jayme del rosario | sketchblog

This is a quick pencil sketch studying the muscles of the upper arm in the anatomy lab. That day we covered many parts of the cadaver, with extensive notes and coverage of the flexors and extensors of the forearm plus their complex connection with the digits. It was interesting being able to move muscle groups to witness and better understand the muscle groupings of the arm and how they move the hand and fingers.

Muscles of the Arm, Pencil Sketch

Bargue Plate, Bent Arm of a Man, Graphite

A recent Bargue plate drawing I did over the summer is on the cover of the latest special supplement issue of Drawing Magazine. I completed this Bargue copy via the sister school of Janus Collaborative, NYK Academy on the 2nd Fl of the Harlem Studios (JCSA is on the 3rd Fl). Both programs, in my opinion, serve to complement each other by training your eye in completely two different ways. AT JCSA we focus on the figure and direct observation where measuring is used as a check. It is based on a more structural analysis of drawing where ideas of perspective and constructive anatomy lie strong in the pedagogy.

NYK Academy’s curriculum is based on the sight-size drawing technique of the Florence Academy. This program originated with Andrea Smith who attended and taught at the Florence Academy. She now advises Judy Kudlow, who is the current instructor of the program. The course consists of a rational progression from graphite to charcoal to paint; the subject matter increases in difficulty with every drawing from 2D or “flats”, which are copies of the Bargues on to casts, then still life. There is also a figure drawing class in the evenings which you can take once you learn to measure (sight-size) in space.

With the sight-size method, measuring is a way to train your eye and you learn many things in a logical and simplified way so that you can achieve control of the materials and sharpen your analytical skills in a different way than the structural/constructive curriculum does. It is based on a more perceptual approach. One of the greatest things I’ve learned from the program so far is how to really analyze a curve. In the morning program at JCSA, we discuss the inflection point(s) of a curve and learn to really spot the change of direction through very close observational skills. However, by doing the Bargues I have noticed that it has only enhanced my analytical skills so that I can draw “by eye” much better.

One misunderstanding may be that everything is measured in the sight-size approach. Soon after my first Bargue plate copy, I quickly learned that this wasn’t true. From how I see it, the measurements serve as a foundation from which to build your drawing upon. Later measurements serve as a check and you have to rely on your eye much more along with a perceptual analysis/observation (AND since I can’t unlearn this…a structural, anatomical and constructive analysis). In short, all my teachers are really saying the same thing anyway. The approaches and techniques only seem different on the surface but the concepts are all the same; it’s just another tool.

This special issue of Drawing Magazine discusses the importance of copying master drawings and the lessons behind them, amongst many, many other interesting articles concerning drawing and draftsmanship.

Below are images of my Bargue copy of the male arm in various steps:

"Block-In" or Contours

Shadows

Intermediary Tones

Final Drawing (Stop Modeled in Graphite)

Old Master Drawings have been a great source of education in my classical training thus far. During my last visit to the MET I (attempted) to make a copy of a page of Abraham Bloemaert’s drawing of Woman Sitting and 4 Hands. I focused mostly on studying the woman’s arm because I loved the subtlety and simplicity of his linework. In my analysis below I highlight common mistakes in drawing that occur whether we are doing master copies or drawing from life.

But first, I want to discuss a few points on what to focus on and what not to focus on when copying master drawings. The points are a mix from notes I’ve compiled through my studies to date and from my own experience in copying old master drawings.

What NOT to do:

• copy every single line or hatch mark (at least for educational purposes. If your goal is to make an exact copy of a work then this point would, of course, be moot.)

Some things to focus on:

• tilts and distances
• value relationships
• long lines and relationships
• proportion
• areas of overlap
• perspective

These may seem a bit too general, and I guess my main point in this post is that when trying to learn from an old master drawing we miss the lesson if we simply copy every single line without filtering the reasons behind those lines. Missing one hatch mark is a small “mistake” compared to missing the mark when it comes to understanding relationships of long lines, rhythm, proportion and value.

In my analysis above, I focus on two main mistakes I make in my study of Bloemaert’s drawing. They are both rooted in the common error of exaggeration. The black circle addresses an obvious area where I inadvertently created a bump at the point where the radius attaches to the bones of the wrist and hand, by overestimating the curve. The green lines in my drawing (leading to the black circle, you may need to click the image for a closer view to see the lines), when placed next to Bloemaert’s drawing shows how the lower tilt is slightly off. This seemingly small error is great when combined with the long line and curve leading to the bump of the wrist. I end up pinching the lower section of the arm too much and causing that non-existent swelling of the wrist.

In the second analysis, I take a closer look at long lines/relationships and the difficulty of curves. There is a subtle and beautiful curve relating the upper arm to the lower arm. If you take away the “bump of the elbow” and take a closer look at Bloemaert’s drawing, you’ll see how he clearly saw and understood this relationship as he exhibits the beauty of this woman’s arm in the subtlety of his drawn curve. In my study of the drawing I have exaggerated the inflection of the curve toward the end of my line. This tendency to under or overexagerrate the line towards the end of your stroke is common and can be improved with much practice. It is difficult to control the line the longer it is — especially for me and it is something I continue to practice.

Overall it was a great learning experience and I copied other drawings that day, but I have to say Abraham Bloemaert is a master is the subtlety of those curves – as well as overlap. I didn’t cover issue of overlap in this post but if you’re interested in learning more about it, Bloemart drawings are a great source. I will cover overlap and how to evaluate a curve’s point of inflection in future posts.

Happy copying!

PS – Copying master drawings also reveals your weaknesses while it highlights your strengths and/or improvements throughout classical art training. For example, it helps me know how to redirect my training and what I should continue to focus on during my training. How to pick an old master drawing to copy? More on my next post…