In a recent Zoom Artist Round Table, a colleague brought up the merits of the popular book by Betty Edwards, Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. The book has been translated into more than seventeen languages and boasts of being the world’s most widely used instructional drawing book. The book is now in its fourth edition which includes a new introduction, crucial updates based on recent research on the brain’s plasticity and the enormous value of learning new skills/ utilizing the right hemisphere of the brain, a new focus on how the ability to draw on the strengths of the right hemisphere can serve as an antidote to the increasing left-brain emphasis in American life-the worship of all that is linear, analytic, digital, etc., an informative section that addresses recent research linking early childhood “scribbling” to later language development and the importance of parental encouragement of this activity, and new reproductions of master drawings.
While the book itself is indeed popular and some of the techniques demonstrably useful in certain contexts—there is a significant issue with a major premise of the book in that it relies on a good deal of pseudoscience as support. More specifically, the text relies on the left-brain/right-brain myth.
Now I would argue that Dr. Edward’s technique of altering the context of a reference source (orientation, surround, illumination, etc.) to alter your perception of it is indeed sound. Such contextual alterations CAN absolutely lead to certain advantages in contending with “conceptual contaminations” that may lead to “less successful” observational representational efforts. However, the overarching claim within the book (the right-left brain myth) has long since been debunked. While I have read that the later editions of her book sort of “walk-back” this general idea—her WEBSITE continues to promote this framework.
For those that are interested in the myth being utilized here, there are many articles online that you can read about this if you are interested. For example:
Left-Brain Right-Brain Myth, Debunked: Foster Creativity and Logic in the Classroom
or Right brain/left brain, right?
Or, you can opt to go directly to some of the more well-known studies on this issue like “Nielsen, Jared A., et al. “An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting-state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging.” PloS one 8.8 (2013): e71275.
For those of you that might not like to dig through studies or articles, you can sit back and enjoy this wonderful animated version of Dr. Elizabeth Waters’ (Neuroscientist and Director of STEM Outreach) TED talk on the subject HERE.
In addition, I’m also providing a general walkthrough of some of the major issues right here:
Rethinking Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain
Betty Edwards’ Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain is often praised as a breakthrough for beginners. Its central promise—that anyone can learn to draw quickly—has clear appeal. But the book’s core explanatory framework leans on a left-brain/right-brain story that modern neuroscience does not support, and that’s the main problem this review addresses.
The theory (and why it’s a problem)
Edwards repeatedly frames drawing as a shift from a “left-hemisphere, verbal-analytic” mode (L-mode) to a “right-hemisphere, visual-spatial” mode (R-mode), even suggesting the “language mode” doesn’t want you to draw because it must be “set aside” while drawing. The workbook glossary and prefatory notes spell this out explicitly (including entries for L-mode, R-mode, and “Light logic”). This left/right-mode language is built into the pedagogy, not just sprinkled in for color.
The issue: while certain functions can be lateralized (e.g., aspects of language), people are not globally “left-brained” (logical) or “right-brained” (creative). Large neuroimaging studies find no evidence for whole-brain “left-brained vs right-brained” dominance across individuals; lateralization is local and task-dependent. Leading reviews likewise identify the left/right-brain personality split as a persistent neuromyth in education. In short, the explanatory scaffolding here is pseudoscientific.
The practice (what helps—and what doesn’t)
The book does highlight a real beginner problem: swapping what we see for what we think we see. In the Waichulis Lexicon this is called Schematic Substitution—the unconscious replacement of observed visual information with internal, symbolic templates (e.g., “almond eyes,” “lollipop trees”). That phenomenon is real and worth targeting in training.
Edwards’ exercises (reorientations like upside-down copying, attention to negative space, proportion “sighting,” using a “basic unit,” and a viewfinder/picture plane) can indeed interrupt schematic, symbolic habits long enough for novices to perceive shapes and values more accurately—hence the common early “breakthrough” many readers report. These tools are plainly part of the method (they’re defined right in the workbook glossary).
Where it goes off-track is the causal story: the gains come from deliberate perceptual constraints and measurement habits—not from “shutting down” one hemisphere so the other can take over. Creativity and skilled drawing emerge from the dynamic cooperation of widely distributed brain networks, not a single side of the brain.
The shortcomings (pseudoscience framing, thin rigor)
Later materials fold in topics like perspective, sighting/measurement (“basic unit”), a provided picture-plane/viewfinder, and “light logic”—but they’re still presented inside the left/right-mode narrative rather than a clear, empirically grounded account of perception and construction. (See the workbook entries for “Basic Unit,” “Sighting,” “Viewfinder,” and “Light logic.”) This keeps the neuromyth at the center of the learning story and can mislead students about why the exercises work.
A more accurate takeaway is simple: structured observation, measurement, and value organization help beginners override schematic substitution and calibrate what they see to what they put down. You don’t need (and shouldn’t use) a debunked hemispheric myth to explain these results.
Conclusion
Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain includes several effective early exercises that can boost confidence and disrupt symbolic habits. But its persistent reliance on the left-brain/right-brain story is pseudoscience. The useful parts work despite the neuromyth, not because of it. For sustained growth, learners are better served by frameworks that pair careful perceptual training with explicit, analytic understanding—without invoking a creative/right vs logical/left split the brain simply doesn’t have.
Source notes
Creativity emerges from cooperation among large-scale brain networks (default, executive, salience), not one hemisphere (Beaty et al., 2015/2014). PMC+1
Edwards’ own L-mode/R-mode language, “Light logic,” “Basic Unit,” “Sighting,” and “Viewfinder” are documented in the official workbook glossary and front matter. Examples: L-mode/R-mode (P9–P10), “Light logic” (P9), “Basic Unit” (P8), “Sighting” (P10), “Viewfinder” (P9–P10). Profile Books
Neuroscience on hemispheres: No evidence for whole-brain “left-brained/right-brained” people; lateralization is local and task-specific (Nielsen et al., 2013, PLOS ONE). PLOS+1
Scholarly overview of what’s true (and not) about brain asymmetry (Corballis, 2014, PLOS Biology). PMC
Neuromyth status of left/right-brain in education (Howard-Jones, 2014, Nature Reviews Neuroscience). educationalneuroscience.org.uk
