The Domestic Church: Are large families harmful to the environment?

(Brendan)

From the outset, I'd like to state that care of the environment is a Christian responsibility. We all must be good stewards of God's creation, and concerted efforts must be made to ensure creation is passed on to future generations in the same or better state in which is was passed to us. Living in moderation, and avoiding conspicuous consumption, are not only good for the environment, they are integral parts of seeking holiness and detachment from worldly things.

That said, the biggest issue with many "environmentalists" today is that they have turned advocacy for the care of the environment into a secular religion. A hallmark of this movement is placing a greater importance on the environment, or animals, than on the welfare of human beings. This type of "extreme" way of looking at care for the environment isn't so extreme anymore. It is slowly making its way into mainstream thought, and large families are at the forefront of those who have been, and will increasingly be, bearing the criticism and disdain of society.

For instance, let us consider the following article, entitled "Meet the Woman Who Won't Have Babies -- Because They're Not Eco-Friendly", and its main subject, Toni Vernelli. Toni believes the most environmentally responsible thing we can all do is to have no children. She has been sterilized to prevent herself from ever becoming pregnant, and very sadly had an abortion when she became pregnant prior to her sterilization, all because of her strong beliefs about the environment. Some quotes from her:

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

"We both passionately wanted to save the planet - not produce a new life which would only add to the problem."

"I didn't like having a termination, but it would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world.

"Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we've just come back from South Africa. We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population."

More about the supposed problem of overpopulation in a second. The article goes on to interview Sarah Irving and Mark Hudson, the latter of which got a vasectomy to ensure they never had a child due to environmental concerns. Some quotes from them:

"I realized then that a baby would pollute the planet - and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do."

"I'd never dream of preaching to others about having a family. It's a very personal choice. What I do like to do is make people aware of the facts. When I see a mother with a large family, I don't resent her, but I do hope she's thought through the implications."

Mark adds: "Sarah and I live as green a life a possible. We don't have a car, cycle everywhere instead, and we never fly. We recycle, use low-energy light bulbs and eat only organic, locally produced food. In short, we do everything we can to reduce our carbon footprint. But all this would be undone if we had a child. That's why I had a vasectomy. It would be morally wrong for me to add to climate change and the destruction of Earth."

"Sarah and I don't need children to feel complete. What makes us happy is knowing that we are doing our bit to save our precious planet."

However disturbing, this type of fanatical viewpoint isn't going away. Half-way around the world, in Australia, we also have Dr. Barry Walters alarmingly telling the Australian public that a baby tax is needed to save the planet.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.

"Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."

Dr. Walters is proposing a tax of $5,000 per child for every child more than 2 in a family.

Instead of worrying about whether "breathing" human beings will tank the planet with their "carbon footprints", officials should be finding ways to convert technologies to clean energy (as many are), which offers a far greater potential to reduce carbon emissions than having less children. But this isn't really about carbon emissions. Couched behind all this is the notion that the world is overpopulated and that we won't have enough room to hold us all on this planet, nor enough resources to feed ourselves or run our societies.

Far from the certainty which pervades every claim of overpopulation, the "population bomb" has been debunked as a myth. This article, by Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM), gives an inside look at the UN agency that perpetuates this myth (the UNFPA), and the other UN agency (the Population Division) that shockingly refutes them. Money quotes:

UNFPA, which is in charge of U.N. programs for population control, asserts that as a result of uncontrolled population growth, billions of people are poor and hungry. They also fully expect just about every animal species to be skinned, gobbled, or stuffed into extinction by the great hordes of humanity.

The problem with the UNFPA report, however, is that it is flatly contradicted by a more credible U.N. source — the Population Division, the official U.N. number crunchers. The differences between the two reports were so stark and so embarrassing that Population Division chief Joseph Chamie announced that UNFPA's report amounted to little more than propaganda. "The relationship between population and the environment is very complex," he said. "UNFPA is a fund; they have an agenda."

UNFPA claims that population growth has led to intractable poverty, and that "poverty persists and, in many parts of the world, deepens." The Population Division disagrees. "From 1900 to 2000, world population grew from 1.6 billion persons to 6.1 billion. However, while the world population increased close to 4 times, world real gross domestic output increased 20 to 40 times, allowing the world to not only sustain a four-fold population increase, but also to do so at vastly higher standards of living." The Population Division adds that "…even many low-income countries have achieved substantial improvements in the quality and length of life."

According to UNFPA, "In many countries population growth has raced ahead of food production," and as a result "some 800 million people are chronically malnourished and 2 billion people lack food security." The Population Division, by contrast, contends that "Over the period 1961-1998 world per capita food available for human consumption increased by 24 per cent, and there is enough being produced for everyone on the planet to be adequately nourished."

...the Population Division began a drumbeat in 1997 to the effect that, far from facing a population explosion, the world risks a population implosion, and a demographic shift with truly catastrophic consequences. Indeed, in the past three years the Population Division has hosted two expert group meetings at U.N. headquarters where demographic experts from all over the world have agreed that the current downward fertility trajectory will bring about population decline, intergenerational financial warfare, and a pension and health system meltdown. They concluded that, without massive immigration, the developed world faces a future of economic crisis.

UNFPA is looking to use the threats of environmental degradation, poverty, sickness, etc., to advance the spread of its favorite things: contraception, sterilization, and abortion. UNFPA's tired argument is that people are the problem, and so the fewer of them, the better. UNFPA is therefore ideologically unprepared to recognize the gravity of the real population problem — fertility decline in the developed world — let alone to address it.

The developed world, including the U.S. and especially Europe, Russia, and Japan, are heading into a population crisis in the next 50 years... a crisis of not enough children. Populations in much of Europe will begin falling within the next two decades, and by mid-century the economic consequences will be disastrous without mass immigration (which would mostly be accomplished by muslim populations). The U.S., Europe, Russia, Japan, and others desperately need more children. Vladimir Putin has started offering cash payments for couples to have a child, and even days off from work to try to conceive a child (!). Consider this from the wonderful John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 (the "give me a break" guy), who included the overpopulation myth in his top 10 "Media-Fed Myths" (you can almost hear his distinctive voice reading this):

We've heard protests about this for decades: News articles warn of "the population bomb," and "a tidal wave of humanity," and plead: No more babies.

The world population today is more than 6 billion. It seems like so many people. But who says it's "too many?"

There are lots of problems all over the world caused by too many people

But there's no space problem. Our planet is huge. In fact we could take the entire world population and move everyone to the state of Texas, and the population density there would still be less than that of New York City.

But, you might wonder, won't we run out of resources, like food?

Paul Ehrlich wrote the book "Population Bomb," and warned 65 million Americans would starve in a "Great Die Off" in the 1980s. The 1973 movie "Soylent Green" predicted food riots would erupt in the year 2022 but it doesn't look like that will happen.

According to media mogul and philanthropist Ted Turner, population growth is "a time bomb waiting to happen." If it continues, at the current rate, according to Turner, "Eventually you stand around in a desert with nothing to eat." But that too is a myth. We see the pictures of starving masses in populous places, but the starvation is caused by things like civil war and government corruption that interfere with the distribution of food.

With more people, we also have more smart ideas. Every year we learn how to grow more food on less land. Thanks to improved technology, the United Nations now says the world overproduces food.

About 15,000 babies are born every hour. But they are not a burden, they offer more brains that might cure cancer, more hands to build things, more voices to bring us beautiful music.

I could not possibly have said it better. Even developing countries need lots of children, to innovate and solve problems like hunger and lack of medical care. As John Stossel noted, a far greater cause of these tragedies in developing countries is civil war and corruption, preventing abundant aid from being used wisely and economies from getting on their feet, not a supposed problem of too many people. Children are our greatest resource and our greatest blessing. The notion that the world is overpopulated, or that the world's "carbon crisis" will be solved by eliminating human beings is not only irresponsible, it's root lies in evil itself.

So, all large families out there, and all those considering them, to quote our Heavenly Father in the book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and multiply"! Know that you are doing the world a great service in welcoming children from the Lord with generous hearts, even if the world doesn't realize it.

Great reference for homeschoolers and families who teach their kids the faith...

(Brendan)

I was extremely excited to see a brand new web site put out by the Vatican that has Scripture and almost all Church teaching documents in one place and, in a very easy-to-use, searchable, well-designed format (not a small thing for the Vatican in terms of web design -- their main website could use a little work). The site is called Biblia Clerus, and I highly recommend it. Just another indication of how homeschooling in particular will continue to have amazing technical resources that will assist in teaching the faith!

The Not So Big House

(Brendan)

This is one of my favorite times of the year, because I always ask for lots of books for Christmas (or money for the purchase of books) and in January I get to read them! One of the books that I got from my Mom for Christmas was The Not So Big House, by Minnesota architect Sarah Susanka. You've probably heard of it. When it was published around 1998 it was so popular that it has now ballooned into a whole series of "Not So Big" themed books (almost 10 of them). For instance, check out this search on Amazon. One tip: I would stay away from her The Not So Big Life; it's about simplifying, which we all can do and is laudable, but she has a rather new age and synergistic spirituality (i.e. generic spirituality) which isn't really compatible with the Catholic faith. In regard to her original book, The Not So Big House, I was skeptical about it prior to reading it because I figured it was just another "pop architecture"/Better Homes & Gardens style book that wouldn't really be that relevant to our home project. Instead, after reading it, I was very impressed and can say that it's an excellent book for anyone who owns a home, is thinking of remodeling, and especially anyone who is going to build a home.

The title of the book is kind of a misnomer. Most of the homes shown aren't really "Not So Big" at all, they just contain lots of detailing and were designed by an architect, with a mix of smaller and larger spaces. The title would make more sense if it said something like, "The Well-Designed Home." And there are few other minor problems with the book. For instance, for some reason she seems to define her audience for the book as those who are very wealthy, and would otherwise build a generic McMansion, who should consider her message and build just as expensive a house but smaller and more cozy and detailed. This is kind of an unnecessary constriction of her audience, because there are lots of concepts in the book that would benefit people of any budget. The main thesis applies: Americans build huge, non-descript, poorly designed, cheaply built homes as status symbols and "because they can" rather than doing what we as humans really desire -- spaces that are cozy and welcoming, well-designed, and say something about who we are. In some respects, her message caused me to re-think some things about our own home.

For instance, right now our library/sitting area is quite open to the family room (see below). There actually is no completely private space (other than the chapel) on the first floor. I have a men's group, and Molly is part of a women's group, and it got me thinking, "where would we meet that would give the necessary privacy and insulate from the noise of the rest of the home?" Also, "is there a place to go in the home (other than the chapel) to get away from all the commotion and read a book or relax?" (Susanka calls this an "away room"). The library area would definitely serve these purposes, but again it is open to the family room. So I suggested to my brother we look at adding a wall between the fireplace and the South wall of the home that would further enclose the library, and potentially a sliding door on the North side of the fireplace that would allow for some acoustic insulation when necessary. This would bring more into balance the amount of open spaces on the ground floor private spaces which are good for family life. So, he's taking a look at this right now.

Additionally, the real strengths of The Not So Big House are in the second half of the book, where she goes through a rather thorough list of how one can build an economical home that is still well-designed. I've never come across a book that does this so well, and it has vastly improved my knowledge about how we can keep the cost down for our home (especially as we start to talk to general contractors). I went through the book and documented some suggestions for my own reference, and for anyone else who is thinking about building a home but worried about cost. I recommend you buy the book and read it, but this will give some useful tidbits of information that are very interesting (I've included page number citations in parentheses).

Tips for keeping construction costs down

1. Quality-Quantity-Cost triangle – all are related and interdependent. (136)
2. Keep the form or shape of the house square or rectangular. (138)
3. The outer “skin” of a building is typically the most expensive component of the house. (138)
4. In general, the fewer corners you have in the exterior perimeter, the less expensive the house will be. (139)
5. Keep ceiling heights to the typical 8-ft. or 9-ft. height (materials are being made more readily available to easily assemble a 10-ft. height, which can be an option). (140)
6. Use drywall for walls, which is readily available in sizes that fit standard wall heights. (140)
7. To make an 8-ft. ceiling, typically use a 92 5/8” pre-cut wall stud. This dimension, with one floor plate below and two horizontal plates above, results in a wall height of 8 ft. after ceiling and floor finishes are taken into account. Pre-cut studs are also available for 9-ft. ceilings. (140)
8. A common mistake for the inexperienced is to order 8-ft. studs, which result in an 8’ 4” ceiling height, which is a non-standard ceiling height. (140)
9. The most common floor joist is the 2x10, which has a maximum span of 15’ 6” when installed at the conventional 16” on center. Large floor areas uninterrupted by walls or supporting columns generally require something other than the standard floor joist, such as pre-engineered floor trusses or manufactured floor joists. The longer the clear unsupported span, the more you pay. (140)
10. For foundations, 12” concrete block is typically used for basement areas (8” or 10” block is sometimes used in other areas, such as beneath a garage). Multiple corner offsets, changes in elevation, and curved forms require more work and consequently more cost. (141)
11. If you want to make a vaulted ceiling in the roof area, or otherwise make use of the space within a pitched roof, you need to use an engineered “scissor” truss. This costs more than a standard pre-fabricated truss. (141)
12. Houses in cold climates require frost footings, which on a flat piece of land would create a basement level and it wouldn’t cost too much more to convert this to a basement or finished living space. (148)
13. A two-story high space is equivalent in cost to almost double the square footage of the floor (almost equivalent to having the second story of space finished with a floor, etc.). Avoid these if possible. (154)
14. Materials, fixtures, and finishes are the most common items that can increase the per square foot cost of the home. (159)
15. Any angle or curve in a ceiling increases the cost (including vaulted ceilings) because it takes more planning and work to finish. The standard rectangular box is always the least expensive. (162)
16. If you use horizontal siding on the exterior, vertical corner boards can significantly reduce the cost because the carpenter doesn’t have to miter the corners to fit together seamlessly. (163-164)
17. Brick costs significantly more than wood siding. (165)
18. Higher ceilings inside can require other items such as more trim, transom windows, or more cabinets that can significantly add to the cost, just in order to make the room look right (166)
19. Use standard size windows to reduce cost. (168)
20. Pre-wired sound systems, intercoms, etc. increase cost and may be obsolete within a few years. Design to have such systems easily replaced or leave them out.
21. Any large expanse of interior wood, such as a wood ceiling instead of drywall, can significantly increase cost. (160)

We're back!

(Brendan)

Posting will resume very soon! Here's some pics from our trip...
Happy new year!

A new drawing...

(Brendan)

Here's a Christmas present that I did for my sister. I used this image, which I found on the internet, as inspiration...
And here's my drawing...

Untitled, by Brendan Koop, vine charcoal on off-white paper, approx. 5x7"

I used an enlarged print of the image at top to draw from sight comparison. The main artistic ideas I wanted to impart to the drawing were to remove the figures from the background and set them on a white page so that as the eye moves from left to right you have two totally different edges on each side of the figures. The left-hand edge is obscured by the light source, making it a soft transition and an uneven, jagged edge. The right-hand edge is in the shadow, but set on a white background it's a hard edge transition from dark to light, which balances the left-hand soft transition. Overall, the figures on a white background provide good contrast, which adds a modern artistic element.

Here's the drawing in it's frame...

Merry Christmas!

Adoration of the Shepherds, Antonio Balestra, c. 1707

Busy, busy...

(Brendan)

Just a quick note to say blogging will be (and has been already) sparse in December and early January. Obviously during the Advent season there is lots of other things going on that make the computer roughly #23 in priority, but also I am already off of work (from Dec. 18-Jan. 6!) and so we'll be doing lots of family stuff during this time (including celebrating the birth of our Lord -- for the full 12 days! -- and also going to Florida with my parents and siblings... 4 kids ages 5 and under on a plane to Florida... everyone on the plane better be prepared). I'm sure I'll get a couple of random posts in here and there. Thanks to all those who have kept commenting on our previous posts, we read all our comments!

God bless you during these seasons of Advent and Christmas!

Slowly starting to make some decisions about the house...

(Brendan)

Our goals are to keep things as low-cost as possible, while strategically spending more for quality and finish on items that we will never be able to change after home construction (i.e. we'll really try to have a basement, even if we have to wait on other things like the patios, because you can never go back on choosing to not have a basement for storage). There are lots of exterior things we can wait on if we have to (patios, landscaping, etc.), and there are other things we can be economical about with the knowledge that we can improve or upgrade at some point in the future.

One of those things is the kitchen, and I believe we have decided, after a trip to our local store in Bloomington, MN, to go with an IKEA kitchen. At first, I had thought we'd never go with IKEA, simply due to my perception that it wouldn't be durable enough. We love IKEA furniture, and we have a bunch in our current home (painstakingly assembled by me). But a whole kitchen?

The more we thought about it and investigated, the more we thought we should give it a look at the store. From my own research, a whole IKEA kitchen (including appliances) would cost 30-50% less than if we were to, say, have a Home Depot kitchen with Home Depot appliances. That's some serious savings. And, once we saw the kitchens at the store, it seems a no-brainer. The design is certainly vintage IKEA; easy to use, well thought-out, lots of options, simple process (can't necessarily say all of these things about Home Depot or other standard retailers, especially in regard to design). What I show below is basically the process of kitchen design with IKEA, and some of our own preferences, using the IKEA kitchen brochure for 2008.

First, there's arrangements to consider for optimal work flow and usability, along with organization (click any to enlarge):

With the design of Scheme D, we would have the "L" shaped layout above (with an island), which is probably the best arrangement.

One thing that is awesome about IKEA is the thought that they put into organization, with tons of options for storage (click either to enlarge):
And how can any large family go wrong when they can supply everything we need for childproofing! (click to enlarge)
As far as style, most of what they display is too Scandinavian for our tastes, with really modern looking finishes and light woods. But, they have so many options that we can certainly design to our tastes. Er... or should I say, we can certainly design to MOLLY'S tastes. She has complete veto power when it comes to the kitchen, that's like her office. So, when we visited the store, out of the cabinet styles we saw, Molly (and me too, actually) liked the style and color I marked below (click to enlarge):
And with the different options one can select, it could look something like this:
Or this...
But, Molly has said she's always liked white kitchen cabinets as well, especially since they really brighten the room, so we can't rule out something like this yet...
Stress wise, what I really love is that IKEA is a one stop shop. You can literally get everything you need there (appliances, fixtures, you name it). Here's some examples of faucets (below). I'm partial to the industrial, "take-no-prisoners," "we-have-a-huge-family" faucet on the far left (seriously), but Molly doesn't like it. There's still time.
And as far as appliances go... alright, so I will divulge one splurge (albeit, a nice-to-have for a large family type splurge). Molly would LOVE the little number below:
The one thing we probably won't get through IKEA is countertops; though we will still go the inexpensive route, we're not sure IKEA really has what we would want.

As for my quality concerns, there's a 25 year warranty, and lots of other info (click to enlarge):
I think the need to upgrade any of this stuff in the future is going to be minimal, if not zero.

To top it all off, they have kitchen planning software that you can download to arrange things yourself (see here). And they can do installation.

I think at least we know what we're doing for one room of the house!

Happy Feast of St. Nicholas! (Dec. 6th)

(Brendan)

Though as of this posting we are only at the eve of the feast of St. Nicholas, commemorated on Dec. 6, I thought I'd do a post wishing everyone a happy feast! We attended a St. Nicholas party with two families from our parish yesterday for the kids to learn about St. Nicholas and celebrate his holy example in following Christ. And our kids will be setting out their shoes this evening, hoping for a visit from St. Nicholas with traditional gifts left inside!

Here's a brief summary of the life of St. Nicholas:

This glorious saint, celebrated even today throughout the entire world, was the only son of his eminent and wealthy parents, Theophanes and Nona, citizens of the city of Patara in Lycia. Since he was the only son bestowed on them by God, the parents returned the gift to God by dedicating their son to Him. St. Nicholas learned of the spiritual life from his uncle Nicholas, Bishop of Patara, and was tonsured a monk in the Monastery of New Zion, founded by his uncle.

Following the death of his parents, Nicholas distributed all his inherited goods to the poor, not keeping anything for himself. As a priest in Patara, he was known for his charity, even though he carefully concealed his charitable works, fulfilling the words of the Lord: Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth (Matthew 6:3).

When he gave himself over to solitude and silence, thinking to live that way until his death, a voice from on high came to him: "Nicholas, for your ascetic labor, work among the people, if thou desirest to be crowned by Me." Immediately after that, by God's wondrous providence, he was chosen archbishop of the city of Myra in Lycia. Merciful, wise and fearless, Nicholas was a true shepherd to his flock. During the persecution of Christians under Diocletian and Maximian, he was cast into prison, but even there he instructed the people in the Law of God.

He was present at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea [AD 325] and, out of great zeal for the truth, struck the heretic Arius with his hand. For this act he was removed from the Council and from his archiepiscopal duties, until the Lord Jesus Himself and the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to several of the chief hierarchs and revealed their approval of Nicholas.

A defender of God's truth, this wonderful saint was ever bold as a defender of justice among the people. On two occasions, he saved three men from an undeserved sentence of death. Merciful, truthful, and a lover of justice, he walked among the people as an angel of God.

Even during his lifetime, the people considered him a saint and invoked his aid in difficulties and in distress. He appeared both in dreams and in person to those who called upon him, and he helped them easily and speedily, whether close at hand or far away. A light shone from his face as it did from the face of Moses, and he, by his presence alone, brought comfort, peace and good will among men. In old age he became ill for a short time and entered into the rest of the Lord, after a life full of labor and very fruitful toil, to rejoice eternally in the Kingdom of Heaven, continuing to help the faithful on earth by his miracles and to glorify his God. He entered into rest on December 6, AD 343.

Easily my favorite part is imagining Bishop Nicholas of Myra giving the heretic Arius the proverbial back of his hand during the council of Nicaea! Somehow I don't think Old St. Nick was too "jolly" right then.

Part of the origin of "Santa Claus" is the fact that Nicholas secretly gave money and other items to families in need by dropping them through chimneys or through the windows of homes.

For more information on St. Nicholas, definitely go to this site. It's one of the best web sites I've ever seen on any topic; extremely well done.

And check this out. A feature film is coming Christmas 2008.

St. Nicholas, pray for us!

St. Nicholas of Myra, preventing the falsely accused from being executed, by Ilya Repin, 1889.

A coveted book has finally arrived at my doorstep...

(Brendan)

I've previously posted on my love of art, and my own desire to learn drawing and painting in the classical tradition, with the hope of one day being proficient enough to create custom sacred art for our chapel and the rest of our new home. I've read many books this past year, and done many drawings (each one a little better than the previous) and so, despite time constraints and needing to take long breaks to deal with other things, I am making good progress toward my goal. However, one very large omission to this point in my self-education, both in terms of reading and drawing, has been the fabled "Drawing Course" (or "Cours de Dessin" in its original French) by Charles Bargue and Jean-Leon Gerome, originally published as a set of lithographs in the 1860's and 70's. This was THE drawing course in France and many other parts of Europe during the period in the 19th century just before the onset of modernism, and it was used to train expert realist artists in the truthful rendering of nature. The course is a set of lithograph master drawings of steadily increasing difficulty that a student is to copy, by sight and using the "sight-size" method, informing their mind's eye of the nuances of the human form. Most students had to reproduce all 197 lithographs, in the process becoming a master draftsman, before moving on to painting. The formation in drawing alone could take over two years before painting, and only afterward was a student allowed to transition into putting their own spin and expression in their artistic composition (having now had the foundation from which to make those expressions coherent).

Of course, "copying" has an awful connotation for us moderns. How can one "express themselves" and be "creative" if you have to copy something? This is the mindset of modern education, and it's no surprise that the Bargue Drawing Course was quickly discarded as a method of education in the early 20th century. Great artists were no longer made; each person was expected to show some sort of innate creativity to be a good artist and thus one need not go through formalized training in accurate representation. In fact, "great art" itself became subjective, and any art based in the classical tradition was labeled as "pandering to the viewer," or "rigidly dogmatic," "stifling," or a "relic of the past." (See any connections to the mass rejection of Church teaching in the 20th century?) Thus we have almost an entire century devoid of objective beauty in art, and a whole legion of artists that were never given the chance to have the training that those in the past received.

But, through that whole upheaval of the 20th century, small artistic workshops called "ateliers" quietly kept the classical traditions alive, and these ateliers survive today and in fact are now flourishing with a renewed interest in classical training and art. It was mainly for ateliers, and for art historians, that Gerald Ackerman painstakingly researched and gathered images of all 197 lithographs of Charles Bargue's original Drawing Course and published them in 2003 in a massive, extremely well-done volume, along with the history of the course and the method of how to move through it as was done in the 19th century.
Here's some examples of the plates that make up Bargue's course:

For the first time in decades the Bargue drawing course was now available for use as a teaching tool, and, seemingly to the surprise of those at the Dahesh Museum of Art in New York (who published the book in the United States) and even the author, the book sold out within a year or two. Now I come along, in 2007, voraciously learning anything I can about classical drawing, and upon learning that this book was by far the most recommended book on classical drawing and one that is used widely in ateliers around the world, I immediately wanted to get a copy (even at its $95 price). Being out of print, the only way to get a copy was through small book stores that were selling it at a price of anywhere between $300-$1,000! So, I've been on the waiting list at the Dahesh Museum of Art for a new printing for months (probably with every atelier in the country).

Finally this Fall a second printing was completed, and I received my own copy at the end of November! The book is fantastically done, with excellent graphic design and heavy, quality paper. It's an awesome read in itself, but its use as a training method will be even more valuable in the coming years. Anyone interested in drawing, or anyone interested in art, should definitely buy a copy while they are still in print now (here or here). It's still $95, and it's worth every penny!