calculated work. As consequence this generalization is more of, what for lack of a better term I will call, an artificiality, a voulu result, one that is not spontaneous. The spontaneous effort of my personality is disclosed in the naturalness of the flesh and bone shapes of Figure 100, which very possibly an English critic will prefer as a drawing to the Rodin. The simpler of my two drawings shows solidity of shapes, and masses posed in a fairly architectural way, but compared with the Degas and with the Rodin it is seriously wanting in veritable plastic significance of surface form.
A few words concerning the Rodin drawing may not be out of place. I have chosen it as exhibiting a considerable amount of volume value to which his rapid notes of pose did not always attain. True, the nearer arm is not all that it might be in that respect. The information concerning the advance of the deltoid in front of the neck plane is insufficient, and the same defect continues down the upper part of the thorax. Rodin ' missed ' exact comprehension of the state of things in that part of his drawing. This missing forcibly vitiates the accuracy of the junction between the thorax and the pelvis. On the other hand, the volume of the pelvic mass is admirably felt, and we swing down the thighs to meet with hand and forearm mass values acutely indicated now that the shoulder incompletion is left behind. The scrawl which establishes the plane lying across the two calves is interesting, as is also the hatching indicative of the whole plane lying across the buttocks, seen in rising perspective, hence noted with rising lines. Rodin has attempted to save the thorax by modelling the added wash ; he has indicated the upper light side, but this only remedies in part the defect of want of plastic value in the lower contour. The upper contour is hardly to blame, the inefficiency took its rise in the conception of the shoulder mass and was forcibly continued along the horizontal back line. One feels, however,
Was this article helpful?