In Defense Of Duplicating Art

After getting over his modernist hangups, Malcolm Jones writes, “I understood more about Vermeer by painting my own Vermeer … than I had ever learned by simply staring at his paintings”:

When I was little kid, I didn’t learn much from all those teachers urging me to express myself –  frankly, I don’t think I, or most people for that matter, have much to express, certainly not when 485985-72888fd8f769c6e50a99b68860cc51dathey’re six. I learned to draw and paint on my own, and I did it by copying. I started with Mickey Mouse, and I kept at it until my Mickey looked like the one in the cartoons and the comic books. Along the way, I got an education in shading, depth, perspective, and all the other basics of drawing. The real takeaway, though, was that not just anyone can be a great artist, but anyone can learn to draw. You just need a pencil and paper and a lot of time.

Copying, like rote memorization, is no longer in fashion. … Modernism blew the doors open with its insistence on constant change that now permeate – and rules – every corner of the creative world (Ezra Pound’s dictum, “Make it new!” might as well have an “Or else!” tacked on). And that’s fine if you are a true artist. Alas, most of us aren’t, so when our puny efforts at creativity fall short, we feel like failures and quit before we’re out of grade school. Ever thereafter, we regard art as some mysterious, gated territory where we cannot go. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what our teachers intended.

(Image of the Threadless T-shirt design “Free Ninja Art Test” based on those old drawing tests from the Art Instruction Schools)