40 TEACHERs COLLEGE COLUmbIA UNIvERsITy
Philosophical Dimensions of Drawing Instruction
to drawing instruction. As I argue, major methods
of teaching drawing embody principles associated
with prominent epistemological traditions and may
thereby be identified as ways of coming to know the
world and the self.
Grounding drawing instruction in philosophy
is not only a matter of theoretical interest. It serves
a number of practical purposes. First, associating
drawing instruction with the various philosophies
helps provide reasons for teaching drawing in one
way or another. Second, such associations allow
teachers to relate drawing instruction to other fields
of endeavor like mathematics, science, and litera-
ture, thus helping students “transfer” knowledge
and skills back and forth between disciplines. Third,
beyond the classroom, competent drawers can then
use their knowledge of continuities across domains
to apply drawing in various occupations within and
beyond the visual arts.
This ability, to think through drawing across the
disciplines, was famously exemplified in the note-
books of Leonardo da Vinci. Yet such skills were
not unique to Leonardo and other acknowledged
Renaissance geniuses. Rather they were emblem-
atic of an educational and cultural climate in which
drawing was considered of universal value and gen-
eral utility, and so was widely taught to individu-
als at all levels of society, ranging from artisans to
the nobility. Similar attitudes were found earlier, in
Greece during Plato’s time, and later, in America
from its founding through the Industrial Revolution
and up until the middle of the 20th century (Sim-
mons, 1988).
Based on my dissertation and subsequent
research, I argue here that drawing undoubtedly
contributed to the world-changing, cross-disciplin-
ary creativity that characterized each of these eras.
But it wasn’t always the same kind of drawing and it
wasn’t taught in the same way. On the contrary, my
research showed that drawing instruction and prac-
tice varied significantly in response to the dominant
zeitgeist, thereby reflecting the predominant philos-
ophy at the time as well as connecting to the most
prominent fields of endeavor.
The most explicit example of drawing practice
that reflected a philosophical world-view and its
related paradigmatic discipline was the so-called
“academic” methods, especially as practiced in the
French Royal Academy. Modeled after practices
used in the Renaissance art academies, which were
essentially drawing schools, academic drawing
instruction in France was specifically linked to the
Rationalist philosophy of René Descartes, thus link-
ing drawing with mathematics and logic (Pevsner,
1973).
Rationalist aesthetics dictated that models were
taken from classical and Renaissance art works,
which idealized the human form according to pre-
determined principles of proportion. Rationalist
logic and mathematics were also evident in the way
drawing was taught: as largely an analytical process
by which complex organic structures were reduced
to simple geometric solids—spheres, ovoid shapes,
cubes and cones (Fig. 1). Perspective was also essen-
tial training, as was mathematically-determined
principles of composition. Even facial expressions
and bodily gestures were logically categorized even
though their application was meant to serve expres-
sive purposes.
Instruction in such programs was, of course,
equally organized in a logical manner following a
step-by-step curriculum, which began with simple
problems and moved on to those of increasing com-
plexity. Mathematics and philosophy were taught
as complements to drawing instruction. And, just
as in mathematics, there were correct and incorrect
answers to drawing problems. Success was deter-
mined by adherence to the rules and in the resultant
works’ similarity to exemplary models, not by inven-
tiveness, at least not until mastery was achieved.
For better or worse, methods pioneered in the
academies are still being taught at all levels, though
generally without reference to their philosophical
underpinnings. Perhaps ironically, they are most
evident in simplistic “how to draw books,” where
drawing everything, from dogs to dragons, fromFigure 1. Erhard Schön, Schematic Heads and Bod-
ies, (1538), Underweisung der Proporzion und Stel-
lung der Possen (Nuremberg), Printed in E. H. Gom-
brich (1960) Art and Illusion. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.