“As the models from which the students worked were already idealized works of art, they helped to inculcate in the students a mannered vision of nature, which encouraged them to draw the live model in a conventional, idealized and non individual way. Although the anatomical idiosyncrasies of the human figure were a shock to the students’ unaccustomed eyes, the tendency to see the form only in abstract line and tonal gradations was already well ingrained. Models were commonly posed in noble stances derived from antique statues, which both aided the transition from cast to live model, and maintained the emphasis on the classical tradition.” – Jose Parramón author of The Big Book on Oil Painting.
This quote is taken by a very interesting article about the definition of academic art from its roots to modern day and the role it plays. You can read the article HERE.
This topic of what ideal means, in art especially, has been on my mind for many years. As a self-portrait photographer, my life’s work includes the concept of self-acceptance and body image and as an artists’ model, that objective continues. In the 23 years that I have been posing, I have posed for only one or two actual art academies that teach academic, classical realism drawing. And in those academies, only once did I pose nude, full figure. The other times were all portrait sessions.
I know that the academic goal in art as to capture the real – to focus on the conventions of a body – the proportions, the forms, the way the light and dark cast on the body, the movement and to learn about the anatomy. The “goal” in learning academically, as states in the article, is to become a “master” – leaving out impressionism, expressionism, etc. So sure, they all start learning from plaster casts that do not move and are perfectly sculpted to models that look just like the casts. A non individual way.
“The term “classical” refers to an idealized concept of natural beauty”
But why….why are the academies still so hung up on only studying what they consider still, after hundreds of years, a thin body, a non-individual body and call it ideal? Why not an individual body, first and in this day and age why not a large body? Does it have to do with the psychological thought that the larger body is not deemed healthy, hence not fit for being a standard for beauty? And what difference is it to draw from a cast that is of a naturally curvy body?
Do artists that want to learn classical realism really desire to only draw the same type of thin or muscular body? Maybe they do but I fail to see why it would not be beneficial for academic art academies to also use more supple, sculptural, fleshy models. I believe that we can be as good a learning tool for the students to master and maybe even more so as there are more challenges and more interesting aspects to look at.
Of course today, there are indeed more models that are larger and more artists that draw/paint/sculpt them/us. However, it’s rare that I see these works done by a classical realistic artist. Here is one example, from a renowned academic artist – Steven Assael yet he seemed to have left her body unfinished:
On the other hand, I will have to give kudos, I suppose, to a French academic artist Michel Lauricella for publishing a couple of books on the subject of how to draw large models academically, although on his personal website, there are no drawings or paintings as such:
So this is where we are in the year 2020 in the academic art schools. Perhaps one day, a contemporary master will open an academy, open his/her mind and include more of us in his/her curriculum. I adore the mark-making and the academic look of drawings and would love to be part of those collaborations in addition to the more expressionistic ones I am part of already. If only….
“The Message”
AnnMarie Tornabene - A Self-Portrait Photographic Journey 