/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

That's how I feel.
I guess the exercises are good for teaching people who haven't already developed the habit of drawing to stop their object oriented scribbling, but I feel like there are more efficient ways to do it.
My Grandma still has the copy they used in her drawing classes back in the stone age. We can do better.

>>1953546
I just went through the vase exercise and when I finished, all that I could think was "what the fuck is this bitch talking about? what conflict? what paralysis? what in the hell is this senseless cunt saying?"

>>1953554

I am pretty sure this book is for absolute beginners, people who can barely draw stick figures.

When you look at it from that perspective, the exercises help build their confidence and realize that they can indeed draw. Often times they won't even try, feeling that they have to already know how to draw before taking a drawing class or utilizing a drawing book.

This book was also aimed at teachers who were struggling to teach their students, and the author goes into detail about how shitty of a teacher she was until she realized she was doing a terrible job actually explaining and teaching.

Is this book going to teach you how to draw? No, but it will give you an easy entry point where you can actually build some confidence.

As for the "left brain VS right brain" talk, keep in mind this was written in 1979.

>>1953558
Well, that explains, then, why it doesn't work for me. I'm a shitty artist, not a beginner one.

Left brain/right brain theory is all bullshit.

Practicing exercises that teach you to draw what you actually see and not what you think you see are legitimate.

The result: a book that is eye-rolling to read, and yet will get you results if you follow its instructions.

>>1953589
>yet will get you results if you follow its instructions.
That's what part of the book, exactly? Because, like I said here, >>1953554, if that's a part of it, it's not gonna work on me.

>>1953593
I think he said the exercices are legit.

I personally haven't read the book .The youtube video is very good though, she doesn't talk too much about scientific stuff in it and it's mostly exercices.

>>1953602
That was an exercise. That wasn't legit at all.

What videos?

>>1953543
>is this book completely, undistilled, near pseudo-science book levels of horse shit?

I used the new book. If the old one is anything like it, you can easily go through the book and do the exercises, skipping more than a hundred pages of happy anecdotes and buddha/artists quotes.

Here's a quick summary I made (posted it already, two weeks ago; it is for the "new drawing on the r s of the b" though). It shouldn't take you more than 2 weeks to go through the exercises anyway.

It is worth a try if you're bad at drawing what is in front of you (which was my case). It won't teach you anything but that. Then move on to better books.

>>1953610
I failed at the very first exercise. I experienced no conflict at all. I didn't even thought those questions. I just drawed a fucking face.

>>1953615
It doesn't matter, the first exercice is just to keep track of your progress anyway according to >>1953610
(if you're talking about the one where you draw one portrait and one face from imagination)

>>1953637
No. I'm talking about the Faces\Vase exercise. The one supposed meant to induce a mental conflict. I had no fucking conflict at all. I just perfectly completed the other side of the vase/ the other face, albeit, farther apart than the original, and had no mental conflict while doing so. I even tried naming the parts of the face as I went about it. Zip.

>>1953643
Good. Now do the rest of the book and stop whining.

>>1953664
>Good. Now do the rest of the book and stop humblebragging.

>>1953664
How can I? If I didn't have the mental conflict, that the author seems to give to much importance to, and which is the very core of that exercise, doesn't not having the conflict means that I failed? If I failed at the very first step, how can continue on to the next exercises?

>>1953665
How is that humblebragging? What's there to brag about a failure?

>>1953643
I remember doing the book like a year or two ago when i decided i wanted to start drawing (i gave up because i was lazy at the time + the book fucking mysticized drawing), and i definiteely felt that conflict. I picked up my copy of the book again yesterdah just for fun and i didnt have any conflict at all.

I think its a confidence thing?

>>1953615
>I experienced no conflict at all.

It doesn't really matter, the whole Left/Right Brain is an outdated theory. Some people find difficult to draw even basic shapes, some don't.

The goal of the first exercises is to make you used to different things that you will have to use together for the real thing. This is why most of them are so simple: they focus on only one thing (contour drawing, ratio, etc.).

The garbage about what happens in your brain is unimportant, those exercises are used in other books too. It just happens that Keys to Drawing asks you to draw your foot and Drawingotrsotbrain asks you to draw your hand.

I got this book what a waste...bored the hell out of me after reading 35 pages.... Scott robertson are where it's at...if you want to learn how to draw thats who you should be looking into....he can get very technical...but after all once you know the rules to follow you can do all sorts of magic

So if this book is crap, what would you all recommend as good books for beginners? What are books you used?

>>1953543
The exercises are what matter. Everything else is not worth the time.

>>1953543
The exercises are good, as long as you spend time on them and not simply 15 min like the book says.
For someone just starting out from point zero, they really don't need all that psychological meandering that is in the book. In fact, that's probably one of the last things they should be concerned with.

Better books imo would be

The Practice and Science of drawing by Harold Speed

Drawing lessons from the great masters by Robert Hale

Probably the best would be to go through the Bargue Drawing Course.

If you want to read about all the psychological stuff go read some of rudolph arnheims books. They're more in depth than the drivel that Edwards writes about and a lot more interesting and *gasp* actually useful.


One of the reasons I think edwards book is so popular is that it kind of gives people an "excuse" as to why theyre so bad at drawing via a mental crutch rather than what the real reason is, that they just havent drawn as much as they should due to giving up cause they think its too hard, or out of frustration and impatience

>>1953558
loomis books are from early to mid 20° century. no excuses

The point of exercises are to teach you think artisticly, and to "cure" you from symbol drawing. I gone through exercises in book following instruction above and it did helped me, atleast with still-life and reference drawings.
I didnt feel that conflict shit either and thats probably because i draw alot, but regardless exercises helped

Get the workbook instead, the same and more exercises, which is all that matters.