I am, admittedly, an art information junkie. I troll websites, bookstores, magazines, anything that I can find to get my fix. With the re-emergence and renewed interest in classical realism, there has been a lot written about how to capture classical effects in an artwork. There are demos, youtube videos, discussion forums etc;.
         One of the main sticking points for me are artists who put out books or articles on classical painting, and include demonstrations of their own work, when they clearly cannot paint or draw well. They might be okay for doing demonstrations at the local library but they shouldn't be including their work in a book filled with reproductions of old masters. I'm sorry but if you can't seal the deal in your own work, then everything and anything you write about the work of others becomes suspect. I have bought a few of these books, because they feature the work of artists that I admire that usually aren't together in any other collection. My inclination is to take a razor blade and cut out every page featuring the author's work. Yes, they are that bad. 
           You cannot become great by association. If I rubbed my hand across a Rembrandt a thousand times that would not allow me to suddenly declare myself a master. Of course publisher's are not art connoisures and probably are more than willing to publish any monograph that might find a niche in what is clearly a growing audience; classical realism. But the student should beware of taking too literally any advice or expertise from people who clearly do not have the training they claim to have or the talent to make use of it. It is good that books and articles are coming out that cater to the classical enthusiast, I can imagine how cigar smokers must have felt at the first issue of "Cigar Afficionado", but we have to be wary of false prophets. If Jacob Collins or Daniel Graves, wrote a book on painting or drawing, I would give anything that they wrote some serious consideration. They know what they are talking about because it clearly shows through their work. If I wanted to be a great ball player would I read a book on batting technique by a minor leaguer or Mickey Mantle?.
          Their is a very famous book on drawing that I have enjoyed reading, which has some useful insights and features quite a lot of the authors own work. There is one problem; the author cannot draw feet. Their is something wrong with the feet on every single figure. They lack grace and they could not possibly support the weight of a human body. Now this may be a stylistic affectation, it's hard to tell . Another more recent, and also well written book features many of the author's drawings that look like the figures are made out of sausages. They seem inflated and somehow swollen. They remind me of Leonardo's comment that Michelangelo's figure drawings looked like sacks of potatoes (I don't agree!).
           I'm not saying that one must be an accomplished master to write a book on art practices. Perhaps you're an average, or pretty good artist, but really good at prose. That could be a valuable tool. Perhaps a really great artist might not be as good at communicating how to go about things, or at writing things down in a way that could hold a reader's interest. As a teacher myself, I have run across many knowledgeable and talented individuals who simply could not teach. So you're not the next Rembrandt or Carravagio, yet you've learned a few things and would like to share. That's fine, just don't include your own demos and examples, if they are not up to snuff. What exactly are you demonstrating, how to be a mediocre artist?. I get the feeling from reading some of these tomes that the author's may not be aware that they are so bad. Perhaps they've been moderately successful and that has led them to believe that they are quite accomplished. If you peruse through any art periodical it boggles the mind to see the proportion of bad work to good. Selling work is not an indicator of quality. As a child I thought I had a great singing voice. I even auditioned for a garage band. Then I got the idea to tape record myself and have a listen. It was not pleasant. Yet had I not done so, perhaps I would have gone on to take voice lessons. Maybe I would have even written a book about how to become a great singer.       
            It seems to me that one of the things that the greatest of the living artists have figured out is quality control. They don't accept things in their own work that would not have been acceptable to a past master. If they see a lack of training or understanding then they go out and get it, or keep trying until they figure it out on their own. You're not going to see this advice in the latest "how to" books because the authors are not practicing it themselves. Yet it is probably the one thing, besides talent and creativity, that separates the wheat from the chaff. If the young artist can learn to have a detached or objective eye, that will prove more valuable than a hundred ill informed demonstrations. This is not to say that one should destroy everything that they make until they reach perfection, but that if you see a shortcoming, and theres something you can do about it, then do it. Don't make excuses for your work. Don't write a book and try to get others to go along with the deception. The emperor has no clothes. I realize that this may come off sounding rather harsh, and perhaps a bit arrogant, (who am I to pass judgement), but art is everything to me and I don't like it when the pretenders to the throne try to jump to the head of the line.(how's that for a mixed metaphor?). It's kind of like those artists that always include the work of a master painter in their own paintings. Either it's a postcard or a painting set in a museum scene. I would not like to have my picture taken next to Brad Pitt. If you can't paint as well as the old master that you're including in your work than it is not an homage, it is a distraction.( your work distracting me from the work of the master).
        I guess this diatribe is just a symptom of my frustration with the quality of writing so far that pertains to traditional realism. Where are the Harold Speed's of today? Speed's books are great but there have been a lot of changes in art and life since Speed's time and some of his information could be updated with a contemporary approach. Really, there has never been and there will never be any book that is a substitute for training under the guidance of an experienced and accomplished artist, or a substitute for spending years, hard at work, in learning one's craft. But a well written book can be a kind of affirmation on why we do the things that we do. Why the sacrifices are so worth it. I often would find myself smiling when reading Speed's books. I would read a passage and think to myself "exactly!".