Call number
741.2 EDW
Collection
Publication
Tarcher (1999), Edition: 2nd Revised & enlarged, 291 pages
Description
Helps the reader gain access to right-brain functions, which affect artistic and creative abilities, by teaching the skills of drawing through unusual exercises designed to increase visual skills.
User reviews
LibraryThing member Katissima
I found an improvement in my drawing after reading this book and doing the exercises. If nothing else, the idea that drawing is not a matter of manual dexterity (according to Edwards if can write decently, you can draw), it is a matter of how you look at objects and interpret it on paper was a
My biggest gripe about Edwards is her before and after portraits. Don't feel discouraged about them. In her seminars she has students use one method of drawing for the before and another method using charcoals for the after. Faces are hard anyway, and the charcoal makes it easier.
Show More
boon. It made me stop thinking that I couldn't draw, and I couldn't learn to draw. I mean you must be able to learn to draw; think back to the days when an "accomplished" lady had to be able to speak Italian and do watercolors! Edwards uses a lot of jargon about the sides of the brain and modes, but basically the book boils down to the following: Instead of actually drawing what we really see, most of us try to draw symbols of what we see. It is really amazing--try it. Really examine objects and try to represent them on paper. I found that when I let my attention wander I would draw a line slanting the wrong way or the wrong length because I unconsciously slipped back into the mode of drawing what I thought the object looked like--not what it really looked like.My biggest gripe about Edwards is her before and after portraits. Don't feel discouraged about them. In her seminars she has students use one method of drawing for the before and another method using charcoals for the after. Faces are hard anyway, and the charcoal makes it easier.
Show Less
LibraryThing member bella2006
A great book for those learning to draw, or wanting to brush up their skills!
LibraryThing member Marjorie
I never got into this book in the same way that I did for the first edition.
LibraryThing member carterchristian1
I was fortunate to be able to use this as a textbook for a drawing course at Evening at Emory. The teacher took us systematically through the book as we completed virtually every exercise. I particularly liked the technique for drawing portraits. It really did lead to looking at the world in a
Show More
different way. Show Less
LibraryThing member vivimine
One of the best...NO...THE Best book for learning how to draw...
It is clear and easy to read... it will take you step by step through the process of learning how to see and force your logical brain to let go so you can draw the forms as they really are
...everytime the Book was revised I bought the
It is clear and easy to read... it will take you step by step through the process of learning how to see and force your logical brain to let go so you can draw the forms as they really are
...everytime the Book was revised I bought the
Show More
newer copy for my reference shelf Show Less
LibraryThing member maxwestart
This is the quintessential book for learning how to draw.
While you are given basic exercises involving drawing, this isn't a typical "learn by copying" method espoused by other instructional books. This has drawing exercises that not only trains your hands and eyes, but your brain as well (hence
If you follow the steps and exercises in this book, you'll increase your skill level tenfold. Even if you have weak drawing skills, this is worth reading for strengthening your drawing.
While you are given basic exercises involving drawing, this isn't a typical "learn by copying" method espoused by other instructional books. This has drawing exercises that not only trains your hands and eyes, but your brain as well (hence
Show More
the title of the book). If you follow the steps and exercises in this book, you'll increase your skill level tenfold. Even if you have weak drawing skills, this is worth reading for strengthening your drawing.
Show Less
LibraryThing member Rex_Lui
An outdated drawing book from the 20th century. The neuroscience knowledge is largely trashy false science (maybe they thought that it's true in the last century). And what's horrible is that there are many stereotypes about learning that is absolutely a taboo at this minute (e.g. female is
Highly not recommended.
Show More
feminine, male is masculine, language means anaytical while visual means emotional, etc). But the basic drawing techniques is still timely. Highly not recommended.
Show Less
LibraryThing member antao
One of the essential reasons why neuroscience is, and probably will remain for a long time, at a stage of infancy has to do the so-called scientific approaches used to understand the workings of the brain. Its main pillars are, risibly, correlation and mapping. Rather than attempt to understand the
The problem at hand may be better understood by use of analogies. Statistical correlation may lead to silly conclusions such as "men in uniforms carrying weapons are more likely to be the cause of wartime casualties" and will completely bypass the notion that wars are decided by men sitting at their desks in government offices.
The operative keywords, when it comes to setting up statistical experiments involving brain activity, are plasticity and dynamics. These are influenced by age, social upbringing, environment, hormonal chemistry, and many more. Studying active brain centers in a group of given age does in no way guarantee identical responses in the same group 40 years down the road. Some people start their active life as accountants and turn to painting after retiring. Most statistics are therefore the result of guesswork, because the rationale about an experiment may be flawed and will probably be frozen in time, resulting in static vs. dynamic analysis.
As to brain scans, they focus on the where, rather than the-what and how, which teaches us nothing of interest. Someone might know that cooking usually takes place in a kitchen but, based on that information alone, will remain ignorant as to the process of cooking itself.
Pointing at areas of the brain showing particular activity during an experiment is no better. The studied group, or individual, may and probably will respond differently to changing circumstances. Being able to localise activity, as useless as it may be, will also constitute highly unreliable information. Will the same person respond identically and uniformly under stress, after getting out of bed, while in love, or after a one-month vacation in the Amazons?
Neuroscience cannot rely on such mickey-mouse tools and methods to progress beyond guesswork. It requires fundamental research as a starting point and later experimentation to confirm theories. Deriving theory from experimentation is foreign to science and quite primitive, which probably goes a long way in explaining why we know so little about the brain.
Can we explain the visual/spatial learning (picture thinking), which certain members of the human species exhibit, over the norm of word thinking? True, the brain functions as an integrated whole, however, the evidence for these two modes of thinking within humans is well documented. And the first functions primarily out of the right brain while the other operates primarily out of the left brain. The distinction of these two modes is so profound that as a stuffed llama, and therefore outside your paradigm, I might conclude that this phenomena actually represents the existence of two species of humans on Earth -- alike in every detail except their primary mechanism of survival. The picture thinkers see the integrated whole of existence and what needs doing while the word thinkers are primarily focused on football teams.
I find it amazing that we "brains" think we can understand "the brain". I think of it as sort of like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle- that the very act of observation changes the observed. All qualities of our personalities reduced to patches of lit up areas in a clot of neurons.... Known only by observations made by other clots of neutrons. It beggars the very idea of objectivity- it's an endless loop into subjectivity. Dangerous when being used to somehow define our very humanity.
Show More
processes at hand, which requires the thinking capacity of an Einstein in grasping an unknown phenomenon (see relativity theory), neurologues spend most of their time guessing or identifying areas of activity, thanks to the limited tools at their disposal which are statistics and brain scans.The problem at hand may be better understood by use of analogies. Statistical correlation may lead to silly conclusions such as "men in uniforms carrying weapons are more likely to be the cause of wartime casualties" and will completely bypass the notion that wars are decided by men sitting at their desks in government offices.
The operative keywords, when it comes to setting up statistical experiments involving brain activity, are plasticity and dynamics. These are influenced by age, social upbringing, environment, hormonal chemistry, and many more. Studying active brain centers in a group of given age does in no way guarantee identical responses in the same group 40 years down the road. Some people start their active life as accountants and turn to painting after retiring. Most statistics are therefore the result of guesswork, because the rationale about an experiment may be flawed and will probably be frozen in time, resulting in static vs. dynamic analysis.
As to brain scans, they focus on the where, rather than the-what and how, which teaches us nothing of interest. Someone might know that cooking usually takes place in a kitchen but, based on that information alone, will remain ignorant as to the process of cooking itself.
Pointing at areas of the brain showing particular activity during an experiment is no better. The studied group, or individual, may and probably will respond differently to changing circumstances. Being able to localise activity, as useless as it may be, will also constitute highly unreliable information. Will the same person respond identically and uniformly under stress, after getting out of bed, while in love, or after a one-month vacation in the Amazons?
Neuroscience cannot rely on such mickey-mouse tools and methods to progress beyond guesswork. It requires fundamental research as a starting point and later experimentation to confirm theories. Deriving theory from experimentation is foreign to science and quite primitive, which probably goes a long way in explaining why we know so little about the brain.
Can we explain the visual/spatial learning (picture thinking), which certain members of the human species exhibit, over the norm of word thinking? True, the brain functions as an integrated whole, however, the evidence for these two modes of thinking within humans is well documented. And the first functions primarily out of the right brain while the other operates primarily out of the left brain. The distinction of these two modes is so profound that as a stuffed llama, and therefore outside your paradigm, I might conclude that this phenomena actually represents the existence of two species of humans on Earth -- alike in every detail except their primary mechanism of survival. The picture thinkers see the integrated whole of existence and what needs doing while the word thinkers are primarily focused on football teams.
I find it amazing that we "brains" think we can understand "the brain". I think of it as sort of like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle- that the very act of observation changes the observed. All qualities of our personalities reduced to patches of lit up areas in a clot of neurons.... Known only by observations made by other clots of neutrons. It beggars the very idea of objectivity- it's an endless loop into subjectivity. Dangerous when being used to somehow define our very humanity.
Show Less
Pages
291
ISBN
0874774241 / 9780874774245