Educational and Industrial Drawing: "Pictorial Drawing" for Regents' Elementary Examinations, No. 1 (with student work)
Softcover wraps, 9 x 12 inches. No date, c.1893 based on a related example. 8 printed leaves (2 pages of text reproduced on each side) with blank heavier-weight paper interleaved for student practice. This example has 5 subdivided pages with student work, 19 individual examples--all well executed. The student's name has been erased from the cover, just faintly reading Ernestine A. ---? A little bumped and soiled but VG+ to Near Fine overall condition. OCLC locates 5 copies of Thompson's 'Manual of drawing, to prepare students for the regents' examination in drawing,' dated 1887, but no copies of this iteration of his drawing books, which were published through the 1890s.
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)