Talk:Figure drawing

message: Since User:FDS has undone some of my changes, I'm going to bring them up for discussion:
*I feel the photo of the class should be moved down to the section describing figure drawing instruction.  The reasons are 1) that's where the visual information is more relevant, and 2) many people are uncomfortable with images of nudity on Wikipedia, and this would makes them less likely to view across it accidentally.
*I find the statement that scultpure is a form of figure drawing... unusual.  In 8 years at a college of art and design, I've never heard it described that way.
*Why shouldn't Fine Art and Illustration be linked?
*I don't think it's necessary to explain what "totally nude" means or to enumerate the body parts that are exposed.
*Similarly, erection obviously means "of the penis"; this phrasing is awkwardly wordy.
*Is the question of whether female models can use tampons really an issue?  To my knowledge, no one questions whether models can wear dentures or earrings.  Or is this only in here to reassure prospective female models?
*What does "As an institutional activity though, it is probably the only one in which males and females may freely view each other in a nude state," mean (What about medical school, for example?) and how does it add any new information beyond the preceding statement: "Figure drawing (together with figure painting and sculpture), is one of a small number of situations in contemporary Western society in which it is socially acceptable to view a nude body of the other gender without any implications of impropriety"?
*Why is it specifically "a few" that have policies against current students modeling?  Without any statistics, "some" (which doesn't imply that the number is large or small) seems more correct.  Likewise, why did "some" institutions having rules against anyone touching the model become "many"?
*Additionally, there were several statements that were clearly opinions or assumptions being presented as if they were known facts, which I've already removed (again).  I intend to go back and rearrange the remaining information so it reads more smoothly. Tverbeek 05:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Generic title

message: On 7-22 Ed Nilges User: spinoza1111 added needed information on the place of figure drawing in culture and the history of art. On 4-1-1819, Richer said the hell with Rome, but c'est d'autres: das ist ein anders: so the hell with Richer.Spinoza1111 09:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by Spinoza1111

message: Is anyone else bothered by the tone of this article?. More specifically, the article seems at points to be: presumptuous, biased, and overly concerned with loosely related anecdotes while simultaneously not presenting them in a clear context or even providing wikilinks. In short, I feel this article needs quite a bit of work. I'll try to fix what I can. Thoughts? -- Xastic 20:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Need of Cleanup

message: I've removed the following text from the article and placed it here:
:The art student needs to realize that drawing copies of other drawings or worse photographs is a very poor way to learn figure drawing according to most teachers. If he or she has no access to the living model, a good alternative is the sculpture gallery of any major museum because drawing in the round is essential to get a feeling for the complex perspective of the body. Also, many art supply shops to this day stock plaster reproductions of famous statues (most commonly the Venus de Milo) from which the tyro can learn far more than from photographs in Maxim or Playboy.
This paragraph is probably my least favorite in the entire article. Not only does it endorse one particular point of view on the topic of figure drawing instruction (see Npov), but more importantly, it conflates two very distinct priorities of figure drawing into a single issue: the learning of linear perspective and the learning of anatomy. This whole issue probably needs a section of its own, but in the mean time I think removing the paragraph is a step in the right direction. Discussion on this issue is quite welcome. Xastic 22:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Drawing from photos, etc.

message: The following paragraph should be removed, has been removed, keeps reappearing:Most figure drawing teachers rarely publically discuss the potential erotic side of drawing nudes. To acknowledge such, puts the figure drawing class in the same category as a strip club, which is politically unacceptable, particularly in conservative communities.This seems to reflect a regional point of view which may not reflect the experience of readers of English WP in much (most) of the world. The strip club comment is especially dubious; whose opinion is this supposed to be?  Ewulp 04:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth I agree with the removal of this material, which describes problems faced by very few figure drawing students anywhere on earth outside of the suburban/rural US. Ewulp 06:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Clarification: the particular conditions described in these paragraphs seem rather specific to the nonurban US. (as are the 4 external links) but are presented as if typical of life drawing everywhere. Ewulp 09:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious paragraph 

message: Seems obviousFigureArtist (talk) 04:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Added to Visual Arts Project

message: The opening definition stated that all drawings are studies, which is not the case. A drawing done in preparation for another, more finished work is a study, but a drawing can also be the finished work.FigureArtist (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: The "Nudity" project appears to be dormant, and this article does not benefit from any connection to it.FigureArtist (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projects 

message: There is a stub Life class that covers the same topic, so there could be a merge/redirect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FigureArtist (talk • contribs) 11:02, November 23, 2012 (UTC)
*support merge. The subject is covered in Figure drawing and Art school, and no more needs a stand-alone article than Physics class. But the redirect will be confusing unless we restore the lede to something close to this version so figure drawing is defined first as a gerund and second as a physical object. Ewulp (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Life class 

message: Doing work on Model (art) I have found some references that would be appropriate for the section Contemporary studio instruction. That section had a reference to "The Art Model's Handbook" which is self-published (CreateSpace) so I removed it.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary practice