Drawing on the Artist Within-Betty Edwards

          In Drawing on the Artist Within Betty Edwards emphasizes the potency of the creative thinking process and the remarkable ability of creation to alter the brain in ways which better all facets of thought. This process is deemed integral to the exercise of problem solving, creative or otherwise, as it illuminates the power of interpretation and the significance of clarity both in art and in the perception of one’s surroundings. In order to deem such a system effective, Edwards suggests that one must first reach a state of placid subjectivity in which a mental divergence from the conventional promotes a unique and efficient method of information processing. It is this intrinsic and interpersonal intuition complimenting the creative process which Edwards recognizes as the primary premise from which to increase mental plasticity and awareness.

            In order to attain such perceptiveness, Edwards defends a process of conscious volition in which the mind of the artist is paralleled in respect to one’s ability to interpret visual information in a subjective and abstract manner. This unconventional frame of mind is valued as not superior, but as effectively alternative to an analytical and objective approach. Edwards suggests that, through this mental device and the ability of art to reinvent the mind, anyone with the proper mindset and the proper focus maintains the capacity to create art both within and without oneself. While Edwards’s observations are primarily speculative, she presents an interesting correlation between physical expansion and perceptive expansion through an activation of the right brain through the pursuit of creative endeavors. This subsequent projection of mental capacity promotes the emergence of previously cloistered potential, which fosters positive thinking through the process of seeing better and seeing more.

            Edwards’s creative process is initiated through a complete inhalation and subjective interpretation of her surroundings or subject through what she recognizes as a specific type of “seeing”. She believes that this activates the artistic powers of the right brain and expands her mental capacity to the extent in which the activity of drawing is translated into the simple reproduction of shapes and their complex relationships with one another. She cites an example of subjective representation as opposed to objective representation in which perspective falls ill to the dictation of size in the brain. I found it interesting her urgence to separate preconceptions, or what one already “knows”, from what one sees, thus promoting a more expansive and, ironically, objective way of thinking.

            In evaluating such literature it is important to separate psychological speculation from neurological inconsistencies. While Edwards may simply employ the separate functions of the labeled “right brain” and “left brain” as a basic representation of the complexities of human thought and reactions to visual stimuli, it should be dismissed a complete functional separation between the two. Scientific research has emphasized a quality of neuroplasticity in which a variety of functions once thought to rest permanently within respective hemispheres actually maintain the ability to relocate via the corpus callosum, an intermediate structure connecting the two halves of the brain. It is still pertinent Edwards’s approach to the creative process and the mental development which ensues as a result of subjective thinking, and it is credible her fluency in psychology in respect to the artistic process.

            The basic creative technique which I find the most interesting and applicable is Edwards’s suggestion to see in shapes, and in seeing such shapes to understand both the simple and complex relationships between them. I have found that, when drawing in such a simple mindset, the subsequent complexities of creating technical art (such as perspective) follow naturally as a compliment. While this method is relatively simple, it is truly difficult to silence the analytical and objective brain when drawing complex objects. I feel that such complications may be remedied through repeated practice and gradual increase from simple, geometric objects to more organic and intricate subjects. In recognizing the outlines and space occupied by specific objects, it is better illuminated the interactions between an object or subject and all of the surroundings that better interpret that object. Edwards teaches that matter and that space are only defined by the matter and space surrounding it, thus through evaluating an all-encompassing image one may better view objectively through subjectivity and relativity.

            As one of my favorite subjects is that of the human likeness and the human face, Edwards’s methods regarding portraiture are incredibly pertinent. The author suggests that portraiture is an ideal exercise for refining the artist’s ability to see and to fully interpret a subject in order to accurately represent a subtle “likeness” through a subjective model of intricacy. It is understood the separation again between what is seen and what is known. Edwards instructs that the predisposed visual symbols representative of specific features of the human face stored within the brain often override the visual truth, thus it is optimal to channel the abilities of the “right brain” during such an exercise. This mentioned correlation between the preconceptions of the “left brain” and the visual truth of the “right brain” is paralleled to the importance of proportion and perspective. While it may seem a simple exercise, I would like to better employ the use of a small measuring tool in order to establish a correct perspective. Typically when drawing I will visualize perspective, either because I cannot be bothered to exhaustively and compulsively measure ratios and relationships or because I misguidedly trust my own visual judgment. I feel that prior to drawing I should continue to engage in left-handed contour exercises which will further exacerbate the activities of the right brain. Thus I may better my visual capabilities in respect to the relationship of shapes, or proportion.

            Edwards’s methods are incredibly pertinent and credible through the visual progress of her students. While modern neuroscience may not completely agree with the stability of her mental speculation, she is wholly competent in the creative process and has instituted and reinforced ideas which will both improve my activities as an artist and in all facets of life.