The Relation of Drawing to Other Subjects

HERMANN WARNER WILLIAMS, GRADUATE STUDENT MASSACHUSETTS NORMAL ART SCHOOL, BOSTON

OME learned person has said that drawing is the art of representing objects by lines made with a point; delineation as distinguished from painting. However, although this definition may be as good as any so far as the word drawing in itself is concerned, when we come to study the topic we cannot but feel that it is not altogether adequate for a perfectly clear understanding of the word.

Consequently let us assume that drawing in this particular case means that study through which it is possible to produce works of art. In other words, the thing we are thinking about is that study in the course of which we shall be introduced to the elementary principles underlying all expressions of art. Or, to repeat, this study should contain within itself sufficient instruction and sufficient training so that a person following faithfully the prescribed course in it should at the end of that course have his mind opened to the possibilities of constructive drawing, decorative drawing, representative drawing, and be possessed of some idea of the beautiful. It is not expected that a person will become expert in these subjects, but simply that he will be able to see the possibilities of them. And the best way to name such a course is to call it a course in drawing, although drawing in reality is only one of many subjects taught in it. Consequently during this course of lessons the following subjects and many more would be taken up :

Constructive drawing.

Patterns.

Architectural drawing.

Pictorial drawing.

Studies of the human figure.
Studies of the animal figure.

Composition.
Color.

Type forms.

Working drawings.

Familiar and beautiful objects.
Landscapes.

All this mass of material comes under the head of drawing, and hereafter whenever we speak of drawing we may mean any one of these subdivisions or all of them combined.

When we come to read our title again we meet the words, other subjects. Now what exactly is meant by other subjects? We can do away with any misunderstanding here by changing our title to read, The Relation of Drawing to Everything Else in the World except the Fine Arts; and by the fine arts, of course, we mean painting, sculpture and architecture. According to this understanding the title means the relation of drawing, proper, and also its subdivisions, to the other activities of the world at large, be they what they may, only excepting those subjects which by reason of their own nature are so closely associated with drawing as to be virtually one and the same thing.

Teachers of drawing are often asked, Why do we study drawing? What good does it do the child? It would seem that such questions are fast becoming obsolete; but at all events we will look the matter over and form an opinion for ourselves. The few simple drawings, or what not, which the children make are not by any means the sole end of the drawing lesson; they are only one indication of the power which the pupil has developed. The fact that a child can do certain sums in arithmetic does not mean that that is all he can do,-just those two or three examples; but it does mean that the child has developed a reasoning power up to that point; that he can handle a multitude of other problems. And the same explanation holds good in drawing. When a child can make a drawing like the one in plate No. 1, it does not mean that the sketch is to be framed and hung on the wall, necessarily, but that the child, besides having acquired the skill needed to make as good a drawing as this, has also been pushing his powers of observation to a higher pitch.

While this drawing is really not very beautiful, still a person

having even as much ability as here shown would find it of considerable use to him in many lines of work. For instance, if we investigate what the effect of a training in drawing is upon photography, we find that an operator with a little knowledge of values and composition will

make prints of considerably more interest than an operator with no training in these subjects. Besides photography it would seem that even a very slight degree of skill would be of use to the milliner in combining colors and arranging textures. Also to the printer in spacing title pages and in handling type for almost any purpose. The merchant also finds a little artistic training of considerable value in dressing shop windows, and clerks are sometimes employed who do nothing else. It is of use also to the military commander in planning his battles, and to the surgeon in studying the body before making an operation. It is, besides this, useful in basketry, weaving, embroidery, dressmaking, household art, pottery, joinery, wood carving, and art metal work.

In fact, it comes up in so many walks of life that it would

No. 1.

be almost a waste of time to pursue this investigation any further. However, last but not least, it seems that a little elementary training in drawing must lead us to an appreciation of the beautiful a great deal more sincere than if we had no understanding of the matter at all; very much as a great many

ex-football men enjoy seeing a football game, even though they be far too old and too infirm to actually take part in the game themselves. While a little skill in drawing is unquestionably .of considerable advantage to almost anybody, exercises in drawing have yet another virtue,-and this virtue is the advantages which arise from having certain faculties developed by this means. The faculties which are developed and strengthened thus are briefly those of observation, the power of mental imagery and manual dexterity.

Somebody has said that drawing "produces ideas and idea associations which would never originate otherwise, deepening and replenishing the mental life." Also that "it widens the range and power of emotional experience and comprehension." Somebody else has said that "the initiative, alertness, and fertility of resource which the American is nowadays credited with displaying, though partly a climatic, is chiefly an educational product." And it would seem that if these faculties are the result of education, drawing can very justly claim to be of great assistance in developing at least two of them; when a child is required to take very slight suggestions from nature or completely abstract terms, and to evolve a design out of them, there cannot be any better way of stimulating and encouraging his inventive and imitative powers.

If I remember rightly, at the time when Greek art was at its height the Greek drama was also in a most flourishing condition. It might be interesting to make a few comparisons between the plastic arts and the theatre of about 400 B. C. and the plastic arts and the theatre of the present day. The principal difference between the ancient tragedy and the modern is that the plot in the Greek drama was taken, with few exceptions, from the national mythology, and so was of necessity known to the spectators. Of course this is not so in the modern play. However, there is no real difference between the arrangement of the two theatres as far as the seats and the stage are concerned, except that the Greek theatre was larger in every way. Of course the Greek actors wore the mask and the cothurnus, and were fewer in number than in the modern presentations, but their entrances and exits and the literary part of the performance were about the same.

The main distinctions between the two exhibitions, it would seem, lie in their methods of presentation. This would include the differences between the stage setting and the different ways in which the two dramatists would make their story real to the spectator. Professor Blümner says the scenery indicated the place of the action, whether a square in front of a palace, or a street with private houses, or a forest. We must not think of the great variety of scenery known to our modern stage; no doubt, too, they were content with very simple execution, merely hinting at the scene required. Suppose we read just a few lines from the Medea of Euripides, and consider how a modern playwright might produce this scene and how Euripides actually did produce it :

"But she, having started from her seat, flies, all on fire, tossing her hair and head on this side and that side, desirous of shaking off the chaplet; but the golden wreath firmly kept its hold; but the fire when she shook her hair blazed out with double fury, and she sinks upon the ground overcome by her sufferings, difficult for anyone except her father to recognize. For neither was the expression of her eyes clear nor her noble countenance, but the blood was dropping from the top of her head mixed with fire. But her flesh was dropping off her bones, as the tear from the pine tree, by the hidden fangs of the poison-a sight of horror. But all feared to touch the body, for we had her fate to warn us."

A novel, She, by Rider Haggard, had a scene in it something like this. A young and beautiful woman is changed by magic into an aged hag, and finally into a heap of ashes. If I have been correctly informed, this change actually takes place before the very eyes of the audience. Therefore it seems very likely that a modern dramatist would present the lines just quoted in very much the same way. The woman would appear to be actually burned before the spectators, the illusion being helped out by all the accessories of modern stage craft. On the other hand, Euripides merely had a messenger report that he had seen these events take place. One reason for this is, maybe, that the Greeks at this time were so trained, and were by nature such an artistic people, that they were perfectly able to image for themselves the scene suggested by the story of the