Leonardo

Human Anatomy and Figure Drawing

Author(s): Jack Kramer
Source: Leonardo, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Spring, 1974), p. 191
Published by: The MIT Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1572837 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 01:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Leonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 01:03:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Letters
important-that he goes so far as to deplore some such
adventures, especially among socialists. 'Unfortunately',
he writes, 'all sorts of social, political, moral, religious
or ideological factors, wholly unrelated to the particular
work or its merits or to art as a whole [my emphasis]
often determines whether such works are eventually
accepted. Social realism in the Communist world
illustrates this perfectly' (p. 249).
His third point concerns what I called 'the con-
ventional wisdom of (roughly) late romanticism'. I
sympathize with him about this. There is no clear
concensus on the question what, precisely, 'late roman-
ticism' amounts to. I meant to say that, while I had not
the time or space to analyse all the artists referred to
appreciatively in his book, I was (and still am) con-
vinced that they are substantially the artists generally
embraced by the term 'romantic' in one of its neutral
current usages to cover a period now approximately
200 years long. They are the artists whose works
generated what used to be called 'modern' (as opposed
to 'classical') aesthetics and they are followed by artists
who work more or less overtly in terms of that aesthetic.
Late romanticism in art and theory does not only, or
at all, require the Expression Theory. Revelation
Theory, Therapeutic Theory and no doubt many others
are implicated. The culmination of European ethno-
centric romanticism is perhaps the idea (not, I guess,
Wittgenstein's) that art is paradigmatically a Western
European bourgeois family of various kinds of art.
Late romanticism, in my usage, is the defensive rear-
guard of a motley alliance of forces now shuffling
reluctantly offstage.
On the relation between 'aesthetic' and 'non-aesthetic'
qualities, there is far too much to be said. I shall remark
only that what is aesthetic in one context may be quite
differently taken in another.
Probably the basis of our disagreement is ideological.
It evidently seems to him (and it does not seem to me)
that there are some considerations that everyone must
assume to be 'wholly unrelated to the particular work
or its [aesthetic] merits'. But to determine the excellence
of, say, Lissitzky's Beat the Whites with the Red Wedge,
some knowledge of human affairs and some commit-
ment is necessary. In fact, Khatchadourian himself
encourages the view that interpretation may be crucial
when he insists so firmly on the importance of the
teleological component of the concept of art. Or should
we read for 'aims' only 'aesthetic aims' and concede
the circus of tautologies?
Donald Brook
School of Humanities
Flinders University of South Australia
Bedford Park, South Australia 5042
'Polyhedron Models'
It was indeed a pleasure for me to read Arthur L.
Loeb's review of my book in Leonardo 7, 82 (1974).
His comment about the difficulties he had and I am
sure many other readers will have with the section
entitled, Mathematical Classification, is well taken. My
only response is a question: Did he have in his hands
the models shown in the photographs on p. 7?
The comment I made in the Preface of the book
applies all the more forcefully here: 'It is really sur-
prising how much enlightenment will come, following
the construction of the models rather than preceding it'.
Photographs are at best a poor substitute for the object
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.52 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 01:03:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
191
itself. With the handling of the spherical models des-
cribed in this section, the convex regular and semi-
regular solids can indeed take on the fascinating rela-
tionships given on pp. 8 and 9. I would be the first one
to admit that for the non-convex uniform polyhedra
the spherical models become far less useful, precisely
because of the abstractness of the theory-polyhedral
density (multiple coverings of the surface of the sphere)
becomes very difficult to imagine.
It was not my intention in this book to repeat the
theory, which can be found for those who want it in
the references given at the end of the book in the
Bibliography. To quote again from the Preface: 'The
object in this book will be to set down an explanation
of the solids, at once simple and practical and not too
speculative, one sufficient for the purposes of construct-
ing the models.'
Magnus J. Wenninger
Saint Augustine's College
P.O. Box N-3940
Nassau, Bahamas
' Human Anatomy and Figure Drawing'
The review in Leonardo 7, 83 (1974) of my book by
Norman Narotzky reflects a clear appreciation of the
text and its contribution to figure drawing theory and
practice. I appreciate the constructive nature of his
comments but, while they are valuable, I do want to
offer a word of explanation.
I agree that more extensive labelling of the master
drawings with bone and muscle identification is desir-
able but I should point out that all the reproductions
have specific descriptive captions dealing in detail with
various figure drawing problems. One inhibition to
more extensive labelling of bones and muscles on master
drawings is the prohibition by museums on the use of
overlay lettering on their reproductions.
Narotzky's recommendation to extend the study list
to include origin and insertion of muscles is an excellent
one and will, I hope, be incorporated into a future
edition. I believe my book fills an unrecognized gap in
providing the means to integrate anatomic information
with significant spatial drawing.
Jack Kramer
67 Thatcher St.
Brookline, MA 02146
U.S.A.
'Sculpture in Glass Fibre'
Peggy Goldstein's review of my book in Leonardo 7,
85 (1974) raises a question that I can easily answer and
makes a criticism that I feel should be countered.
In general, I agree that certain recommendations
could have been more fully qualified, e.g. 'neat thixo-
tropic paste or resin-inadvisable to use as a filler',
because there is always a tendency to over fill a defective
surface and, unless the filler is less dense and less
resistant to abrasion than the parent material, there is
always a chance that the surrounding area will be
unnecessarily affected in cleaning off.
The criticism refers to the section on direct sculpture.
It has, as Goldstein mentions, only two pages and would
seem to be grossly disproportionate, however it was far
from an afterthought. The reality of the situation is
that as a sculptor I am fully aware of the critical rela-
tionships between technique/concept/form. Techniques