Educational and Industrial Drawing: Model and Object Series, Book No. 1
Softcover wraps, 9 x 12 inches. No date, but appears to be early, with the rear cover referring to a proposed system of 6 series. An unused copy in Very Good + with light soil and age toning throughout. The book reprints select pages from the teacher's manuals (often out of order), interleaved with heavyweight paper for student work. The "Model and Object Series" was the most prescribed of Thompson's drawing books. It promoted skills of observation and was associated with geometric models (it recommends Milton Bradley's series, but Prang and other manufacturers also produced the objects).
Langdon Shook Thompson presented his "Educational and Industrial System of Drawing" as an experienced guide through others' methodologies, not as an original invention of his own. He published an arguably dizzying number of series and variations: the Common School Course consisted of four drawing books and a manual for primary grades, plus three "Model and Object Drawing" books and a manual. Advanced courses were offered in Manual Training (2 manuals), Advanced Free Hand (4 drawing books), Aesthetic (6 drawing books and a manual), and Mechanical (6 drawing books and a manual). With some mix-and-match elements, Thompson endeavored to cover bases in terms of schools' varying intentions for art education. "Model and Object Drawing" series books could be substituted for the early numbers in both the Aesthetic and Mechanical Series, evidence of the diverging purposes for art education between schools. In 1898, Thompson was appointed Chairman of the National Education Association Committee of Ten, a group of art educators chosen to deliberate on elementary art education's means and proper purpose. Thompson's report, issued in 1902, concluded that beauty and aesthetics was more important than pictorial representation--though it was published with dissenting remarks from other committee members, including John S. Clark. ('The Journal of Proceedings and Addresses of the National Educational Association,' 1902, p594-614)