The text discusses the relationship between clothing and human figure representation in art. It argues that both clothed and nude figures are essential in painting and sculpture, expressing the full potential and understanding of the artist. The author criticizes those who think clothing representation is trivial, comparing inadequate figures to children's dolls.
The Human Figures, etc.
Consider this: the given points can sometimes be so wonderfully aligned by chance that they express the utmost capability and full understanding of the painter.
And although we know that a critic or nitpicker might easily dispute or deny that the arrangement of clothing also pertains to human studies, we believe the pleating, which is the folding of draperies, necessarily follows the variable posture of the limbs, and thus cannot be entirely excluded from this discussion.
For it is certain that one does not always make nude but also clothed figures in painting and sculpture; therefore, all wise masters should always ensure that in the paintings not only naked garments are depicted where a head with two hands and feet hang out, but also true human figures are discernible within them. Those who wanted to present themselves as elaborate in this used to always sketch their figures nude, and after they were proportionately composed in action, they dressed them accordingly.
And thus, through the natural arrangement of the folds, they preserved the members of their figures in their accurate appearance and made it seen that a person was underneath those clothes. However, amateurs and ignoramuses think it is enough just to let one see hands and feet, and for the head to look above the work of a tailor. Truly, such figures are no different from children's dolls, which are dressed from rags and patches, with a molded face on the chest, and two hands sewn onto the sleeves.
There