Some of those kids who can draw amazingly well at an early age are autistic. See Ramachandran on that. On the other hand some kids draw amazingly well for a short time until they begin to read a lot. After they begin read a lot they lose interest and ability on drawing. I think reading chops up seeing and trains people to see like they read, in little separate chunks and then they only see what they have a name for. At that point the merest hint of the name is sufficient to march a picture or sight. Then a stick figure will suffice to represent a figure because it evokes a name just as well, or better, than a fully rendered figure. Show me a kid, age 5, 6 or so, who can draw amazingly well and almost every time it'll be a kid who is not yet reading much. wc
----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, June 12, 2012 10:14:55 AM Subject: Cerebrality, not artfulness In a message dated 6/11/12 6:15:26 PM, [email protected] writes: > I think Cheerskep errs when he says that artists who are cerebral and > early-on > good with drawing, anatomy, perspective rarely go on to great achievement > in the > visual arts. > I didn't make clear enough that I was talking about ultra-high IQ types (180 and over) who early on can render strikingly realistic looking drawings, but their apparent "artistic" gift is no more than a reflection of their ability to learn anatomy, proportions and perspective. As a child I was zippy at this stuff, and I deluded myself for a long time with the thought I was going to be a Hal Foster or Alex Raymond. But I finally learned that at my best I was only a mediocre-to-poor copyist. William: Databack removed your attachment. "[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of IMG_0896.JPG]" Can you send us a link?
