I really don't like how much that book (and other books of the same author) is promoted. I am into drawing for quite a long time already (and I also think it helps me as a programmer etc.) and I've heard about that book like thousand times, so I've finally read it. I understand why it's impressive: because author delivers the material like "so, there are some techniques to use your right side of the brain instead of the left one and woah… you see, you draw much better now! It's magic! By the way, I have million students who couldn't draw, but they took my courses and now they are master-artists and own their own design saloons." And you probably actually will draw better than you expect (especially when you don't expect you can draw) after some simple guidance and a few tries.
What I'm saying it's very populistic, but explains many thing the wrong way, which may cause some problems if you'll want to improve your techniques later. If you are learning to draw I'd better recommend you start with Andrew Loomis: "Fun with a Pencil" or even Vilppu Studio tutorials if you have serious mindset.
When I started to read this post I knew that someone would make this comment here. If they had used just about any other book that tries to teach drawing, then no one would say anything about the book they used.
Who cares what book they used. If it gets them interested in drawing, then that's all that matters. It's like bitching because someone got interested in music when they listened to the latest <insert top pop album of the time> and it sparked creativity in them.
I had the same reaction, I just hated it... but it turns out that the people who really like the book ignore the fake-science explanations and just do the exercises (which are quite good), and the people who hate the book delve into the text hoping that they'll get some understanding that's more important than just doing the work, and -of course- there is no such understanding to be found.
Agreed. I find that Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain has too much pseudo-science in it and that the results you get, while they may be impressive to a complete beginner, are only superficially impressive. Getting good at drawing takes time.
So many of the critiques of the book are that getting good at drawing takes time. Where did this idea that the book says otherwise? It is a start, the book tells you outright that you will need to work at it.
Those impressive benefits to a complete beginner are what a complete beginner needs. That they can see there actually has been progress is what will allow them to move on and continue to improve via the needed work.
Those improvements are not superficial to someone who has been told or convinced themselves that they can not draw.
Superficially-impressive is better than not-impressive-at-all for keeping someone motivated.
I'm getting the impression that by analogy, DotRSB lets you play music that someone else has written; but to be good at drawing, you need to be able to play music that you've written yourself. And that's a valid criticism, but playing someone else's music is still fun, while writing music isn't going to be much fun if I can't play it well. So it seems reasonable to quickly get good at playing, and then later I can learn to write.
I think it's a good analogy. I also think its why everyone who wants to be an artist but not put in the right-brain work wants to be a photographer now. It's like creating without being required to do the actual work part. I guess being certain types of "DJ" is a similar metaphor.
Comments
I really don't like how much that book (and other books of the same author) is promoted. I am into drawing for quite a long time already (and I also think it helps me as a programmer etc.) and I've heard about that book like thousand times, so I've finally read it. I understand why it's impressive: because author delivers the material like "so, there are some techniques to use your right side of the brain instead of the left one and woah… you see, you draw much better now! It's magic! By the way, I have million students who couldn't draw, but they took my courses and now they are master-artists and own their own design saloons." And you probably actually will draw better than you expect (especially when you don't expect you can draw) after some simple guidance and a few tries.
What I'm saying it's very populistic, but explains many thing the wrong way, which may cause some problems if you'll want to improve your techniques later. If you are learning to draw I'd better recommend you start with Andrew Loomis: "Fun with a Pencil" or even Vilppu Studio tutorials if you have serious mindset.
When I started to read this post I knew that someone would make this comment here. If they had used just about any other book that tries to teach drawing, then no one would say anything about the book they used.
Who cares what book they used. If it gets them interested in drawing, then that's all that matters. It's like bitching because someone got interested in music when they listened to the latest <insert top pop album of the time> and it sparked creativity in them.
I had the same reaction, I just hated it... but it turns out that the people who really like the book ignore the fake-science explanations and just do the exercises (which are quite good), and the people who hate the book delve into the text hoping that they'll get some understanding that's more important than just doing the work, and -of course- there is no such understanding to be found.
Agreed. I find that Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain has too much pseudo-science in it and that the results you get, while they may be impressive to a complete beginner, are only superficially impressive. Getting good at drawing takes time.
So many of the critiques of the book are that getting good at drawing takes time. Where did this idea that the book says otherwise? It is a start, the book tells you outright that you will need to work at it.
Those impressive benefits to a complete beginner are what a complete beginner needs. That they can see there actually has been progress is what will allow them to move on and continue to improve via the needed work.
Those improvements are not superficial to someone who has been told or convinced themselves that they can not draw.
Superficially-impressive is better than not-impressive-at-all for keeping someone motivated.
I'm getting the impression that by analogy, DotRSB lets you play music that someone else has written; but to be good at drawing, you need to be able to play music that you've written yourself. And that's a valid criticism, but playing someone else's music is still fun, while writing music isn't going to be much fun if I can't play it well. So it seems reasonable to quickly get good at playing, and then later I can learn to write.
Does this seem like a fair assessment?
I think it's a good analogy. I also think its why everyone who wants to be an artist but not put in the right-brain work wants to be a photographer now. It's like creating without being required to do the actual work part. I guess being certain types of "DJ" is a similar metaphor.