According to the influential art critic John Ruskin (1819-1900) they should study only from real life. He believed that all learning happens from the student's own direct encounters with nature, and that it was the job of art students to draw from life as truthfully as possible, not to copy the work of other artists or to study composition as a way of improving on what they see.
 |
| William Trost Richards, Conanicut |
Ruskin wrote that "from young artists nothing ought to be tolerated but simple bona fide imitation of nature . They have no business to ape the execution of masters . . . Their duty is neither to choose, nor compose, nor imagine, nor experimentalize; but to be humble and earnest in following the steps of nature, and tracing the finger of God."
There's a lot of truth to what Ruskin says, and if I were to choose between studying art or real life, I would opt for real life. But previous masters provide a path into the wilderness, a frame of reference, an example of what is possible.
I disagree with Ruskin that young artists should not study from previous masters at all. I would suggest that they take inspiration from many eras and styles, and avoid focusing on the style that's current at the time. Students can draw inspiration from examples of visual art that inspires them, be it paintings, sculptures, movies, animation, posters, or comics. I recommend alternating between studying from nature, from past masters, from theory and philosophy, and sketching from memory and imagination.
----
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق