These are two pen and ink drawings from high-school, back in the day. The first, is a copy of a Canaletto, I think, etching from the 1600s. It depicts a Gothic cathedral nestled within a small village community in the background. In the foreground, we see a rural setting, a small river with a stone bridge spanning across. There is a line of circular watermills breaking up the perpendicular and diagonal composition. Our assignment was to: 1) copy as intimately as we are able to; and 2) create another drawing as though you were in the scene but looking at it from another angle, and to draw like Canaletto.
To achieve the first part is to study closely, and by seeing deeply at the example given. We had to reconstruct the composition as exact as possible, examine the quality of the lines, and imitate the styles. From the process, you learn many things. You learn that tool matters. That Rapidograph pens cannot reproduce the line quality of a silver plate engraving. That scale matters, a small 8.5 x 11 piece of paper cannot get the kind of details you hope to achieve. By reconstructing the other view, you learn the difficulty of imagination, the challenge of getting the perspective right. You learn the satisfaction of being original. You also learn that originality doesn't have to mean a complete departure from the 'origin'.
All in all, it was a very educational process I'd say. In reflection, the M1 studio’s long drawing that was introduced a couple years ago carried this same learning attitude. Derive from the past and project into the future.
So, can we be copycats as well as be creative at the same time? Absolutely! However, in the context of academic honesty and plagiarism, how would this example fit in?
