The problem is that your method is an easy way to get great results and probably good enough for hobbyists. But if you really want to seriously learn how to draw, I implore you to explore the formal way of learning how to draw. It's hard and long haul task, takes years but it is damn satisfying.
That exercise I outlined was the first project that gave me the confidence I needed to pursue a fine art education up to an undergraduate level. I didn’t get to that point without learning anything more, but I honestly don’t feel I made a critical error here.
And with respect to the OP, it kind of does look like he aims to only be hobbyist levels of good.
I commend your passion for the subject. I just can’t support the idea that there is a right and wrong way to learn how to draw.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
If someone puts forth a view, and you say what he consciously chose as his recommendation is the worst option to choose, literally any other choice would have been better[1], you are basically implying that the criteria of that person is actively harmful to the world and he would have best shut up. That he is an idiot, basically.
[1] Yes it is clearly an exaggeration but it is what you wrote. Kind of drawing what you see instead of what you think there is there :)
> The litmus test for someone who knows truly how to draw is to ask them to redraw whatever object they drew but from a different angle or perspective. Most people to learned by measuring and training their eye won't be able to do it.
How many of us, when we encounter a piece of artwork we appreciate, really care if the artist is able to redraw the object from another angle?
There are some limited circumstances where I can see this skill being relevant: for example, if you want to publish a series (a visually elaborate webcomic or such), or you want to be hired to work to spec doing e.g. animation or storyboarding. That aside, just being able to draw something others appreciate—even if that involves shortcuts and working around own limitations—sounds like an important stepping stone and a source of dopamine that can motivate further learning, which could eventually get you to mentally seeing things in three dimensions and being able to draw an object from any angle.
A parallel I can draw from personal experience is with music. We don’t make students learn notation and music theory first; we start with actually playing, practicing the motions, stretching fingers, learning to hit the right keys/buttons/strings, etc. If you get to being able to just play cool tunes, that’s good. If you don’t advance past that, some would consider that unfortunate and I won’t argue with that, but invalidating this stage outright sounds like unnecessary gatekeeping.
It is so powerful! You can draw comic strips to serious fine art almost effortlessly after understanding the construction of the form.
I just think that it is the only way to learn how to draw because it is a superset of everything else.
On the other hand, presuming I had some basic ability going (which is what the copy method appears to promise), having proven to myself I can draw at all, I can see myself advancing to this skill eventually.
> ask them to redraw whatever object they drew but from a different angle or perspective.
since the context presented in the original article is the question of how to learn to draw.
It is asking too much to expect a student to redraw an object from a different perspective before they have even learned how to render anything.
Learning takes place in steps. Roberthahn was being far more constructive with his comment that offered the exercise of copying a black and white drawing in order to learn how to see light vs shade. That's the first two steps in learning how to draw - learning how to see light vs shade, and translating that perception into your fingers.
In my view, the only valid critique of the copy method (or any other way of learning) could be if it doesn’t work, otherwise I see no reason to declare that method of learning as unequivocally “bad” except to heighten the barrier to entry.