Talk:Betty Edwards

Factual information

Anybody have less gushy, factual information? "Drawing is so easy". Blah blah blah. I came for factual info and all I found was this lousy t-shirt slogan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.52.186 (talk) 2006-08-24T20:04:43 .

I taken three drawing courses. The first two were traditional studio based courses, that did not teach me to draw. Each instructor couldn't tell me what I was doing wrong. The third course was based on Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain (DRSB) and its exercises. I can now draw. The DRSB instructor told me, many times a day, exactly what I was doing wrong, and how to do it right -- based on the techniques from the book. - Lentower 21:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup

This article as written currently has some serious problems. First, it's unreferenced, which is always a big problem (see WP:ATT for information on citing published sources). Second, the language in the article sounds very biased and uses a number of "peacock terms" and "weasel words" to say how important or terrific the artist is without providing any actual evidence or references (see WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK). Finally there are some important basic biographical facts missing such as birthplace, birthdate and professional history. (I can't even really tell from this article how old she is or if she's still alive.)

I'll try and remove some of the weasel words, but the citations I can't do. And the only reason I didn't nominate this article for deletion is because I'm pretty sure someone can dig around and get the needed references and bio info. Dugwiki 21:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. I removed or reworded the phrases that sounded both biased and uncited. Also fixed a number of other minor things. Dugwiki 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand why Wikipedia likes citations, but (forgive me for stating the obvious) it can be a bit frustrating to the layman who knows that something is true, but cannot prove it. I read Betty's book and it converted me from someone who drew badly to someone who could draw well (and it introduced a new way of thinking to me). If there's any doubt it works, just try it out- you'll see for yourself that it does! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.30.136 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar

Betty Edwards' published works are well cited in the literature. One could start from a Google Scholar search and find citations for this article. Lentower 21:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article for discussion - Possible ref?

I don't understand this edit [1], "Cross referenced in Wikipedia: Terence Hines, 1987" but thought it might be best to place it here for discussion. Maybe Edwards is mentioned in Hines' 1987 book? --Ronz (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed tags

This article no longer seems to have "multiple issues". Also, there's nothing here that looks like it's from a self-published source; there IS stuff from her book(s), which are published by mainstream publishers. I'm looking for some independent sources for BLP material, but so far they have proved elusive. Lou Sander (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, much improved. The "Theories on drawing and brain function" section needs a rewrite though. Her interpretation of the research was not scientific consensus at the time nor today. It was and is a pop-psychology myth, and she herself has acknowledged it to some degree. I've not looked to see what sources are available (commentaries on the myth and pseudo-science that specifically mention Edwards), so I don't know what's the best approach for a rewrite. --Ronz (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My public library is sending me an old New York Magazine article about Betty Edwards, and I'm anticipating that it will help lessen the "lack of citations" problem. Regarding the brain function problem, maybe we could just repeat the second paragraph of the Lateralization of brain function article (the one that starts "Broad generalizations are often made...). IMHO there is a bit of a problem with THAT article, in that the appropriate citation isn't easily accessible. If, indeed, the "right brain, left brain" stuff is often oversimplified, we ought to be able to cite something solid and accessible that says so. After all, Betty's claims about this have been widely accepted, and if we're going to break that bubble, we need to be very explicit about it. Lou Sander (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm hoping that her own comments on it will give us an easy segue. Here are a few quotes from "The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" 1999 ISBN 0-87477-419-5 that may be enough:

Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, I believe, was one of the

first practical educational applications of Roger Sperry's pioneering insight into the dual nature of human thinking—verbal, analytic thinking mainly located in the left hemisphere, and visual,

perceptual thinking mainly located in the right hemisphere. (p 17)

In this edition, I again reiterate a basic strategy for gaining access

at conscious level to R-mode, my term for the visual, perceptual mode of the brain. I continue to believe that this strategy is probably my main contribution to educational aspects of the "righthemisphere story" that began with Roger Sperry's celebrated

scientific work. (p 20)

One question scientists are studying intensely is where the

two major thinking modes are specifically located in the human brain and how the organization of modes can vary from individual to individual. While the so-called location controversy continues to engage scientists, along with myriad other areas of brain research, the existence in every brain of two fundamentally different

cognitive modes is no longer controversial.(p 22)

Clearly, for educators like myself, the precise location of

these modes in the individual brain is not an important issue. What is important is that incoming information can be handled in two fundamentally different ways and that the two modes can apparently work together in a vast array of combinations. Since the late 1970s, I have used the terms L-mode and R-mode to try to avoid the location controversy. The terms are intended to differentiate the major modes of cognition, regardless of where they

are located in the individual brain.(p 22)

The theory and methods presented in my book have proven

empirically successful. In short, the method works, regardless of the extent to which future science may eventually determine exact location and confirm the degree of separation of brain functions in the two hemispheres. I hope that eventually scholars using traditional research methods will help answer the many questions I have myself about

this work.(p 24)

--Ronz (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff! I wonder where in Wikipedia, if anywhere, there's some discussion of the notion of the two kinds of thinking, and maybe of the lack of precision in knowing where they are located. It's probably in here somewhere, if only we knew the search terms. (I found some possible connections in Roger Sperry, Split-brain, Functional specialization (brain), and Lateralization of brain function. At first glance, Dual-coding theory looks VERY pertinent.). Also, I have a lead on a library archive of Betty Edwards material at Cal State Long Beach. If I can locate it, we should have more sources than we need, at least for the Betty Edwards article. Lou Sander (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

4th edition of Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain

I've put some references to the book, but the one I have in front of me is The New Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain which is the 3rd edition. Anyone out there have a newer copy to update the page references?

LL1324 10:18, 18 April 2015 Ll1324 (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)