Yea, I’ve never liked the concept of copying from nature. I guess it really comes down to an issue of semantics (meaning of copying), but I tend to prefer the term representation or observation to describe how one works from nature. When I first started out seriously investigating drawing I had to do a lot of still life work, but we didn’t really use grids or any form of measuring. My school was not very good, so the instructors typically just took a pile of old objects and dumped them on a table and told us to draw. I guess it was a pretty good exercise in reinventing the wheel, but it did allow a lot of mobility in the expression of line, form, etc. (presuming you could figure out how to place objects correctly on a page in relation to other objects). I think it is important to exercise the eyes by having them draw comparisons, but I have to say I do not like the idea of gridded drawing. I guess if I could compare this to something it’d be writing. You can know all the rules of grammar and not be able to write an interesting story, exposition or rhetorical, persuasive essay, but without knowing the rules of grammar it is pretty much impossible to write at all. In other words, what I think you are getting at (and I agreeing with) is that a still life can’t just be a formulation of the rules but an exploration of a greater ambition within a foundation of those rules.
I think this is one of the oddest things about me as a person. I actually don’t find women, and people in general, who fit that perfectly geometric proportion attractive. I do think they are beautiful, and I would not insult them by saying they are not – honestly though I really can’t see it. I always prefer slight irregularities, but I may just have a functional retardation of the pupils. I do think the goal of the artist is to try and explicate what in particular they are finding interesting or beautiful about a particular individual, but traditionally, perfectly beautiful people are much like a perfectly gridded, mundane still life to me – lifeless. Maybe that sounds a bit shallow, and I don’t really want to come across that way. I’m not really trying to say that people are traditionally beautiful are not attractive at all, but just that I am not so interested in drawing or painting them.
I think a person’s mannerisms and quirks register in the way they work with artistic mediums, so interesting people will, given the right training and guidance, tend to make more interesting work. At least this is true so long as the person retains their uniqueness with their process, and do not get sucked into a completely formulated approach. Plus, I think artistic people probably just enjoy the individualities of other people – their imperfections as well as intrigues. As you put it, you try and determine the thing that makes you regard their image in a particular way. In this way you discover what is or is not interesting about a person, and although the opinions and aesthetics vary how effectively the observation is communicated more often determines the quality of the composition. Ultimately though life is just too boring always trying to act like everyone else - people need to be surprised and taken aback once in a while!