Darren R. Rousar
Safe in the Arms of Love, 2003. Oil on canvas, 30" x 36". Private collection. Image courtesy of: www.sightsize.com
Darren R. Rousar is an American artist-teacher who lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Since the age of 16, he has been creating art that focuses predominately on Christian themes, as well as teaching art students to see via the Sight-Size Approach. He is the author of several books concerning Sight-Size and memory drawing and has produced an instructional documentary, which explains the principles and methods pertinent to Sight-Size. Mr. Rousar has also been successful in republishing a number of instructional books related to representational drawing and landscape painting. This interview took place between Mr. Rousar and Emilio Longo via email correspondence in November, 2017.
What were your initial exposures to traditional art?
I was always interested in drawing. Sometime in my early teens I saw a large book on Rubens. From then on, I wanted to paint big pictures like he had.
Can you give me a summation of your training thus far?
The best way I can answer this is through a previously written article on: www.sightsize.com:
www.sightsize.com/present/darren-r-rousar/
Beginning at age 16, private study with Annette LeSueur (who was a student of Richard Lack). At age 17, private part-time study with Richard Lack at his atelier for two years, from 1981-82’. Four years at Atelier LeSueur, evening classes at Atelier Lack, and just shy of a year at Studio Cecil-Graves in Florence, Italy.
You also attended a commercial art school for two years. What was the name of the school, what did you gain from your time there, and what was your reason for leaving?
The school was called North Hennepin Technical Center. I attended half days during my senior year of high school, as well as full-time during the year after I graduated. I left after that year because I wanted to pursue traditional art. Furthermore, the curriculum for that year was identical to what I had already done during the half day, high school year. Although I had the highest marks and even won an award for my work done during the preceding year, the new teacher forced me to repeat the same content again. This was so he could keep the entire class together, on the same set of exercises.
I gained very little, actually. Why? Because less than a decade later most things in that field went digital. Then again, I put myself through the ateliers in part by running my own graphic design business. I'm sure some of what I learned informed that endeavor.
Can you share some of your experiences with Richard Lack?
I apologize for responding in this way again, but the main answer is already here:
www.sightsize.com/past/memories-of-richard-lack/
Mr. Lack was a great man and a very giving teacher. I regret not studying with him for a longer period of time. The last time we spoke was at his studio, in the year before he passed. He praised my first book and encouraged me to continue writing.
Did Mr. Lack ever set homework?
Yes and no. But remember, my time with him was as a part-time, high school student. He made suggestions involving memory drawing, anatomy, and perspective study. Much of that was to be done at home because studio time was focused on the model and studio setups (cast, still life, portraits, etc.).
What do you think Mr. Lack’s opinion would be of all the opportunities there now are to study traditional art?
I do not know for certain what he would have thought about the current crop of “ateliers”. But I can tell you two things that I believe he would have agreed with.
First, what goes by the name of “Classical Realism” today is a far cry from anything he had in mind.
Second, historically an atelier was an artist’s working studio. As such, that master taught all of the related subjects, directly to his students. This is what Gammell and Lack did, and this is what Charles Cecil still does. Much of what we have now are ateliers in name only. In fact,
they are more akin to academy’s (many teachers, teaching different aspects of the craft).
Whilst training at “Studio Cecil-Graves,” did you find the teaching methods of Charles H. Cecil to be different to that of Daniel Graves?
It's been almost 30 years ago so that's hard to recall. If anything, Charles seemed more theory-based and Dan more materials-based. But there was a lot of crossover so I'm likely remembering that incorrectly. I resonated with both, for different reasons. I spent a lot of time at Charles' house, discussing painting and art history. The relationship was rekindled six years later when I went back to teach for him. I definitely miss those get-togethers.
Every so often during my Cecil-Graves days, Dan and I would go on mountain biking rides in the hills around Florence. I do not remember much art-talk with him during those adventures though. I recall one ride when he, Daniel Nisser (another Cecil-Graves student), and I were coming down through Fiesole. Dan (Graves) almost got hit by a truck and he braked so hard that he flew right over the front of his handle bars! Needless to say, we got an ambulance to him.
I was always interested in drawing. Sometime in my early teens I saw a large book on Rubens. From then on, I wanted to paint big pictures like he had.
Can you give me a summation of your training thus far?
The best way I can answer this is through a previously written article on: www.sightsize.com:
www.sightsize.com/present/darren-r-rousar/
Beginning at age 16, private study with Annette LeSueur (who was a student of Richard Lack). At age 17, private part-time study with Richard Lack at his atelier for two years, from 1981-82’. Four years at Atelier LeSueur, evening classes at Atelier Lack, and just shy of a year at Studio Cecil-Graves in Florence, Italy.
You also attended a commercial art school for two years. What was the name of the school, what did you gain from your time there, and what was your reason for leaving?
The school was called North Hennepin Technical Center. I attended half days during my senior year of high school, as well as full-time during the year after I graduated. I left after that year because I wanted to pursue traditional art. Furthermore, the curriculum for that year was identical to what I had already done during the half day, high school year. Although I had the highest marks and even won an award for my work done during the preceding year, the new teacher forced me to repeat the same content again. This was so he could keep the entire class together, on the same set of exercises.
I gained very little, actually. Why? Because less than a decade later most things in that field went digital. Then again, I put myself through the ateliers in part by running my own graphic design business. I'm sure some of what I learned informed that endeavor.
Can you share some of your experiences with Richard Lack?
I apologize for responding in this way again, but the main answer is already here:
www.sightsize.com/past/memories-of-richard-lack/
Mr. Lack was a great man and a very giving teacher. I regret not studying with him for a longer period of time. The last time we spoke was at his studio, in the year before he passed. He praised my first book and encouraged me to continue writing.
Did Mr. Lack ever set homework?
Yes and no. But remember, my time with him was as a part-time, high school student. He made suggestions involving memory drawing, anatomy, and perspective study. Much of that was to be done at home because studio time was focused on the model and studio setups (cast, still life, portraits, etc.).
What do you think Mr. Lack’s opinion would be of all the opportunities there now are to study traditional art?
I do not know for certain what he would have thought about the current crop of “ateliers”. But I can tell you two things that I believe he would have agreed with.
First, what goes by the name of “Classical Realism” today is a far cry from anything he had in mind.
Second, historically an atelier was an artist’s working studio. As such, that master taught all of the related subjects, directly to his students. This is what Gammell and Lack did, and this is what Charles Cecil still does. Much of what we have now are ateliers in name only. In fact,
they are more akin to academy’s (many teachers, teaching different aspects of the craft).
Whilst training at “Studio Cecil-Graves,” did you find the teaching methods of Charles H. Cecil to be different to that of Daniel Graves?
It's been almost 30 years ago so that's hard to recall. If anything, Charles seemed more theory-based and Dan more materials-based. But there was a lot of crossover so I'm likely remembering that incorrectly. I resonated with both, for different reasons. I spent a lot of time at Charles' house, discussing painting and art history. The relationship was rekindled six years later when I went back to teach for him. I definitely miss those get-togethers.
Every so often during my Cecil-Graves days, Dan and I would go on mountain biking rides in the hills around Florence. I do not remember much art-talk with him during those adventures though. I recall one ride when he, Daniel Nisser (another Cecil-Graves student), and I were coming down through Fiesole. Dan (Graves) almost got hit by a truck and he braked so hard that he flew right over the front of his handle bars! Needless to say, we got an ambulance to him.
One of the many cast drawing starts that Mr. Rousar did in his earlier years of training with Richard Lack, circa 1981-82. Charcoal on paper, 18" x 28". Collection of the artist. Image courtesy of: www.sightsize.com
During the twentieth century, the presence of Nerina Simi and Pietro Annigoni in Italy helped keep the realist tradition alive. Art students who approached Annigoni for training were often sent to Simi. Are you aware of the curriculum that was used in “Studio Simi”?
Information about Simi’s teaching methods is nonexistent, as far as I know. I knew two of her former students (one quite well) and neither cared to comment when I asked them about Simi. That is a shame, but so be it. When Simi is mentioned, it is most often regarding the daughter, Nerina. It was her father, Filadelfo, who had studied with Gérôme.
Yes, Annigoni sent numerous young students to Nerina. I know two who Annigoni did teach though, and from their off-hand remarks I deduce that Annigoni simply did not want to bother with beginning students. Remember though, that is merely my opinion, not fact.
A case might be made that R. H. Ives Gammell did more to keep the tradition alive than did Simi (or Annigoni, for that matter). I mention this not for partisan reasons (though I am in his lineage), but because he taught so many. And, his students have gone on to teach so many. Finally, his teaching approach is well documented.
By the way, Gammell, in his unpublished autobiography talks about the enigma of Annigoni's background. As I recall, having not read the manuscript in a while, he eventually learned that Annigoni's training came principally from a Russian painter who had been sent to Florence to make copies. Others, more in the know about Annigoni, should confirm that though.
Do you care to comment on R.H. Ives Gammell and the “Boston School”?
I have the good fortune of knowing numerous Gammell students. All of them tell me similar stories, and during their tellings many of them seamlessly drift into imitations of how Gammell spoke. It's quite funny. He was classic turn-of-the-century, upper class, New England. That probably means nothing to non-Americans though.
A few have told me that Gammell said of himself, "All art history passes through me." As prideful as that sounds, the more I learn of him from those former students, as well as from his writings, the more I believe it. Notice too that he did not say that all art history passes 'only' through him. To come to a better understanding of Gammell's point of view, everyone should read his book, Twilight of Painting.
I love the Boston School artists, for various reasons. Foremost among those reasons is their attention to seeing the whole, the big-look, the ensemble, the unity of effect. Both Gammell and Lack based their teaching on that concept. Charles Cecil still does. I try to do the same.
As an interesting aside, a few years back I had the pleasure of teaching two of Edmund Tarbell's great-great grandsons (Henry and Edmund). Through them, I was able to look at a few of Tarbell's sketchbooks.
During your training, did any of your teachers’ use specific terminology to explain certain concepts?
Yes, and I write about those in the Aphorisms category on: www.sightsize.com:
www.sightsize.com/category/aphorisms/
Did any of your teachers’ train you in using the drawing stump to model values?
No, we never used a stump. The reasons were that it was imprecise and that it was too easy to mar the paper. We were taught to always preserve the ability to erase. Stumping can hinder that.
Information about Simi’s teaching methods is nonexistent, as far as I know. I knew two of her former students (one quite well) and neither cared to comment when I asked them about Simi. That is a shame, but so be it. When Simi is mentioned, it is most often regarding the daughter, Nerina. It was her father, Filadelfo, who had studied with Gérôme.
Yes, Annigoni sent numerous young students to Nerina. I know two who Annigoni did teach though, and from their off-hand remarks I deduce that Annigoni simply did not want to bother with beginning students. Remember though, that is merely my opinion, not fact.
A case might be made that R. H. Ives Gammell did more to keep the tradition alive than did Simi (or Annigoni, for that matter). I mention this not for partisan reasons (though I am in his lineage), but because he taught so many. And, his students have gone on to teach so many. Finally, his teaching approach is well documented.
By the way, Gammell, in his unpublished autobiography talks about the enigma of Annigoni's background. As I recall, having not read the manuscript in a while, he eventually learned that Annigoni's training came principally from a Russian painter who had been sent to Florence to make copies. Others, more in the know about Annigoni, should confirm that though.
Do you care to comment on R.H. Ives Gammell and the “Boston School”?
I have the good fortune of knowing numerous Gammell students. All of them tell me similar stories, and during their tellings many of them seamlessly drift into imitations of how Gammell spoke. It's quite funny. He was classic turn-of-the-century, upper class, New England. That probably means nothing to non-Americans though.
A few have told me that Gammell said of himself, "All art history passes through me." As prideful as that sounds, the more I learn of him from those former students, as well as from his writings, the more I believe it. Notice too that he did not say that all art history passes 'only' through him. To come to a better understanding of Gammell's point of view, everyone should read his book, Twilight of Painting.
I love the Boston School artists, for various reasons. Foremost among those reasons is their attention to seeing the whole, the big-look, the ensemble, the unity of effect. Both Gammell and Lack based their teaching on that concept. Charles Cecil still does. I try to do the same.
As an interesting aside, a few years back I had the pleasure of teaching two of Edmund Tarbell's great-great grandsons (Henry and Edmund). Through them, I was able to look at a few of Tarbell's sketchbooks.
During your training, did any of your teachers’ use specific terminology to explain certain concepts?
Yes, and I write about those in the Aphorisms category on: www.sightsize.com:
www.sightsize.com/category/aphorisms/
Did any of your teachers’ train you in using the drawing stump to model values?
No, we never used a stump. The reasons were that it was imprecise and that it was too easy to mar the paper. We were taught to always preserve the ability to erase. Stumping can hinder that.
The Holy Family, 2004. Oil on canvas, 35.5". Private collection. Image courtesy of: www.sightsize.com
In my opinion, you are a leading authority on the “Sight-Size Approach.” What is it about this approach to measuring that fascinates you?
Before he passed, Mr. Lack told me much the same thing, so thank you.
I have to say, though, that I never wanted or want Sight-Size to be about me. In fact, I try to limit my overt presence on the www.sightsize.com website as much as possible. Yes, I write the articles, but they are usually about the subject at hand rather than being about me.
Let me also mention something which I feel is important. To be clear, even though most use the term ‘method’, Sight-Size is more than a method. To me, a method implies a prescribed step-be-step list of things to do. An “approach” is broader than that. It includes the philosophy behind it, the reasons for following it, and the method of doing it. That said, I know this is a battle which I will never fully win.
To your question though, one of the critiques of Sight-Size is that it requires measuring. I've always found that a bit perplexing. Any serious study of any method of representing what you see will reveal that measuring is what they are all about. Likewise, any serious approach to learning to see will also have as one of the goals, the weaning of the student off of mechanical means and into a reliance on their well-trained eye.
The key difference between Sight-Size and the others is that Sight-Size provides a direct visual standard to which to train your eye to accurately see. All learning requires such a standard. The visual standard is the shape, value, color, or edge of what you are trying to represent. In Sight-Size, that standard is visually one-to-one with your artwork. Therefore, you do not have to first visually scale what you are representing.
Of course other ways can work, and have for centuries. But why make it more difficult on the student by requiring them to scale from the outset? Do beginning musicians learn to read music by first having to convert from a different key? No. So why should learning to see be any different?
Where do you believe the approach originates from?
That is unknown, though the process of doing it is simple and logical. As such, it was likely being done long before it was given a name. Many say its antecedent rests with some of Alberti and Leonardo's writings. I tend to agree.
I have an entire chapter on the history of Sight-Size in The Sight-Size Cast:
www.sightsize.com/the-sight-size-cast/
Regarding the hand held plumb line used for Sight-Size; does the length of thread, or straight edge (knitting needle) have historical precedence?
The only requirement for the thread length is that it needs to be long enough to visually cover the scene when your arm(s) is extended while in the viewing position.
I've never used a needle so I cannot answer that.
Do you care to comment on the “Sight-Size vs Comparative Measurement” debate?
I think my earlier answer might have done just that. I'll add to it though. The student should learn both approaches. When I was at the various ateliers, we spent most of our time in Sight-Size. But we also spent a small amount of time each week doing comparative measurement projects.
Still, the student should first learn to see. After that, learning to accurately scale is quite simple.
What is your opinion on an early method of measuring known as “encajar”?
As you might imagine, when a term with purported historical connections like that pops up, I'm interested!
I've been in this space (both in the States and Europe) for over 30 years now and did not encounter the term until I saw it on the Lavender Hill Studios website in late 2012. I did not recall seeing it on earlier versions of their site. A few years later, their use of the term seemed to go away. That site is now just a placeholder image.
Two of the school's founders, Scott Pohlschmidt and Ann Witheridge, attended Charles H. Cecil Studios. I knew Scott quite well when I was teaching for Charles in the mid-90s. Ann must have attended after I left. I highly doubt that Scott and Ann were taught encajar at Cecil's. Scott sure wasn't when I was there.
I only know of the third founder, Nick Bashall, through the old Lavender Hill Studios website. He trained for 5 years in Spain. My initial guess, back in 2012, was that the term came down through Nick from his years in Spain. Looking into it a little further then, I saw articles by Nick in a few Artists & Illustrators Magazines. In them, he sometimes wrote 'encajar' and other times 'encasing a composition.' In one article, Nick mentioned that the term came from Spain.
It appears that Lavender Hill Studios is no more and that in 2015 Scott and Ann founded London Fine Art Studios. Nick seems to have teamed up with a Studio Cecil-Graves alumnus, Nicky Philipps, to found Studios Bashall Philipps. I find no reference to encajar on either schools' websites’, nor on their founder's personal sites’.
As I recall from the old Lavender Hill Studios website and the articles, the term described a blocking-in process that begins in a broader way than a traditional block-in. One finds the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the entire scene/setup/bust/etc., then breaks them down into smaller increments and so on.
Some of the diagrams in the Artists & Illustrators articles made me think of Mancini’s Graticola. The difference is that Mancini actually had a physical Graticola next to his canvas, between him and his subject. With encajar, there's nothing physical there, so you're kind of imagining it based upon the lines and boundaries of the subject in front of you.
The approach is clearly sound, but I find it odd that there is nothing on the web about drawing and encajar that does not ultimately trace its roots back to Lavender Hill Studios. That, in addition to the way in which the term disappeared from the website (as well as being absent on those which followed it), leads me to believe that encajar is either a localized art term from Spain, or it was a marketing term for Lavender Hill Studios. Since I do not speak Spanish, I could easily be wrong.
Before he passed, Mr. Lack told me much the same thing, so thank you.
I have to say, though, that I never wanted or want Sight-Size to be about me. In fact, I try to limit my overt presence on the www.sightsize.com website as much as possible. Yes, I write the articles, but they are usually about the subject at hand rather than being about me.
Let me also mention something which I feel is important. To be clear, even though most use the term ‘method’, Sight-Size is more than a method. To me, a method implies a prescribed step-be-step list of things to do. An “approach” is broader than that. It includes the philosophy behind it, the reasons for following it, and the method of doing it. That said, I know this is a battle which I will never fully win.
To your question though, one of the critiques of Sight-Size is that it requires measuring. I've always found that a bit perplexing. Any serious study of any method of representing what you see will reveal that measuring is what they are all about. Likewise, any serious approach to learning to see will also have as one of the goals, the weaning of the student off of mechanical means and into a reliance on their well-trained eye.
The key difference between Sight-Size and the others is that Sight-Size provides a direct visual standard to which to train your eye to accurately see. All learning requires such a standard. The visual standard is the shape, value, color, or edge of what you are trying to represent. In Sight-Size, that standard is visually one-to-one with your artwork. Therefore, you do not have to first visually scale what you are representing.
Of course other ways can work, and have for centuries. But why make it more difficult on the student by requiring them to scale from the outset? Do beginning musicians learn to read music by first having to convert from a different key? No. So why should learning to see be any different?
Where do you believe the approach originates from?
That is unknown, though the process of doing it is simple and logical. As such, it was likely being done long before it was given a name. Many say its antecedent rests with some of Alberti and Leonardo's writings. I tend to agree.
I have an entire chapter on the history of Sight-Size in The Sight-Size Cast:
www.sightsize.com/the-sight-size-cast/
Regarding the hand held plumb line used for Sight-Size; does the length of thread, or straight edge (knitting needle) have historical precedence?
The only requirement for the thread length is that it needs to be long enough to visually cover the scene when your arm(s) is extended while in the viewing position.
I've never used a needle so I cannot answer that.
Do you care to comment on the “Sight-Size vs Comparative Measurement” debate?
I think my earlier answer might have done just that. I'll add to it though. The student should learn both approaches. When I was at the various ateliers, we spent most of our time in Sight-Size. But we also spent a small amount of time each week doing comparative measurement projects.
Still, the student should first learn to see. After that, learning to accurately scale is quite simple.
What is your opinion on an early method of measuring known as “encajar”?
As you might imagine, when a term with purported historical connections like that pops up, I'm interested!
I've been in this space (both in the States and Europe) for over 30 years now and did not encounter the term until I saw it on the Lavender Hill Studios website in late 2012. I did not recall seeing it on earlier versions of their site. A few years later, their use of the term seemed to go away. That site is now just a placeholder image.
Two of the school's founders, Scott Pohlschmidt and Ann Witheridge, attended Charles H. Cecil Studios. I knew Scott quite well when I was teaching for Charles in the mid-90s. Ann must have attended after I left. I highly doubt that Scott and Ann were taught encajar at Cecil's. Scott sure wasn't when I was there.
I only know of the third founder, Nick Bashall, through the old Lavender Hill Studios website. He trained for 5 years in Spain. My initial guess, back in 2012, was that the term came down through Nick from his years in Spain. Looking into it a little further then, I saw articles by Nick in a few Artists & Illustrators Magazines. In them, he sometimes wrote 'encajar' and other times 'encasing a composition.' In one article, Nick mentioned that the term came from Spain.
It appears that Lavender Hill Studios is no more and that in 2015 Scott and Ann founded London Fine Art Studios. Nick seems to have teamed up with a Studio Cecil-Graves alumnus, Nicky Philipps, to found Studios Bashall Philipps. I find no reference to encajar on either schools' websites’, nor on their founder's personal sites’.
As I recall from the old Lavender Hill Studios website and the articles, the term described a blocking-in process that begins in a broader way than a traditional block-in. One finds the horizontal and vertical boundaries of the entire scene/setup/bust/etc., then breaks them down into smaller increments and so on.
Some of the diagrams in the Artists & Illustrators articles made me think of Mancini’s Graticola. The difference is that Mancini actually had a physical Graticola next to his canvas, between him and his subject. With encajar, there's nothing physical there, so you're kind of imagining it based upon the lines and boundaries of the subject in front of you.
The approach is clearly sound, but I find it odd that there is nothing on the web about drawing and encajar that does not ultimately trace its roots back to Lavender Hill Studios. That, in addition to the way in which the term disappeared from the website (as well as being absent on those which followed it), leads me to believe that encajar is either a localized art term from Spain, or it was a marketing term for Lavender Hill Studios. Since I do not speak Spanish, I could easily be wrong.
A cast drawing by Mr. Rousar, 2007. Charcoal on paper, 18" x 28". Collection of the artist. Image courtesy of: www.sightsize.com
As well as Sight-Size, you also emphasise the importance of drawing from memory. Can you give a brief explanation on how memory exercises would fit into the overall training of the pre-twentieth century art student?
Visual memory training is incredibly important and yet largely neglected. As a curriculum subject, it was probably as uncommon pre-twentieth century as it is now. Degas talked about it, but did not seem to act on it. Boisbuadran made it the foundation of his teaching, and that influenced Rodin, Whistler, Fantin-Latour, among others.
Unfortunately, that influence seems to have mostly died out with that generation. I think that, due to the rise of modernism and non-representational art, memory drawing as a subject was largely left by the wayside.
You have been successful in publishing a number of books on Sight-Size drawing and painting, as well as republishing older instructional books that were once out of print. Why did you feel a need to do this and do you have plans for more books in the future?
Many reasons caused me to write that first book, and each time I look back (it has now been ten years), one or another reason takes precedence in my mind. At the moment, I recall having read a book back then that briefly mentioned Sight-Size, but got it precisely wrong. It was clear that the bad information was being used to promote their own method—a version of dirty politics. Shortly thereafter, I came to realize that someone needed to present the facts in tangible form. Mr. Lack had no plans to do so. Neither did Charles Cecil. So I did. A year or two later, one of Charles assistants, Nick Beer, also wrote a book about Sight-Size.
The out of print books I have published are those that interested me for one reason or another. At the time, no one else had done reprints of them.
Yes, I have plans for more books, among other things.
To further flesh out the history of my involvement, see this recent article:
www.sightsize.com/articles/ten-years-later/
In developing your book; “Memory Drawing: Perceptual Training and Recall,” what influence, if any, did the work of Horace Lecoq de Boisbaudran, Marie Elisabeth Blavet Cavé and Edwin George Lutz have on your research?
In various ways, Boisbaudran’s book is the key to mine, Cavé and Lutz’s work. That said, he presented more of an outline to the process, in an attempt to validate it to the government. That’s one of the reasons I wrote my book, to better systematize the process, based largely on my own experiences through Richard Lack.
Cavé's book was directed towards the teaching of children, regardless of how impressed Delacroix was with it. I cannot recall what influence her book had on mine.
Although I am a big fan of E.G. Lutz, his memory drawing book is based upon constructive analysis as opposed to seeing. That was a non-starter for me. Learning and recalling formulas is fine if you want to draw from your imagination. But if you want to draw from nature, you should learn to see, as well as learn to remember what was seen.
Visual memory training is incredibly important and yet largely neglected. As a curriculum subject, it was probably as uncommon pre-twentieth century as it is now. Degas talked about it, but did not seem to act on it. Boisbuadran made it the foundation of his teaching, and that influenced Rodin, Whistler, Fantin-Latour, among others.
Unfortunately, that influence seems to have mostly died out with that generation. I think that, due to the rise of modernism and non-representational art, memory drawing as a subject was largely left by the wayside.
You have been successful in publishing a number of books on Sight-Size drawing and painting, as well as republishing older instructional books that were once out of print. Why did you feel a need to do this and do you have plans for more books in the future?
Many reasons caused me to write that first book, and each time I look back (it has now been ten years), one or another reason takes precedence in my mind. At the moment, I recall having read a book back then that briefly mentioned Sight-Size, but got it precisely wrong. It was clear that the bad information was being used to promote their own method—a version of dirty politics. Shortly thereafter, I came to realize that someone needed to present the facts in tangible form. Mr. Lack had no plans to do so. Neither did Charles Cecil. So I did. A year or two later, one of Charles assistants, Nick Beer, also wrote a book about Sight-Size.
The out of print books I have published are those that interested me for one reason or another. At the time, no one else had done reprints of them.
Yes, I have plans for more books, among other things.
To further flesh out the history of my involvement, see this recent article:
www.sightsize.com/articles/ten-years-later/
In developing your book; “Memory Drawing: Perceptual Training and Recall,” what influence, if any, did the work of Horace Lecoq de Boisbaudran, Marie Elisabeth Blavet Cavé and Edwin George Lutz have on your research?
In various ways, Boisbaudran’s book is the key to mine, Cavé and Lutz’s work. That said, he presented more of an outline to the process, in an attempt to validate it to the government. That’s one of the reasons I wrote my book, to better systematize the process, based largely on my own experiences through Richard Lack.
Cavé's book was directed towards the teaching of children, regardless of how impressed Delacroix was with it. I cannot recall what influence her book had on mine.
Although I am a big fan of E.G. Lutz, his memory drawing book is based upon constructive analysis as opposed to seeing. That was a non-starter for me. Learning and recalling formulas is fine if you want to draw from your imagination. But if you want to draw from nature, you should learn to see, as well as learn to remember what was seen.
Doubting Thomas, 2002. Oil on canvas, 45" x 49". Private collection. Image courtesy of: www.sightsize.com
What is your opinion of the contemporary "atelier movement" and what's your thoughts on the quality of work being produced by the current schools?
My opinion of the "atelier movement" is mixed. On the one hand, it's wonderful! The sheer number of opportunities available to aspiring artists is now quite vast. On the other hand, anyone can start a school, atelier, or academy. There are no standards, no seals of approval. Neither the State nor the Church sponsors art nor art schools anymore. And perhaps that's good. The market eventually sorts things out when given the opportunity.
As for my thoughts on the quality of work coming out of the schools, overall, I think the quality is quite high.
Do you think "Classical Realism" is still an appropriate term to describe the artwork being produced today?
The term "Classical Realism", however initially convoluted, had a singular meaning and purpose. It was coined by Richard Lack, somewhat reluctantly, in an effort to define the difference between his and the various strands of representational artists working at the time. To describe most of what is being done at present as Classical Realism is factually incorrect. In fact, much of the work currently going under the name is exactly what Lack was differentiating himself and his followers from, when he made up the term.
I realize saying that by this, even when Lack defined it, draws a line in the sand. It was never really meant to, however. Remember, he was drawing a distinction, not trying to create a hierarchy of value or legitimacy. To summarize, precious few understand what the term means. So my answer is no, overall it is no longer an appropriate term. Perhaps it never was.
Unfortunately, I see very few artists who stem from Gammell having much of an impact on the "movement" anymore. As such, Classical Realism as a descriptive term is now hopelessly lost.
Do you think we have reached a technical level of proficiency, that can be compared to nineteenth century and earlier practices? If not, what do you think we are missing?
Personally, I am nowhere near it with my own work. Then again, my ideals lay further back in time than the nineteenth century. I'll take a Titian, Velazquez, or a van Dyck over a Bouguereau, any day!
When I look at some of the work coming from schools such as; The Florence Academy of Art and Grand Central Atelier, among others, I think that yes, 'we' have reached that level in some areas.
What are we missing? Simply put, time. We are coming out of the dark age of Modernism. That takes time.
How do you think gesture can be addressed in atelier training?
I've had mixed feelings about gesture drawing over the years. Although I rarely mention it, I attended two years of commercial art training. Figure drawing at that school was a mixture of gesture drawing and blind contour drawing. The latter is just silly and a waste of time. Neither was done at any of the ateliers I attended.
I do not think that there is anything inherently wrong with gesture drawing. Sorry to say, I've not given it much thought as it relates to art instruction though.
My opinion of the "atelier movement" is mixed. On the one hand, it's wonderful! The sheer number of opportunities available to aspiring artists is now quite vast. On the other hand, anyone can start a school, atelier, or academy. There are no standards, no seals of approval. Neither the State nor the Church sponsors art nor art schools anymore. And perhaps that's good. The market eventually sorts things out when given the opportunity.
As for my thoughts on the quality of work coming out of the schools, overall, I think the quality is quite high.
Do you think "Classical Realism" is still an appropriate term to describe the artwork being produced today?
The term "Classical Realism", however initially convoluted, had a singular meaning and purpose. It was coined by Richard Lack, somewhat reluctantly, in an effort to define the difference between his and the various strands of representational artists working at the time. To describe most of what is being done at present as Classical Realism is factually incorrect. In fact, much of the work currently going under the name is exactly what Lack was differentiating himself and his followers from, when he made up the term.
I realize saying that by this, even when Lack defined it, draws a line in the sand. It was never really meant to, however. Remember, he was drawing a distinction, not trying to create a hierarchy of value or legitimacy. To summarize, precious few understand what the term means. So my answer is no, overall it is no longer an appropriate term. Perhaps it never was.
Unfortunately, I see very few artists who stem from Gammell having much of an impact on the "movement" anymore. As such, Classical Realism as a descriptive term is now hopelessly lost.
Do you think we have reached a technical level of proficiency, that can be compared to nineteenth century and earlier practices? If not, what do you think we are missing?
Personally, I am nowhere near it with my own work. Then again, my ideals lay further back in time than the nineteenth century. I'll take a Titian, Velazquez, or a van Dyck over a Bouguereau, any day!
When I look at some of the work coming from schools such as; The Florence Academy of Art and Grand Central Atelier, among others, I think that yes, 'we' have reached that level in some areas.
What are we missing? Simply put, time. We are coming out of the dark age of Modernism. That takes time.
How do you think gesture can be addressed in atelier training?
I've had mixed feelings about gesture drawing over the years. Although I rarely mention it, I attended two years of commercial art training. Figure drawing at that school was a mixture of gesture drawing and blind contour drawing. The latter is just silly and a waste of time. Neither was done at any of the ateliers I attended.
I do not think that there is anything inherently wrong with gesture drawing. Sorry to say, I've not given it much thought as it relates to art instruction though.
The Last Supper, 1996-1998. Oil on canvas, 40" x 48". Collection of Providence Academy, Plymouth, Minnesota. Image courtesy of: www.sightsize.com
Do you believe photography is a useful tool for the "atelier trained" artist?
I have a love/hate relationship with photography. As a young teen, I bought my first camera and learned how to develop my own film. I enjoy taking photographs and now own some fairly high-end equipment. In the past, I've taught classes on photography.
But as an artist, I detest using photographs. In fact, I got out of the portrait painting business in the early 2000's precisely because of the photograph. The two galleries which represented me strongly suggested (demanded?) that I stop requiring sittings and instead use photo reference.
It's not necessarily a principle for me. Rather, it's a combination of enjoyment and quality. I find that using photographs is not fun, at all. Part of why it's not fun for me is that I spent so much time dealing with the differences between nature and the photographic image. Despite what many profess, they are not the same. Of course, that puts me on the Luddite side of the debate, and that's fine.
I should add that if using photo reference helps and is enjoyable to others, that's great. The only judgement I'll make is that if the resulting painting looks like a photograph, and that was not the intention, then what was the point? If, however, it does not look like a photograph (e.g. some of Anders Zorn's work, among many others), then it's wonderful.
With all that in mind, overall I believe that photography can be a useful tool for the “atelier trained” artist. This is a grey area, however, and I would never allow photo reference in any atelier of mine. On the other side, using photo reference effectively (i.e. resulting in a painting which does not look like a photograph) is a learned skill. So some discussion of how one handles that might be in order. At the same time, really learning to see nature instantly reveals the differences between it and a photo of it. At that point, I guess it comes down to whether the artist enjoys converting what the photo is showing them or not.
Technical training is only half of an art student's development. How can the contemporary schools address the intellectual side of their formation, to ultimately help them develop their aesthetic sensibilities?
That is a larger topic that I can do justice to in my answer. Overall, however, the best way to do that is to spend time studying the intellectual side of our predecessors. Why did they create what they did? What drove them? What were they trying to say? Furthermore, the literate public of the past was different than today's version. That problem needs correcting at a time far earlier than when one gets into art school.
However, Gammell regularly sent his students to the opera. He also gave them a library card and expected them to use it. He often discussed their readings with them.
I understand you teach art to school students in your town. What curriculum do you follow in such a setting?
Believe it or not, I am a Evangelical Protestant who teaches at a private Catholic school. I was hired, in part, due to a brochure I put out which was marketing some of my devotional paintings. Upon hiring me the school's founder left me with 6 words, "Teach my kids how to draw." In that he has 9 children, and the school enrolls 950, I was never entirely sure exactly who he meant! As it is, I have taught all 9 of his own, plus, at some point, just about every student who goes through the school.
The answer to the curriculum question is a bit complex because I am now one of three art teachers at the school. They bring other influences and traditions. Each year is also a bit different, but in general I teach the 4th, 6th, 9th and 10th graders. I take all of the aforementioned grades through a series of Sight-Size drawing projects (mostly from the flat), as well as some comparative ones. We also emphasize 1 and 2-point perspective skills, beginning with the 6th graders and continuing through 10th grade.
The younger grades go through parts of E. G. Lutz's Drawing Made Easy, which I have republished and, relative to the classes, amended to fit the Sight-Size approach. I take the older students through parts of Bargue's course. We do much of that in Sight-Size, some comparatively, and also use them for memory drawing exercises.
Given the allowed classroom space, along with the sheer number of students, I cannot at present do much by way of traditional Sight-Size cast instruction. At times, I have done that with some of the students during the summer, however.
I have a love/hate relationship with photography. As a young teen, I bought my first camera and learned how to develop my own film. I enjoy taking photographs and now own some fairly high-end equipment. In the past, I've taught classes on photography.
But as an artist, I detest using photographs. In fact, I got out of the portrait painting business in the early 2000's precisely because of the photograph. The two galleries which represented me strongly suggested (demanded?) that I stop requiring sittings and instead use photo reference.
It's not necessarily a principle for me. Rather, it's a combination of enjoyment and quality. I find that using photographs is not fun, at all. Part of why it's not fun for me is that I spent so much time dealing with the differences between nature and the photographic image. Despite what many profess, they are not the same. Of course, that puts me on the Luddite side of the debate, and that's fine.
I should add that if using photo reference helps and is enjoyable to others, that's great. The only judgement I'll make is that if the resulting painting looks like a photograph, and that was not the intention, then what was the point? If, however, it does not look like a photograph (e.g. some of Anders Zorn's work, among many others), then it's wonderful.
With all that in mind, overall I believe that photography can be a useful tool for the “atelier trained” artist. This is a grey area, however, and I would never allow photo reference in any atelier of mine. On the other side, using photo reference effectively (i.e. resulting in a painting which does not look like a photograph) is a learned skill. So some discussion of how one handles that might be in order. At the same time, really learning to see nature instantly reveals the differences between it and a photo of it. At that point, I guess it comes down to whether the artist enjoys converting what the photo is showing them or not.
Technical training is only half of an art student's development. How can the contemporary schools address the intellectual side of their formation, to ultimately help them develop their aesthetic sensibilities?
That is a larger topic that I can do justice to in my answer. Overall, however, the best way to do that is to spend time studying the intellectual side of our predecessors. Why did they create what they did? What drove them? What were they trying to say? Furthermore, the literate public of the past was different than today's version. That problem needs correcting at a time far earlier than when one gets into art school.
However, Gammell regularly sent his students to the opera. He also gave them a library card and expected them to use it. He often discussed their readings with them.
I understand you teach art to school students in your town. What curriculum do you follow in such a setting?
Believe it or not, I am a Evangelical Protestant who teaches at a private Catholic school. I was hired, in part, due to a brochure I put out which was marketing some of my devotional paintings. Upon hiring me the school's founder left me with 6 words, "Teach my kids how to draw." In that he has 9 children, and the school enrolls 950, I was never entirely sure exactly who he meant! As it is, I have taught all 9 of his own, plus, at some point, just about every student who goes through the school.
The answer to the curriculum question is a bit complex because I am now one of three art teachers at the school. They bring other influences and traditions. Each year is also a bit different, but in general I teach the 4th, 6th, 9th and 10th graders. I take all of the aforementioned grades through a series of Sight-Size drawing projects (mostly from the flat), as well as some comparative ones. We also emphasize 1 and 2-point perspective skills, beginning with the 6th graders and continuing through 10th grade.
The younger grades go through parts of E. G. Lutz's Drawing Made Easy, which I have republished and, relative to the classes, amended to fit the Sight-Size approach. I take the older students through parts of Bargue's course. We do much of that in Sight-Size, some comparatively, and also use them for memory drawing exercises.
Given the allowed classroom space, along with the sheer number of students, I cannot at present do much by way of traditional Sight-Size cast instruction. At times, I have done that with some of the students during the summer, however.
Christ Carrying the Cross, 2001. Oil on canvas, 30" x 44". Collection of the artist. Image courtesy of: www.sightsize.com
You tend to focus on Christian themes in your work. Many well-trained artists seem to be creating religious inspired artworks. Why do you think so many realists today are finding their faith? Does it have something to do with the search for truth and beauty?
Interesting question. Let me begin by saying that my output for the last ten years has been almost exclusively geared towards content that helps with instruction, rather than pursuing my own vision as an artist.
Anyway, I'm on kind of a self-imposed island. I don't attend conventions or generally belong to arts groups (beyond a few on Facebook). I was therefore not aware that a lot of artists are doing religious inspired work. I think that's wonderful to hear though. My guess is that yes, it has something to do with truth and beauty. Then again, we paint what inspires us. Therefore, it's only natural that a person of faith would want to express that faith through their art.
What do you think the meaning behind contemporary realism is?
Hmmm? I am not sure how to answer that. Collectively, is there a meaning?
Do you care to comment on the status of the art world?
No. But not because I'm being difficult. I just don't pay that much attention to it.
I think many would agree that your websites’ have provided us all with invaluable resources. Why do you feel the need to keep adding to and expanding your content?
Thank you. Why I do it is for two reasons. First, I love teaching people how to accurately see. I even taught while I was a student at Atelier LeSueur, so it's something I have always done.
Second, I cannot seem to stop getting ideas of things about which to write. Just now, while thinking about the answer to your measuring question, the phrase "tools of the trade" pops into my head. And thus, is birthed an upcoming article on the www.sightsize.com website!
Just after this interview, Mr. Rousar published this article:
www.sightsize.com/articles/tools-of-the-trade/
If there were only five books you could recommend to art students, what would they be?
Well, that puts me on the spot! Let me preempt my answer by assuming that the student's first goal was to learn to see. With that in mind, in no particular order:
1. R. H. Ives Gammell's, Twilight of Painting.
2. The Sight-Size Cast. Yes, it's my book. But teaching the student to see is why I wrote it.
3. Memory Drawing: Perceptual Training and Recall. Again, it's my book. Like The Sight-Size Cast, there are no others which have that subject as a goal for the book.
4. R.A.M. Stevenson's, The Art of Velasquez. This book is over 100 years old (you can find it in digital format for free), and it was written by a friend of Sargent's, a fellow student with him at Carolus-Duran's atelier. He spells Velazquez with an 's', by the way.
5. Harold Speed's, The Practice and Science of Drawing. This is also old enough that free online versions are available.
If the goal was not primarily learning to see, but rather specifically learning to draw or paint (and I was still limited to only five books), I would recommend exchanging my two books for Juliette Aristides first two books (Classical Drawing Atelier and Classical Painting Atelier). She presents more of a form-based, knowledge-over-sight approach to drawing and painting. I would also swap out Stevenson's book for Speed's second book, Oil Painting Techniques and Materials.
See how I snuck three more books into my list of five!
What advice would you give to a young art student today?
Without question, first learn to see! I would say that even were the student attending a non-Sight-Size atelier.
Second, have a story, but do not let that story put blinders on you. By story, I mean have a reason to be an artist.
Regarding blinders, some (and I definitely include myself as a student in this) are so focused on painting their story that they miss the trees for the forest. The opportunities I wasted as an atelier student (especially in Florence) because I was obsessed with religious art stun and sadden me to this day.
Where do you see your life's work heading in the future?
In addition to young adults, I've run summertime short courses for adults in the past. I plan on continuing that. I currently have a number of private students, and will continue with that as well.
An online offering is on the horizon, though it's a bit tricky to manage and I've yet to set the timing. I've been doing a limited version of it for a number of years, enough to see the difficulties. Critiquing via a computer screen is prone to errors due to the camera and its orientation to the student's setup. It can be done successfully, but there are numerous variables.
A physical atelier may also be started at some point (Deo volente!). I've been an assistant director to enough of them, perhaps it's time to go solo? That's more of a flicker in my imagination at this point though. There are no concrete plans.
Interesting question. Let me begin by saying that my output for the last ten years has been almost exclusively geared towards content that helps with instruction, rather than pursuing my own vision as an artist.
Anyway, I'm on kind of a self-imposed island. I don't attend conventions or generally belong to arts groups (beyond a few on Facebook). I was therefore not aware that a lot of artists are doing religious inspired work. I think that's wonderful to hear though. My guess is that yes, it has something to do with truth and beauty. Then again, we paint what inspires us. Therefore, it's only natural that a person of faith would want to express that faith through their art.
What do you think the meaning behind contemporary realism is?
Hmmm? I am not sure how to answer that. Collectively, is there a meaning?
Do you care to comment on the status of the art world?
No. But not because I'm being difficult. I just don't pay that much attention to it.
I think many would agree that your websites’ have provided us all with invaluable resources. Why do you feel the need to keep adding to and expanding your content?
Thank you. Why I do it is for two reasons. First, I love teaching people how to accurately see. I even taught while I was a student at Atelier LeSueur, so it's something I have always done.
Second, I cannot seem to stop getting ideas of things about which to write. Just now, while thinking about the answer to your measuring question, the phrase "tools of the trade" pops into my head. And thus, is birthed an upcoming article on the www.sightsize.com website!
Just after this interview, Mr. Rousar published this article:
www.sightsize.com/articles/tools-of-the-trade/
If there were only five books you could recommend to art students, what would they be?
Well, that puts me on the spot! Let me preempt my answer by assuming that the student's first goal was to learn to see. With that in mind, in no particular order:
1. R. H. Ives Gammell's, Twilight of Painting.
2. The Sight-Size Cast. Yes, it's my book. But teaching the student to see is why I wrote it.
3. Memory Drawing: Perceptual Training and Recall. Again, it's my book. Like The Sight-Size Cast, there are no others which have that subject as a goal for the book.
4. R.A.M. Stevenson's, The Art of Velasquez. This book is over 100 years old (you can find it in digital format for free), and it was written by a friend of Sargent's, a fellow student with him at Carolus-Duran's atelier. He spells Velazquez with an 's', by the way.
5. Harold Speed's, The Practice and Science of Drawing. This is also old enough that free online versions are available.
If the goal was not primarily learning to see, but rather specifically learning to draw or paint (and I was still limited to only five books), I would recommend exchanging my two books for Juliette Aristides first two books (Classical Drawing Atelier and Classical Painting Atelier). She presents more of a form-based, knowledge-over-sight approach to drawing and painting. I would also swap out Stevenson's book for Speed's second book, Oil Painting Techniques and Materials.
See how I snuck three more books into my list of five!
What advice would you give to a young art student today?
Without question, first learn to see! I would say that even were the student attending a non-Sight-Size atelier.
Second, have a story, but do not let that story put blinders on you. By story, I mean have a reason to be an artist.
Regarding blinders, some (and I definitely include myself as a student in this) are so focused on painting their story that they miss the trees for the forest. The opportunities I wasted as an atelier student (especially in Florence) because I was obsessed with religious art stun and sadden me to this day.
Where do you see your life's work heading in the future?
In addition to young adults, I've run summertime short courses for adults in the past. I plan on continuing that. I currently have a number of private students, and will continue with that as well.
An online offering is on the horizon, though it's a bit tricky to manage and I've yet to set the timing. I've been doing a limited version of it for a number of years, enough to see the difficulties. Critiquing via a computer screen is prone to errors due to the camera and its orientation to the student's setup. It can be done successfully, but there are numerous variables.
A physical atelier may also be started at some point (Deo volente!). I've been an assistant director to enough of them, perhaps it's time to go solo? That's more of a flicker in my imagination at this point though. There are no concrete plans.
We would like to thank Mr. Rousar for taking the time to participate in this interview and for all he has done for the advancement of traditional representational art. We wish him every success with his future endeavours.
Mr. Rousar’s websites:
www.sightsize.com
www.atelierrousar.com
Mr. Rousar’s websites:
www.sightsize.com
www.atelierrousar.com