I want to open up a whole new can of worms with you all.
Briefly stated:
Most of my life I've been drawing with a form/structure understanding. Sculptural drawing, if you will, exemplified by Pontormo, Del Sarto, and a whole bunch of Renaissance artists (you can see their thought process in their modification lines, where individual strokes are concerned with forms and not angles). I think this is the kind of drawing that Rubik was referring to, as it lends itself to drawing from imagination.
My understanding of the Bargue approach (I recently picked up the book) is that it is a more retinal way of drawing, where structure results from the careful observations of angles and their relationship to one another. If you look at Degas' drawings you can see that he often pays attention to the unique character of outline, at times ignoring the forms that create the outline. The conundrum is this:
With structural drawing, you can make a form seem "logical" at the expense of accuracy. With the measurement of external angles, you get a finer degree of accuracy, but if you're off by the tiniest bit, then the form falls apart. Has anyone tried to bridge the gap in a natural way?
All comments are highly appreciated,
Brad
