos which are extremely insightful.
I ,have been trying to follow up the method you describe when beginning and working through a painting.
Am I correct in thinking as described by Robert Douglas Hunter that the canvas is set up at a sight size position next to the still life and then you walk back to a set position to view the whole and make relational judgements of every aspect?
How do you know where to stand each time to be completely accurate and how do you keep your eyes in the same alignment after each mark on the canvas?
Thank you ,
Louisa
Key questions, you really are going after this, aren't you. Let me try to explain here, maybe send you an image via email if this isn't adequate. Yes, just as Hunter says if you are doing it life-size. Otherwise, if smaller it would be nearer you, not next to the still life. Question 2, yes, you walk back to the viewing location so that you are drawing only ones set of shapes, etc. Key to maintaining that one view is keeping your distance as well as your left=right position. The left/right can be easily returned to by noticing how one object overlaps the one behind it, where it cuts into it and alway, on returning to view, find yourself getting that right again before studying your ensemble. Be precise about that or you will be looking at an entirely different set of shapes, etc.
Thanks for your reply. That seems logical and very helpful.
What size paper are you using for charcoal figure drawing ? Are you going big 18x24 ?
We used to use 19 x 25 in the old days. Some of my people have found larger ones and even rolls of the "ingres" type paper. Minimally 18 x 24 would be recommended. Then stand waaay back.
@@PaulIngbretson as always, advice taken. Thank you.
Is it not just as well to draw the objects, say in a still life set up, in whatever size one wants, either life size or smaller, so long as all the objects in the picture relate to each other in the same way the actual objects relate to each other? I'm not referring to the sight size method or Sargent's method, but more of an "any size" method if you will. I've worked this way before and haven't had any real problem with it. No doubt my eye can use some improvement in rendering things more accurately, but overall I feel this system works well enough.
Yes, although we were encouraged to paint clearly smaller, not 'barely smaller' due to the odd effect of something nearly life-size hanging on the wall. In a room full of portraits the guy painting just under life size will suffer next to the life size ones.
@@PaulIngbretson That's interesting.
Sight size is a training ground for getting your eyes and methods sharper. Instinctual response will come after....
Ours isn't differentiated simply by making use of instinctual responses. Any use of the instinctive is fully informed by involving yourself with myriad relationships the search for which is your occupation first to last. The real problem with sight-size is how many aspects of the apparent world can't be reduced to a spatial measurement or a one to one fact, making its benefits, if any, marginal at best for a general approach.
I think sight sized is helpful if you are going to do a range of copies maybe 5-10, learn to render, learn how it 'should' but that is all, put it away and move on or you will get trapped.
When actually copying drawings under Gammell we did match their sizes and copied them side by side. We did copies when we were researching particular problems of paint, etc, but not in a slavish manner at all.
Good stuff
Appreciate it
My eyes would never forgive me if I were to trust a piece of twine more than them 😂
Lol, from the belly
I never even heard of sight-size in all my years as a student in art departments with professors who were pretty committed to learning fundamentals and using the live model/still life to learn drawing/painting. Drawing from photos was also strictly verboten.
Sight-size seems totally awkward to me. An analogy comes to mind regarding the use of it for students just learning to draw. It’s like putting leg braces on a baby just learning to walk and thinking it’ll get him started, then they’ll be removed once he gets moving. Why?!
Laughing with you...found it debilitating.
Do you know John Arruda?
No, not familiar.
💖
Hi Paul,
What is your opinion on the comparative measurement method?
ruclips.net/video/l-tI9wNeloc/видео.html Sorry for posting a video link but I think it’s worth a watch as the artist in this video has very similar complaints around sight size to you, and says that he thinks this method is better as it trains your eye.
He also uses a technique called Mass drawing (and painting) in the video which I think he got from Harold Speed, is this more in line with how you teach drawing from the cast and painting?
Many Thanks,
Richard
Thank you for forwarding. I will talk about the difference between this and the Boston School soon. Did you see my Video 126? Wonderd if it answers your 'fundamentals' question. If not let me know and I will go for it.
Sight size is not even a technique of the masters 🙄, only comparitive drawing