THREE CRITERIA OF DRAWING

The nice sin of much of artists is to believe the center of the world of art: that comes from what the critérium of the talent not being stated, they benefit from it quite naturally to conclude in favour of their superiority.

This facility to give first rank is only too human, and if it meets infallibly among followers of the formulas of avant-garde, which being devoted to the visual arts without including/understanding them, are obstructed by no admiration which would divert them of the their characteristic, one also observes it in many artists traditionalists, because they were made a too summary notion, too light of the code of practice, and that this lack of deepening inclines them to be held too early satisfied.

How much time also of the praises awkward, disproportionate, that one only asked to believe literally, unbalanced a whole life! That of kindness we put to translate our small success of public as the sign of our immense talent! As it would be liked, finally, that this notoriety that often one knows very well, in its for interior, to be acquired by mischievousnesses, intrigues, skilful publicity, as it would be liked that it was justified by the only talent; and by want it, it is really believed!

Alas, the turn of the judgement arrives early or late. I do not speak about large, of the Last Judgement, but of the assessment that alive is brought, sometimes in the most unexpected circumstances, to make his actions, of his works.

With the end of its life, Meissonier wrote this moving thought strong, in which a doubt about its genius is not excluded: " time positions back to their true value all the hearts. The actual value of a man can be with dimensions only with its death, when the noise of the friendships died out on the pinch of ashes, after the speeches of the tomb, affectionate or official; then does the monument collapse or resists glorious flooded of light and of admiration "Qui will say the exact share of disillusion on oneself, in spite of all the dedications of the moment, contained in this dramatic thought?

It is necessary finally that cease this vagueness in the principles of art generating an appalling decline of the quality of the works of art, owing to the fact that it also makes it possible each one to be said able under the terms of the capacities which he confers on itself with all the more eagerness that no critérium is opposed to its claims. The authority in art is today only one question of material obstacles to cross: those which overcame them take the authority with the places; those which could not succeed in overcoming them shout with the injustice, the persecuted talent, and line up in an active opposition which they hope for profitable some day. Little seriously wonders the merit which would justify or the stations that they have or those which they would like to have: for the majority, them to obtain, it is to deserve them, and not to obtain them, it is to be frustrated. This state of mind brought such a disorder, as well in the spiritual one as in the temporal one, as one will never do enough efforts to find the criteria allowing to fight at the same time against ambitiousness and claims which have as a point of support only illusions on oneself.

This is why I want to propose three criteria of the drawing today: hands, feet, ears. The criterion of the harmony of the colors which I recently proposed ici-même, caused some stupor, but any contradiction, although I was ready to accomodate and study the latter with much attention: what indicates, it seems to me, that if I could cause of the embarrassment, or even temporarily displeasure with certain artists, none believed of its duty to be registered into false against my precise details. Confusion, ambiguity, are the cause of all our misfortunes, but they allure by the facility and the licence which they allow. Quite to the contrary, the clearness, without which one cannot detect the evil nor consequently to bring the remedy of it, shocks because it does not make grace of nothing, and disturbs also many mental or practical practices. It is thus probable that to recognize the quality of a draughtsman by the hands which it draws, all the Masters should in general be studied, and in particular the followers of the precise feature, such as: Van Eyck, To last, Holbein, Raphaël, David, Ingres, Degas, etc... because the Masters are Masters in particular because they never fell into the aberration to believe that the hand, this splendid instrument of the brain, can be relegated to a subordinate plan.                                                             

                                                                                                                 .                          

                                                      Titien

                                                       Dürer

The feet (naked, of course) one of the most difficult reasons which are to be drawn, offer a criterion of drawing more convenient than the hands because more ungrateful. Not contributing, like the hands, for the gestures, not accompanying the physiognomical expressions, they are only used to go and to go, and the grace of a movement of the foot can hardly distract from its weak drawing. However, their disadvantage, as regards criticism, is to too seldom appear in the tables.

                                              Léon Gard (hands of woman)

                                 Picasso  (detail of the portrait of Mateu de Soto)

But there is a part of the human figure which is probably the surest criterion as regards drawing: it is the ear. Contrary to the hand and the foot, the ear is static, does not contribute to any gesture, remains always similar to itself. Badly drawn, it cannot be repurchased by the grace of a movement, is not mobile like the eye, does not smile as the mouth, and however, in its extraordinary complexity of form and its drawing implacably precise and immutable, it keeps an intense expression. Lastly, the cartilagineuse matter in is very particular and offers a light almost imperceptible transparency by subtlety of the values (and in painting, of the tone) which it takes in its complicated models. Does one suspect that one could classify the quality of the painters of figures only by their ears? 

                                Hans Holbein ("Christ with the tomb") 

                                           Picasso  (feet of man)

Let us take the great names of art according to the verdict of, and in front of which our keener alleged revolutionists incline themselves because there is not average to make differently: he is no which drew bad ears. Moreover, the reciprocal one is true: he is not any artist knowing very well to draw an ear which is not a Master. Does one know a badly drawn ear of Van Eyck, Holbein, Titien, Véronèse, Raphaël, Ingres, Degas? On the other hand, can one quote a bad painter who drew and combed well the ears? I come from there alas, with the precise charges: contrary to the names which I have just quoted, does one know a well drawn ear of Meissonier, Gustave Moreau or Picasso, to choose three examples very different of contemporary notorieties?

                                    Leon Gard (detail of a self-portrait)

My three criteria of the drawing will make for much the purpose of an unpleasant pill and I am sorry of it in advance.

One often said that the way in which one made the hands was, as regards drawing, a kind of critérium. This means of checking is certainly very founded in a certain direction, because the good drawing of a hand requires a very great talent indeed. However, it offers a disadvantage: that to lend to confusion in the concept of what is called a good drawing. The hands do not keep the immobility and give rise to gestures: it thus happens that one forgets the poor drawing of the features of the hand in favour of a gesture right, expressive, and that well drawn hand is called, a hand which is only the pretext with a pretty gesture. It happens finally that a hand traced correctly according to the anatomy passes to be well drawn, that with which one would not be satisfied for the drawing with a face. In short, the drawing of a hand ceases being a valid critérium when one ceases seeing a portrait there not to more see there but the indication of a useful accessory: all the hands of Masters are indeed portraits as neat as the figures. However, as many artists took the practice to believe that an eye has more importance than a finger, and than one can treat this one slightly when one sufficiently occupied oneself of that one, one locates more very well the true hierarchical row only it agrees to give to the drawing of a hand, and one is satisfied with too little because one asks too little.

L G