Do you have to be good at drawing to be a good painter?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marg on November 27, 2008 at 5:12pm

Great question! no. plain and simple. You need to be observant but drawing comes way down the list of needs to be to good painter.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Trying2 on November 28, 2008 at 5:32pm

What a good question... and how different are the answers:-)

I can draw quiet well but STILL i am learning... I discovered that there is no use to approach a subject without a simple sketch. It results in frustrating changes if composition is complicated.
One thing I am very sure of: since the time I have mastered the drawing of a human figure and a horse - I can draw anything, lol... when I learnt the realistic approach, the abstracting and simplification was only a short step away.
I study all possible books on drawing and I know how to tackle an era or a foot... Don't laugh...please...
I guess I will never stop ( wanting) to learn.
Well, drawing gives you the basics and opens a whole world of rather difficult subject. It is time wel spent when you sketch:-)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by frodron on December 4, 2008 at 11:07am

I think that you need to be reasonably good at sketching in order to get a decent image to paint.
That is not to say that you need to be able to draw anything in detail, but you do need to be able to draw a decent representation of your subject & getting the proportions right, achieving reasonable perspective, understanding tonal values & have a reasonable knowledge of the thing you are drawing.
For example to do landscapes you need to be able to draw a fair representation of various types of trees.
In portraiture you need to know the various proportions of the face,where the eyes are relative to the ears for example.
This, by the way, is coming from someone who always struggles to achieve a decent sketch !

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ver on December 4, 2008 at 12:41pm

I say yes. To have a good drawing skill you have to be a good observer and be able to translate what you observe properly into paper. Observation then translation, from real or imaginary, is a prerequisite in any art. That is where drawing totally helps. You can contain yourself to improve on these without worrying about other nuances, like drying time in painting.

Not to mention that it helps you visualize what you are trying to paint. What if that important detail about a certain frog you want to paint is not available to you. You can go bring your painting materials and try to paint it on the spot, or take a camera and take pictures or take your pencil and a notebook and make sketches. I would opt for the later. with sketching, you would become more knowledgeable about the frog. With paint, you will not be able to capture a decent detail before the frog goes jumping into the water ( hey not drawing with paint ). With pictures, they are nice references but are very static and would not help much in your observing and translating skills.

Also drawing helps you in materializing your ideas before you commit it on it paint. You can plan your picture first on pencil and paper which is much cheaper and easy to change than paint and canvass. Much less disappointment and lost money. It would also help you in perfecting that detail that just keep escaping you. Have you ever wondered how many preparatory sketches Leonardo did before he painted the Last Super? Most are lost now but the surviving sketches shows his intense study about each apostles poses and expression. He would not be able to get those great poses and expressions easily without the preparatory sketches.

Of course you could go on painting without learning to draw, but how much would you be missing! Your denying yourself of an amazing tool to accomplish that perfect painting you always dreamed of.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda Slasberg on April 24, 2009 at 5:14pm

I paint pictures but cannot draw to save my life. I have become an expert in avoiding drawing anything.
An artist is someone who creates a piece of art whatever medium or subject they choose.

I think the main thing is to love what you are doing, whether it is "good" or not. What is good anyway?

Just do your thing and enjoy yourself.

Linda

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Sherlock on July 18, 2009 at 5:52am

A little late with my comments, but it is too important a question to ignore.

There are a lot of good points here already, both for, and against. A reference to music was made early on, and this provides a good analogy.

Many people are very proficient at playing an instrument by ear and are able to produce some quite pleasing music.
Many people are very skilled at playing what is marked out on the score before them and cannot produce pleasing music.
Are these musicians? Yes, of course they are.
Are they GOOD musicians? Maybe, but probably not good enough to play at Carnegie Hall but are popular in pubs or churches.

When you hear a someone who can play very beautifully and with feeling and passion and with great technical expertise, now THAT is a musician.
Does everyone want to be a great musician? Of course not. So apply that to painting.

Do what you feel you need to do to get the results you want from your painting efforts.
If you do it for your own pleasure, who cares?
If you want to have your work displayed in the best galleries or museums, I would suggest you learn to draw as soon as you can. Why? Because when you do, you will start to SEE things as an artist sees. You will never get the same emotions from a photo, even when you take it yourself, as what you will experience when you draw or sketch it.
Your work will improve exponetially.

My suggestion is, try it before you criticise it. Besides which, it is fun to be able to do, and yes, anyone can do it if they want to and learn the right way. Betty Edwards book is a great place to start if you want to try for yourself.

Mike

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Gordon Tarpley on July 18, 2009 at 9:00am

I think being able to draw is very important to painting. It's one of the most fundamental aspects to art. most of the great painters, even the most abstract could draw very well, not to mention realistically. Even Pollock, who became famous by just splattering paint on canvas was good at drawing.

It's easy to slap down paint and call it art but to truly understand the basics buys you much more freedom and confidence as you develop your own style, whatever that may be.

I have to disagree with ReddWine's post. ALL of the best artists I know, (not people who do art for a hobby but professional artists, painters, sculptors, matter painters, visual effects artists, illustrators, etc) are constantly drawing and most of them have some kind of drawing tool/s and a sketchbook and/or paper within reach at all times.

You can never have too much practice and the more you draw, the more you'll understand about art and the more creative you'll become. Plus It's a great way to jot down ideas on the fly, capture a stranger's expression, a great natural composition, or a surreal idea that's been rolling around in your head.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Fone on July 28, 2009 at 7:18pm

Draughtsmanship isn't my strength. In fact I think I should be a lot better. I can do as well without tracing, so that doesn't help much. I like the freedom of moving paint around. The detailed tracing or projection techniques of some photo-realists seems like painting by numbers to me. I wouldn't be able to produce any emotion in my work that way.

I am leaning towards Gordon's point of view, because it seems to me that even good abstract painters should be able to draw a straight line and make the brush go exactly where they want it. It's about brush control whilst being completely relaxed. However, most of us will find the kind of training practise required hard work. It takes an effort of will. Some of us don't find it to be much fun at all. All the same I feel my painting is in some way restricted, or enabled by my ability as a draughtsman. But that's me, I'm serious about the paint.

Having said that I'm not prepared to be derogatory about people who say they cannot draw, when they are in fact producing very good work. I think we have to find the way which is best for us as individuals.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sue on July 28, 2009 at 10:39pm

I think to be able to paint you need basic drawing skills, when using grapite ect you learn about tone and that to me is what can make or break a painting.
Sue

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Fone on July 29, 2009 at 12:25am

Hi Sue, for me as a tonal painter, values are what we have. Colour is secondary all the time. We use values to describe light and shade. I'm not likely to do that better than my draughting ability. I think that means I'm in full agreement with you. Some people look at Picasso's Modern work and say my kid could do better than that. I beg to differ. I don't like paintings a lot of his Modern work personally, but his lines are superb as always. His classical training seved him well.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SHY on July 29, 2009 at 3:33am

This is one nagging doubt i've been having, In that when one says, "i'm an artist", people generally assume that he/she would be great at drawing.


The definition of an artist is wide-ranging and covers a broad spectrum of activities to do with creating art, practicing the arts and/or demonstrating an art. The normal meaning in both everyday speech and academic discourse is a practitioner in the visual arts only. The term is often used in the entertainment business, especially in a business context, for musicians and other performers (less often for actors). "Artiste" (the French for artist) is a variant used in English only in this context. Use of the term to describe writers, for example, is certainly valid, but less common, and mostly restricted to contexts like criticism.



Wiktionary defines the noun 'artist' (Singular: artist; Plural: artists) as follows:

A person who creates art.
A person who creates art as an occupation.
A person who is skilled at some activity.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines the older broad meanings of the term "artist,"

A learned person or Master of Arts (now rather obsolete)
One who pursues a practical science, traditionally medicine, astrology, alchemy, chemistry (also obsolete)
A follower of a pursuit in which skill comes by study or practice - the opposite of a theorist
A follower of a manual art, such as a mechanic - partly obsolete
One who makes their craft a fine art
One who cultivates one of the fine arts - traditionally the arts presided over by the muses - now the dominant usage
A definition of Artist from Princeton.edu: creative person (a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Fone on July 29, 2009 at 1:40pm

No less an authority than Gombrich confounds us by saying, "There is no such thing as Art. There are only artists" Art with a low case 'a' can be many things, but we surely have to use the word in the context of this website. We are people who create images, either for our own purposes or for the benefit of others. This rather begs the question, at what point do we become artists? The Princetown definition might include anything from town planners, to business men like Richard Branson.

So, what do I do? I woke up one morning and decided I wanted to become an artist and therefore got a freeby website telling the world I am a professional artist. People actually do that. I buy the kit and begin. The ballet dancer has stubby legs, not those of a dancer, but really so what. Yes I am a creative person, full of great ideas, but some how I cannot make my hands obey my mind. That will not be possible until I get some training in one way or the other and I gradually come to realise it is a long process. Drawing is the foundation of getting my ideas onto paper. It is clear to me that the better I become then the more freely I will be able to express those ideas so others can understand them.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page