the woman in my watercolor class who asked if she could just trace from a photograph

I had a new student in my botanical watercolor class yesterday. She's a pleasant enough woman, retired, looking for a hobby. We were going through the basics of setting up a composition from a live specimen, a simple cyclamen leaf, and she asked, quite earnestly, if she could just take a photograph of it and trace the outline instead.

I explained that tracing would defeat the purpose of learning to see, which is rather the whole point of the exercise. She seemed unconvinced. She said it would save time and look neater.

I suggested she give it a proper try first, and if she still wanted to trace at the end of class, I would help her. She did not want to trace by the end of class. But the amount of energy I had to spend not saying "you are paying me to teach you to draw, not to show you how to avoid learning to draw" was considerable.

I understand that people want shortcuts. I do. Watercolor is difficult and it takes years to develop any real control. But the shortcuts don't actually get you where you want to go. They just leave you dependent on the shortcut.

I suppose I am old-fashioned about this. Learning to see, really see, is the skill. Everything else is technique layered on top of that foundation.

8comments

Add your reply to this discussion…

8 comments

Dani Okafor·1w

oh man, I felt this in my bones haha. I get why she'd want to, tracing feels safe and the result looks "right", but it's like... you're skipping the whole reason you're there?? the whole magic of watercolor (or any painting really) is that it forces you to actually look at something, not just copy a flat version of it. I've been painting this stupid window in my apartment like twenty times and every time I think I know it, I sit down and notice something new about how the light hits the frame or whatever. you'd never get that tracing.

also lol at "save time and look neater", ma'am, we are in a botanical watercolor class, neat is not the goal 😭 did she end up trying it properly at least?

Mira Vey·1w

the "save time" part gets me. like that's not how this works, that's not how any of this works. you're not trying to get to the end faster, you're trying to be in the room with the thing for a while.

also twenty paintings of one window is extremely my kind of energy

Margaret HsuOP·1w

That's it exactly. You don't trace your way into seeing something. You sit with it until it starts to make sense to your eye and your hand at the same time.

And yes, twenty paintings of one window. I've done similar with a single lemon, across different light conditions, over a week. Each one taught me something the previous one missed. That's the practice.

Margaret HsuOP·1w

That's exactly it. The whole point is being in the room with the thing, as you say. Tracing flattens a three-dimensional object into a line and calls it done, and you've learned nothing about how that leaf actually attaches to the stem or where the light is coming from. You've learned how to trace.

Dani Okafor·1w

oh man, the "save time" thing kills me every time. like yeah, you could trace it and have a neat outline in two minutes, but then what? you've got a neat outline and you still don't know how to look at the actual leaf. and watercolor will absolutely punish you for skipping that part, if you haven't really seen how the light hits the edge or where the vein actually curves, you're gonna lose it the second you put a wash down anyway.

i had a professor who used to say tracing is just drawing someone else's looking, and i think about that all the time. it's not about the outcome being tidy, it's about training your eye and your hand to agree with each other. that cyclamen leaf is probably the most patient teacher she'll ever have if she just sits with it long enough.

hope she gives it a proper go next week. sometimes it clicks after you wrestle with one leaf for an hour and suddenly it looks like a LEAF.

Ramesh Jha·1w

That professor's line is very good, I am noting it also.

In Mithila painting also we have this. The outline is not the first thing, the seeing is the first thing. When I teach young students, they want to draw a fish from memory or from a book. I tell them, no, go sit by the pond, watch the fish move, watch where the light catches the side, then come back and draw. If you trace, you have the shape but not the life. And in watercolour especially, the life is everything, otherwise it is just coloured paper.

Margaret HsuOP·1w

That's a lovely way to put it, go sit by the pond and watch the fish move before you try to draw it. I might borrow that for my next class, if you don't mind. It captures something essential that students sense is missing when they reach for a photograph. They just don't yet know that the missing thing is the looking itself.

Margaret HsuOP·1w

That professor's line is perfect. "Drawing someone else's looking", I'm going to remember that. It gets at exactly what's lost.

And you're right about watercolour punishing shortcuts. It's a medium that demands you understand the thing before you touch it. The tracing gives a false sense of control, and then the first wash dissolves it and you're left with nothing but a wet outline and no idea where to go next.