One day last year, I visited the huge Barnes and Nobles store out on 18th street in Manhattan. By accident, I stumbled onto the bargain bin by the philosophy section. Not one to pass up a cheap book, I rifled through the stack of about twenty books and noticed, to my surprise, that among them was Betty Edwards' new version of Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain.

Even though it surprised me, I wasn't altogether shocked that this happened. Like every aspiring artist, I had read the book back in its early days of publication and become intrigued with the great ideas of right brain/ left brain theory. And, also like every aspiring artist, I had learned to regard this book as the bible of art instruction, a holy document that any person could consult if he wanted to draw. However, as I grew older and became better at drawing, I began to develop a snarky irreverence towards the book borne out of annoyance. Something about it angered me. I didn't like the fact that it seemed to boastfully declare itself the authority on art instruction when in fact there were plenty of other books-- notably Bert Dodson's book, Keys to Drawing-- that were just as helpful. So, as the years passed, I began to see this book less as an art bible than that of a person's major ego trip.

At first, I thought this reaction of mine was a little rash. Clearly I was over-reacting feeling that Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain was really that-- an ego trip at its worse. What did I have against Ms. Edwards, anyway? But then the incident at Barnes and Nobles happened. And when I picked up the new version of this classic book in the bargain bin and flipped through it, my reaction was confirmed. A classic book with a novel approach to drawing had now become one person's mission to be known as the person who "discovered" right/ left brain theory.

Obviously, I can't rate the book based on the character of the book alone. So what I will do is rate it on three counts: first, character, then concept, and lastly, functionality (i.e.-- does it really work?)

ISSUE NUMBER ONE-- TOO SELF CONGRATULATORY
The first thing you will notice in the new version of this book is that it is very self congratulatory. Betty Edwards founded this revolutionary new theory to help people draw, and dagnabbit, she's gonna let you know it, ad nauseum, again and again and again. Read the first chapter or so, and she will gladly-- and defensively-- tell you how many people across the country have adopted the ideas of her book. She will also crow about how she has gotten people to miraculously draw well in just five days using her techniques. (More on why this is implausible, below.) Worse yet, she will even exhaust you with scientific research proving that her left brain/ right brain theory is right, right, right. So even before you can actually move onto the part of the book where you can learn Edwards' art techniques, you will have to wade through a lot of unnecessary nonsense in the beginning where she tries everything she can to tell you how revolutionary she is and why all her naysayers are wrong.

Just to show you I'm not exaggerating, there is one telling moment when she writes something in response to all of her antagonists who question why she can't teach art instruction without beating her students over the head with ideas of left brain and right brain theory. She says (and I'm paraphrasing here), "To teach a person without right brain theory is possible, but it would be very difficult." In other words, Edwards has become so attached to the idea that she was the founder of right brain theory that she can't even fathom the possibility that people could teach her techniques and leave "her revolutionary idea" out of the equation. I can't think of a more shining example than that statement of how the author has become more interested in maintaining her status as an "art instruction guru" than helping people draw. Not surprisingly, a lot of this boasting and defensiveness gets in the way of the book and leaves you either annoyed or even antagonistic towards the author.

ISSUE NUMBER TWO-- RIGHT BRAIN THEORY, SCHMIGHT BRAIN THEORY
Now why the defensiveness in this current edition of Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain? Because the acclaim for the little darling of the art instruction world has begun wearing off, and people are becoming less enamored with the revolutionary ideas of this book to the point of questioning right brain/ left brain theory and its value in art instruction. They, of course, have a right to, especially scientists. Theories of how the brain works, for one, rests in the domain of science, not that of an art teacher. This is not to say that an art teacher cannot make profound discoveries about the human mind and art-making. However, since scientists for the most part deal with the brain all the time, I'm going to take their word for it when they say that the idea that we have a left brain and right brain is a complete misunderstanding of their scientific research.

But even if it were true that we had a right and left brain, the fact is that the ability to draw has nothing to do with the science of how our brains work; it has to do with the ability to grasp a very simple, basic concept: to learn to draw, you must learn to see as an artist. In other words, the problem of drawing is philosophically-based, not science-related. The reason why most people can't draw is that they can't see artistically. The reason why they can't see artistically is that they see the world in utilitarian terms-- i.e., in terms of what's most useful to them. The only way to make them see in artistic rather utilitarian terms is to develop techniques and exercises that will help retrain their perception. As long as we have had art schools, instructors have been doing this, and all without the benefit of right brain/ left brain theory, the idea of symbols, and the discoveries of gestalt psychology to make things more complicated for aspiring artists.

But don't take my word for it that right brain theory is an unnecessary complication in the teaching of art-- get it straight from the horse's mouth yourself. That's right; you heard me. When you read the New DOTRSOTB, you will notice something bizarre. Even the author, in a strange paradox that defies explanation-- unconsciously questions the validity of right brain theory in art instruction without even knowing it. How do I know? Because of the schizophrenia of the book. In contrast to the first edition, it has now developed three distinct personalities that have nothing to do with each other-- one part scientific journal, one part art instruction book, and one part Zen philosophy. The pages veer from scientific research explaining the brain's processes to solid art techniques that date centuries, and all the while by being accompanied with Zen quotes in the margins about how to see artistically. It's almost as if the book is experiencing an identity crisis.

If it is, that makes complete and utter sense to me. When one sees the progression of each edition of Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, it seems as if the author is making new discovers about the artistic making process that don't involve right brain/ left brain theory. With each new discovery, she then creates a new edition adding them on top of what was written before. But because each new idea actually takes her away from right brain theory, each edition becomes more and more disjointed. This is why this current book is so schizophrenic-- it is in the middle of unconsciously moving away from its central ideas into something else entirely. In other words, this current edition, rather than building upon the original edition, is actually stepping away from it, making it more a work of progress in a state of flux than anything else.

But what is it moving towards? The realm of Zen philosophy, if you can believe it. If that concept sounds familliar-- an art instruction book combining Zen and drawing-- you're right: this is the crux of Frederick Franke's landmark book on Zen and drawing, a book that pinpointed the exact problem of drawing-- learning to see in a way than you're used to. Since the problem of drawing is philosophical, and since Zen philosophy is closest in addressing this problem, it is only natural that the two go hand in hand together. This understanding is what Edwards' book is ambling towards, without the author herself even realizing it. I can only wonder what the next edition will look like when Edwards finally "gets" it and realizes that Zen is the answer and not right brain theory. Will it be called "Drawing on the Zen Side of the Brain?" Don't be surprised if that's what happens.

ISSUE NUMBER THREE-- BUT DOES IT WORK?
So now we get to the 64, 000 dollar question: Does this book work? Will it be able to make you draw?

Well, yes and no.

Someone at Amazon.com said it best: this book will teach you how to copy what you see; it will not teach you how to draw. Having struggled with drawing myself, I can vouch for that. This book is only the beginning in learning how to see well enough to start drawing, but it will not make you a draftsman.To draw well takes years of practice, not five days as the author claims. This is why I say the book works and doesn't work. (That is a very Zen thought, I know, but bear with me.) If you want to learn how to copy perfectly what you see within a matter of days, then this book will do exactly that. But don't congratulate yourself after Day Three when you've completed your first realistic self portrait: you're no more an artist than a person is a pianist after he's perfected "Mary Had a Little Lamb" after his first piano lesson. To become a real draftsman-- that is, to create solidly rendered objects filled with life and rhythm and movement-- you will be out of luck with this book. Only a few semesters of art theory, figure drawing, and anatomy will do that for you.

So what should you do? Should you buy this book?

Well, here's my advice: if you already have the first edition of this book, keep it and cherish it. When it becomes worn out and you need another copy, look for the first edition and not this one. The first edition is still the best one because it introduces classic concepts key to understanding visual perception without getting bogged down in the defensiveness and boastfulness of the later edition. If you've never drawn a day in your life before and have never read this book, I have this suggestion: please read "Keys to Drawing" first by Bert Dodson, then read the original edition of Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain so that you won't feel left out when speaking with other artists who have most likely read this book. But no matter who you are, stay away from this new edition of this classic book entirely; it is an incredible disappointment.

My rating? Three stars from me.