Beginners Guide to Better Art (THE REILLY METHOD)
Getting Started with the Reilly Method: A Beginner's Journey
After wrestling with the Loomis method for a few weeks, I heard about something called the "Reilly Method." Spoiler alert: it's completely different from what I expected, and honestly? It might be even trickier for beginners.
You know that feeling when you think you're getting the hang of drawing faces, and then someone mentions a whole different approach that supposedly makes everything easier? That was me three weeks ago when I first heard about Frank Reilly's rhythm method for portrait drawing.
Here's my honest take after diving into this technique: it's fascinating, it's challenging, and it definitely requires a different way of thinking about faces than the more geometric approaches I'd been using.
What Is the Reilly Method, Exactly?
Unlike the Loomis method with its circles and construction lines, the Reilly method is all about "rhythms" – flowing, curved lines that connect and define the major shapes of the head and face. Frank Reilly taught this approach at the Art Students League in New York, and it's based on seeing the face as interconnected rhythmic patterns rather than separate features.
The core concept: Instead of building a face piece by piece, you draw flowing lines that capture the overall rhythm and movement of the head's major forms. Think of it like drawing the "song" of the face rather than individual notes.
Sounds poetic, right? Well, translating that poetry into actual lines on paper is where things get interesting...
My First Attempt (Spoiler: Confusion Central)
Reality check: My first attempt at Reilly rhythms looked like someone had let a toddler loose with a marker. I spent two hours trying to figure out what a "rhythm line" was supposed to look like, and ended up with what can only be described as abstract squiggles.
The biggest challenge? Unlearning my habit of thinking in geometric shapes. After weeks of circles and guidelines, suddenly I needed to see curves and flows everywhere. My brain kept wanting to draw a circle for the head, but Reilly rhythms don't really work that way.
Breaking It Down: What I Learned
After watching countless tutorials and studying Reilly's approach, I finally started to understand what I was supposed to be looking for. Here's how I broke it down:
My Beginner's Approach to Reilly Rhythms:
- Start with the big rhythm – One flowing line that captures the overall gesture of the head
- Find the shadow pattern – Reilly emphasized the importance of the shadow shapes
- Connect the features – Draw lines that flow from one feature to another
- Think in terms of masses – Cheek mass, forehead mass, jaw mass, all connected
- Refine the rhythms – Adjust and strengthen the flowing connections
- Add details last – Only after the rhythmic foundation is solid
The Lightbulb Moments (And There Were Several)
Breakthrough #1: When I finally understood that the rhythm lines aren't just random curves – they're following the actual structure of the skull and muscles underneath the skin. Mind = blown.
Understanding the "Flow"
The shadow shape revelation: Reilly was obsessed with shadow patterns, and once I started looking for the big shadow shape on a face, everything started making more sense. The rhythm lines often follow the edges of these shadow masses.
Connection over separation: Unlike other methods where you place individual features, Reilly rhythms show how everything connects. The line of the nose flows into the cheek, which flows into the jawline. It's all one interconnected system.
Where I'm Still Struggling
The confidence problem: Reilly rhythms require confident, flowing strokes. My tentative, sketchy lines just don't work with this method. I'm still building up the nerve to commit to bold curve decisions.
Seeing the rhythms in real life: It's one thing to copy rhythm lines from a tutorial, but actually seeing these rhythmic patterns in a live model or photo? That's still hit or miss for me.
The speed factor: Good Reilly drawings seem to happen quickly and fluidly. I'm still in the "stopping every two seconds to think" phase, which breaks up the natural flow the method is supposed to create.
Reilly vs. Loomis: A Beginner's Perspective
Loomis feels more systematic: Clear steps, measurable proportions, logical progression. Great for beginners who like structure.
Reilly feels more intuitive: It's about seeing and feeling the flow of the form. Harder to explain in steps, but potentially more natural once it clicks.
Honestly? I think they both have their place. Loomis gave me a solid understanding of proportions and construction, while Reilly is teaching me to see the face as a living, connected system rather than assembled parts.
Resources That Actually Helped
Steve Huston's teachings on the Reilly method are incredibly clear. He studied directly with Reilly students and breaks down the concepts in a way that makes sense to beginners.
Proko's figure drawing course covers Reilly rhythms as part of the gesture and construction lessons. The explanations are thorough and beginner-friendly.
Classical drawing ateliers often teach Reilly-influenced approaches. Even their free content online can give you insights into this way of thinking about form.
My Progress After Three Weeks
Small victories: I can now see some of the basic rhythmic patterns in faces, especially in good lighting conditions. My drawings still look stiff compared to proper Reilly work, but there's definitely more flow than when I started.
"Think of the face as a landscape with hills, valleys, and flowing paths connecting them all." – This analogy from one instructor finally made the rhythm concept click for me.
What's working: I'm getting better at seeing the big shadow shapes and using them as guides for my rhythm lines. My portraits have more life and movement, even if they're not technically perfect.
Next steps: I want to get more comfortable with confident, sweeping strokes. Right now I'm still too hesitant with my lines, which kills the rhythmic flow the method is supposed to create.
Should You Try the Reilly Method?
If you're comfortable with basic proportions and want to add more life and flow to your portraits, it's definitely worth exploring. But be prepared for a different kind of challenge than more geometric methods:
It requires confident drawing: Tentative, scratchy lines don't work well with this approach. You need to commit to your curves.
It's more about feeling than measuring: If you're someone who likes precise, measurable steps, this might feel uncomfortably vague at first.
The learning curve is different: Instead of gradual, systematic progress, you might have sudden "aha!" moments followed by periods of confusion.
My honest recommendation: Don't abandon other methods you're learning. I'm using Reilly rhythms alongside my Loomis construction work. They complement each other – Loomis for structure and proportions, Reilly for flow and life.
The method isn't magic, but it's teaching me to see faces in a completely new way. Even my non-Reilly drawings have more flow and movement now that I'm aware of these rhythmic connections.
The Journey Continues
Three weeks in, I feel like I've barely scratched the surface of what the Reilly method has to offer. It's challenging in a completely different way from geometric construction methods – less about getting proportions right and more about capturing the essential spirit and flow of the subject.
I'm planning to share some of my rhythm practice sheets in future posts – the successful ones, the disasters, and everything in between. Maybe seeing another beginner work through these concepts will help you avoid some of my more spectacular failures!
Comments
Post a Comment