No matter, though; this is still a very good tutor for the beginning artist. The exercises work whether or not you think you're drawing on the right side of your brain. They're very well thought out, practical excercises that work.

What they *aren't* is original.

There's a very influential book that was first published in 1941 (and is still in print) entitled "The Natural Way to Draw", by Kimon Nicolaides. Nicolaides was a very influential artist who taught at New York's Aret Students League, and Edwards' book is essentially Nicolaides with a lot of nonsense about "R-mode" and "L-mode" that serves no practical didactic purpose.

Edwards' book is still a good tutor for the novice, but Nicolaides is just as good- and in some ways, better.


It took me from stick men to portraits in three days.   December 22, 1999
 120 out of 120 found this review helpful

I can't emphatize how good this book is. I used to consider myself absolutely useless at drawing. I barely managed to pass exams at art classes at school. Now I am drawing fairly decent portraits from almost everyone I know. The book focueses on seeing the things' real shapes and it is just this non rational, non mathematically based approach that makes it work. I used to have big problems with proportions and perspective, and Betty Edwards made me realise it's all a matter of looking at things with loving attention (and not attaching a name to the bit you are drawing). This book has made me realise I've lost many years of my life blocking myself as an artist. Drawing is a skill that everyone can learn. Do it with this book!


This is absolutely the best book on drawing in print   January 7, 2000
 73 out of 75 found this review helpful

I have a degree in commercial art and learned more about drawing from this book than I did in four years of undergraduate instruction. If you practice everyday what Ms. Edwards teaches you will be drawing as good as any professional artist in six months. This really is the best book on drawing ever published!


I prefer the 1989 edition of "Drawing..."   September 16, 1999
 68 out of 71 found this review helpful

I'm in a drawing course at a community college where the instructor has used the 1989 edition for a number of years with good results. Needing the book, I purchased the new edition (by mistake) through Amazon and must return it. However, having now reviewed both books, I believe that the new edition suffers by comparison.

There are too many mechanical aids required in the new edition, and the mechanics of their application is poorly and vaguely explained, which will discourage some people. My general feeling is also that the author is stretching to revitalize the work and, in the process, has weakened its impact.

Though I find her work valuable and helpful, I'm distracted by the lengthly and repetitious discussions about the need to silence the left brain and to allow the right brain to function. A great deal of verbiage could have been saved if most of this was edited out and replaced by a short phrase to simply remind the reader of this necessity.

However, having said these things, let me also say that I have found the book to be valuable and helpful in my own efforts to gain solid drawing skills that should allow me to render better value sketches before I start my watercolors.


Did Edwards throw out her left side   March 2, 2003
 68 out of 100 found this review helpful

The essential question of any how-to book is: Does it work? For this book, the answer is probably yes. But in reviewing this book, I have to compare it to other how-to books on drawing. Such a comparison should convince anyone that Betty Edwards is merely repackaging familiar drawing exercises with a psychological theory she finds convenient. In fact, the focus on brain laterality is useless as far as drawing is concerned, and there are other books that are more worthwhile.

My main concern is with the book's pseudo-scientific tone, which borders on being anti-scientific. The actual science behind Edwards' theory is scant and superficial. You just can't come to the conclusions she comes to, and the way she applies her theory is redundant. You can replace her annoying terminology of "R-mode" and "L-mode" with "creative mode" and "analytic/logical" mode, and there is no difference in meaning. It would even be clearer and more accurate to tell the reader to "Draw what you see, not what you think you are seeing" instead of saying mystifying things like "Shut off the buzz of L-mode, so you can mentally shift to R-mode."

The towering giant of drawing books is, of course, Nicolaides' NATURAL WAY TO DRAW. Edwards attempts to make sense of what goes on in the brain to help us draw, but her bland writing style and her pseudo-psychological approach negates her credentials. If the book works, it is because the exercises are time-tested. The way to learn to draw is by spending time drawing, and studying the drawings of the masters. Classes help, and so do books, but if you get one book on drawing, the serious student would reach for Nicolaides. And if you're really into neuroscience, get a recent college textbook.