Ted Seth Jacobs vs. Leonardo Da Vinci | Representational art vs. symbolism
Q: Anyone can lengthen someone’s nose, but to represent it as it optically appears, very few could do, in the way that a mirror does not hold the real object, but shows it on its surface, perfectly clear. Is there any point at all in learning to make adjustments? Because any adjustment made is merely a symbol of the mind.
A: Practically speaking, there were a handful of people who could make such adjustments with informed decisions, by massively studying gross anatomy, perspective, and so on. By taking inspiration from these men, attempts were made to emulate, and lower and lower standards were set. It does not necessarily mean that such a pursuit is pointless.
Q: If Leonardo Da Vinci was symbolic and Ted Seth Jacobs was largely representational, which is better, and which one should be pursued?
A: There are no set rules about one being better than the other or both being mutually exclusive. Artists evolve, and it cannot be exactly predicted if you, an artist, would cross-over completely, or in parts, or not at all. What should be done at the current moment, matters more.
Q: Is it just I who feel that Anthony Ryder represents exactly as is?
A: It is a belief, like a devotional prayer out of reverence. Eventually, no drawing is ever purely representational. Tony’s and Ted’s methods seem to work better with slightly unfinished drawings, and that’s where they get their personalities. Most of Tony’s fully finished pieces look like any other academic artist, in fact, this is true for almost all representational artists. Ted has said that when seen from afar, all styles look identical, and that nature is the highest style.
Q: So if Tony can’t create a different looking, fully finished drawing from others (in the way that he creates his unique, unfinished art), and a person simply looks like a person at full power, does the symbolic, informed idealization serve a greater purpose of going beyond?
A: At this point, most of us cannot do what the academic masters could do. The question of going beyond is something that might answer itself along the path. Besides, there needs to be a model to be drawn, an artist to draw it and a light to illuminate the model. One cannot claim that a finished drawing by Tony looks no different than one by someone else, just as one cannot say that a different person can exist at Tony’s easel with Tony, at the same time, occupying the same space. So, in simply drawing too, there is merit. But if one were to reach that level, we know for sure that Leonardo reached the higher path and walked it. In case of Ted also, we know that Ted walked a higher path, par excellence. Besides, Ted might have studied after Leonardo himself, despite being a representational purist, and we also know that Ted has created some pieces from imagination.
In conclusion, even Ted Seth Jacobs could not be called a pure representational painter, despite all the advancements in technology and art, why then, criticize Leonardo for his symbolism, par excellence?
