Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain

the way the people deal with their thoughts and reviews
Rating: 1 / 5

Reply

Betty Edwards book, “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain” is 80% text and only 20% illustration for all 254 pages, and very few of the illustrations are Edwards’ personal drawings.

It is a clunky and overly intellectual approach to drawing, presenting a virtual, THEORY-OF-EVERYTHING.

According to p. 46, an “alternative state of consciousness” is required before one can draw. That’s NOT liberating an “artist within” but rather binding the “artist within” to Edwards’ art theories, hardly a liberating work. Moreover, where are the scientific studies that prove that Betty Edward’s “students” have obtained an ALTERNATIVE STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS? There are none of course, because it never happened. There is no such thing as a scientific measurement of “consciousness”. This is why Edwards claims are such a baffling mix of SCIENCE and SENTIMENT and unverifiable by any known means. It is not just bad that this is PSEUDO-SCIENCE. It is PSEUDO-ART THEORY!

Consider this quote:

“Although the exercises themselves are based on classic systems of drawing instruction, she presented them in a simple and LOGICAL manner that made them especially easy to learn.” —–Brainy Encyclopedia website

If this is a LOGICAL system, it flies in the face of the RIGHT-BRAIN methodology, because Edwards has such a wordy text that only those operating in the ANALYTICAL & LOGICAL LEFT BRAIN are going to grasp much of it; but if you keep any audience confused for long enough, (such as is possible when mixing science & metaphysics, they’ll start to believe they sort of understand you.

Edwards shifts back and forth between unscientific New Age rhetoric and quotes from scientists. Edwards does not seem to recognize the distinction between Metaphysical Nominalism [WORDS-ARE-NOT-REAL] and Metaphysical Realism [the old Platonic: WORDS-ARE-REAL], and she conveniently ignores the fundamental contradictions of the core assumptions of science and metaphysics that abound in her chapters.

Edwards caters to many who operate with a false assumption: the I-CANNOT-DRAW crowd. After proving they CAN draw, the crowd throws aside their crutches and declare themselves healed, and rate the book FIVE STARS. Notwithstanding, the FIVE STAR reviewers who laud Edwards with praise, declare themselves a not very intellectual LEFT BRAIN crowd but praise the RIGHT-BRAIN theory, OR…what is yet more strange, flatly refute the RIGHT-BRAIN theory, but praise the book?!? Here’s an example of the latter:

“Instead of using left brain- right brain theory to describe this, in my view the more correct description would be to learn to access your SUBCONSCIOUS MIND which functions at a deeper level, while reducing the way in which your conscious mind interferes with the creative process.” –from a 10 Feb 2005 review on Amazon [In other words, the RIGHT-BRAIN theory is totally false; But what the heck, let's give the false theory a FIVE STAR rating anyway!]

The missing element here is a fair and objective examination of the claims by some that they “cannot draw”. We are unable to verify these petulant claims. Please understand, I am not unfamiliar with that feeling and I do not mean to be cruel; but the “testimonial” is the least scientific and least reliable form of evidence. Though Edwards cheering section happily declare that they COULD–NOT–DRAW and chant that mantra repeatedly in reviews, does Betty Edwards support the theory that there are people who CANNOT DRAW? No, that is not what Betty Edwards teaches. According to an art philosophy website that trumpets her books loudly, they offer this claim:

["California State University professor Betty Edwards believes ANYONE WHO CAN TIE A SHOELACE OR SIGN THEIR NAME CAN LEARN TO DRAW."] -by Mr. Steve Parr, M. Ed. City University 1996

So Edwards knows there is no such thing as people WHO-CANNOT-DRAW in the first place. Related to this contradiction is the implied assertion that those who read her book and attend her seminars (and can now “draw”) are somehow…”ARTISTS”. They CAN draw, ergo, they are “artists”. Of course, there are no scientific measurements of “artists”. There are also no scientific standards for measuring drawing ability and degrees of drawing ability.

The website “BRAINY ENCYCLOPEDIA” offers this pleasant biography and a somewhat positive handling of Edwards books:

["She proposes exercises to bring out the creative abilities

of the right side of the brain, as opposed to the analytic and logical abilities of the left brain."] -Brainy Encyclopedia

That only makes sense if her book merely consists of a set of exercises, which it isn’t. How does Edwards do this? She offers a wordy and overly intellectual LEFT-BRAIN HEAVY book of theories and quotations which constitute her text, and to such a degree that only a LEFT-BRAIN predominate person could actually read her work critically. So much for steering the student away from “the analytic and logical abilities of the left brain.”

The testimonial is great for Multi-Level Marketing, Pyramid Schemes, and TV EVANGELISM, but falls far short of objective proof. We have no way of knowing what drawing efforts these individuals put forth prior to self-determining that they CANNOT DRAW. We don’t know what books they studied, or under what teachers, or for how long, or whether they drew with sidewalk chalk, crayons, or spray paint. That does not stop Edwards’ groupies from declaring their handicap as though it were a medically verified condition of mind or body, and CONTRADICTING EDWARDS’ AFFIRMATION:

["California State University professor Betty Edwards believes ANYONE WHO CAN TIE A SHOELACE OR SIGN THEIR NAME CAN LEARN TO DRAW."] -by Mr. Steve Parr, M. Ed. City University 1996

With a penchant for New Age rhetoric it is not surprising that Edwards makes a foray into discussing “Zen” by Chapter 12, entitled, “The Zen of Drawing Out the Artist Within”. It’s a very corny trend in American culture, when you want to baffle the audience, just mention ZEN, as though both you and your readers knew precisely what you are writing about……. the “ZEN” of something. It’s a very gooey cosmology, irrational, and moreover, irrelevant to art. Betty Edwards would like to think of herself as the AMERICAN HIGH PRIESTESS OF ZEN BUDDHISM, after all, don’t university professors know EVERYTHING?. The analogy breaks down when anyone who has studied ZEN for one day finds writings on ZEN declaring that ZEN is “WITHOUT DOCTRINE” and here’s Edwards’ book that is a re-hash of every doctrine from Science, and Eastern and Western Religion, all thrown together as though they pronounce a “Zen” truth, understood by everybody, expounded by the Pied Piper of the art world. I believe the real purpose that this book was written, had something to do with….”The Zen of Drawing Money Out Of Everybody’s Wallet”, a very ZENNY accomplishment I suppose.

I consider book prices on eBay and in other used book vendors as a “benchmark” of a book’s ultimate value. There are dozens of Betty Edward’s “DRAWING ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BRAIN” dumped on eBay for prices ranging $.99 to $5.00 and HUNDREDS of copies of Edwards books stuck on used book dealers shelves that don’t sell, which is a clear indication that the book and its fundamental theory is a New Age fad rather than valid art theory.

Rating: 1 / 5

Reply

For those who can already do “that”, it must be difficult to appreciate that some of us can’t do “that”, so for us non-”that”ers, doing “this” in order to do “that” can be stunning!

Hands up all those who recognize the distinction between Metaphysical Nominalism and Metaphysical Realism!!
Rating: 5 / 5

Reply