What are some resources for classical draughtsmanship, the kind

>>2671345
It varied from artist to artist and during different time periods.

I don't know of a single source that catalogs the entire processes for lots of artists. Probably for many old masters we don't have all their preparatory works anymore, either they have been lost or destroyed. Usually they would do a lot though--thumbnail sketches, drawing studies for each figure, paint studies for each figure or face, several colour studies for the entire picture, careful planning and transferring of the composition to the canvas etc. They almost all used models extensively and some used mannequins to hold drapery in place in lieu of a model.

One thing to note though is that most pencil or charcoal sketches (outside of school studies) that you find by old masters were meant as prep for paintings and you can often match up the figures.

A lot of more recent illustrators from the past century though are better documented for this stuff but many used photos so it might be slightly different than what you are looking for.

File: watteau.png (318KB, 696x726px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 696x726px

>>2671351
I guess I should mention I'm aiming to do standalone sketches, like Ingres.

But sketches played second fiddle to paintings for basically all of the "Neoclassical" period that I want to imitate (Renaissance to c. 1900,) so most examples are incomplete prepwork, and I wouldn't get far doing studies from incomplete stuff.

What I'm calling "Neoclassical" art may have been naturalistic, but photorealistic art does not look "neoclassical." So there's a style here to be learned, a way of simplifying shapes and shades.

>>2671366
If you just want sketches then google around for some by specific artists. You'll find a lot from people like Michelangelo, Pontormo, Menzel, Sargent, Watteau, Degas etc

I'm getting some confusion here. Renaisance and Neoclassical are quite different, although they seem closer to each other compared to modern renderings. Once you are more finely tuned about what you want, you will see yourself more particular in judging which types of works are worthy of imitation. I can talk for hours about Renaissance draftsmanship, although I have limited advice on works after.

There are some main differences between contemporary and old master drawings in general. In old master drawings, generally the local colors are not indicated by values. Which is to say, the objects are drawn as if they are of a white value. This might even be the same for hair though not always, and is definitely the same for drapery. The other is the hatching and the lines in general. You will have to examine them closely and copy after them until they become natural. Whoever popularized the notion that one ought not to show lines in drawings as they are not actually there was a complete idiot.

Of course, Watteau as you have posted is somewhat different from the practice of drawing objects white, but he does not go as far as to copy the values of the local objects. Ingres even comes close to approaching the modern method.

Lines aside, a few others did work without much visible hatching, and even works in wash are discernibly by an old-world hand. The lights are often more generalized.

As for materials, most did not use graphite pencil. Even charcoal is a more modern invention although the harder varieties are similar enough to natural black chalk. Ingres is said to have used graphite however. I don't care to check which ones are made with graphite and which are not.

For all other part, it's a matter of sentiment in relation to things, which can be classified into two paradigms: a respect for classicism, or for realism. I would even suggest reading literature that are unconnected to drawing proper.