This is my first post on A&P so hopefully I don’t make too many mistakes. Below is a post that I made earlier this year at Art News Blog. It’s an issue that all painters have to have an opinion on sooner or later, so I thought I would see what people here thought about using photographs.
Here’s the post..
The ARTnews magazine has asked a question that has been around for a while now.. “Why should a painting based on a photograph be considered a less legitimate work of art than one painted from observation or one that is simply abstract?”
Everyone from Edgar Degas through to David Hockney does it, so why do artists sometimes hide the fact that they paint from photographs?
I think it’s because of the romantic idea of an artist sitting in the landscape or in front of the model, trying to capture the life of the subject before them.
It’s like replacing wine corks with screw caps. Easily twisting a new cap off a wine bottle is just not as romantic as using a corkscrew to to get the old cork out of the bottle of fine wine. Even though the new screw caps prevent the wine from ever going bad, they’re just not as cool as a cork.
That analogy probably isn’t the best one, but the fact is that photographs are a great tool for artists. I know I don’t advertise the fact that I use photographs to paint, but I also don’t hide it. It just makes sense. Especially if you work in oils and build your paintings up over several weeks or months. It’s not going to be very practical to plonk your giant canvas on the sidewalk in a big city everyday for two months if you paint cityscapes.
The thing that I can’t understand is artists using projectors to trace a photograph onto the canvas. Not because the finished work would look like a photograph, but because it takes all the fun out of creating the work in the first place. I can’t see why someone would waste their time on such an activity.
Slides and Prejudice
Over the last few years, artists have made increasing use of Photoshop. Eric Fischl, for example, who is best known for his voyeuristic, psychologically charged paintings of amorous couples, employs it to collage together different images until they register as something he wants to paint. “I am part of a generation that was schooled in the belief that discovery and execution should occur simultaneously on the canvas,” he says. “For nearly 25 years I had held on to that belief, feeling that were I to know what I wanted to paint before I discovered it, the painting would lose its vitality. When I began working in Photoshop, essentially separating the discovery process from the execution, I feared it would kill the painting. What I discovered instead was that it freed me to explore painting itself.” ARTnews
The conversation at artnewsblog started here and continued on here.
Well, I’m a photographer, not a painter. I don’t think I understand the difference in the process of doing, say, a landscape painting from a photo as opposed to actually hauling the materials out into the landscape and working there. So I’d be quite interested to read what the painters have to say about how the feel of things changes between the two methods.
Don’t painters routinely make sketches to capture something and serve as a reference for a painting executed later? How does using a sketch for reference differ from using a photo in terms of the process of making the final painting? (I am displaying my appalling lack of understanding of the process of painting, here. Sorry.)
I attended a talk by one painter who used several different photos of a subject (e.g. elk or bison) to get a better understanding of details of how light fell on it. It must be hard to get that by eye with a moving subject at a typical distance. She spent a lot of time finding the right photo for what she wanted, and worked mostly with a single wildlife photographer.
As a painter I like the “best of both worlds.” I like to BE there: seeing and feeling, interacting with whatever place or persons I’m inspired by - then take pictures for later reference.
It seems the busy/unorganized nature of my days doesn’t lend itself well to the full live painting session.
I think the painting and photograph issue is one of the biggest challenges for artists today. Whatever one thinks about it, one thing is certain: the choice to use or not use photographs will have a huge impact on an artist’s work. There are huge advantages of using photographs, no doubt about that. But working from photos is, I believe, a fundamentally different art form than working without photos. The difference is as big as the difference, say, between oil painting and another medium, like egg tempera. For me, it is important to know which technique an artist used. Did she work from photos? Did he paint in oil? Previously I had negative thoughts about work from photos. I have grown in my ability to appreciate artwork of this kind, and I feel enriched by that. But I still feel it is important to know what I am looking at.
Dion, it’s great to see you posting this article here. This post made a huge impression on me when it first appeared on Art News Blog. It inspired me to interview Dan Bodner, for example, and ultimately to take up photography as an art form in itself (or try to, at least!) I still don’t paint from photographs, but I feel positive about photography and about other people’s painting from photography.
Dion, good post!
What surprises me is that this is even an issue anymore, but of course you hear it discussed all the time. Photography has been around since before the Civil War, and painters have been using photos as references for almost as long. I don’t think there’s any difference in legitimacy between a painting created from direct observation and one created using photos, computers, projectors, printing techniques, or any other process. You may end up with very different kinds of paintings, but I don’t think one is any more legitimate than another.
We see different things when we look at a photo than we see looking at something in person. The human eye is constantly moving, refocusing, and changing its response to light, so it’s possible to see much more detail and nuance of lighting in person. The disadvantage of working from photos is that much of the detail and nuance of the actual scene is missing from even the best photograph. So if you’re trying to reproduce the act of seeing things in person, the photo may not give you all the information you need.
But there are many advantages to working from photos too. A few include the ability to freeze action, the ability to zoom in on distant objects, the ability to make visual notations quickly, and to get images of people’s fleeting gestures and expressions.
I think projectors are great too. Your assumption above is that someone uses it to simply copy a photo. I’ve used them as compositional tools, moving the projector around to scale and position various elements on a large canvas, covering up part of the projected image with my hand, to see how what I’m projecting fits with what I’ve already sketched in. Working in charcoal you can easily erase and resketch parts until you get the composition you want, and then start painting. It’s every bit as fun and spontaneous as any other way to approach a painting.
Hi Dion,
Welcome to Art & Perception!
Like David, I’m surprised that this is even an issue any more, but…
there was a time, about twenty years ago, when I went through a lot of soul searching over this. I would sometimes get so worked up I’d feel my heart race over the legitimacy of using photographs to paint from.
Two years later, I was using photographs almost exclusively to work from because
1. I discovered that photography was fun and challenging.
2. I found I often preferred photographs to paintings in other people’s exhibits.
3. I discovered that I could paint things that were not available as a painter. The really dazzling effects of light at dawn and sunset often last only a few minutes. I could study a photograph for hours. So photographs started to change how I saw things. Naturally, one can freeze time.
4. I could do more painting. Cameras weigh very little compared to a full on plein aire setup. Studios are production arenas.
5. As a result of 4. New vistas opened, like mountain tops and underwater scenes.
6. I discovered that using a camera to see instead of looking resulted in crappy paintings.
7. Putting it all together — $$$
There was never any question as to whether photography was an art form. I read a book one time about that “Great Controversy” around the turn of the century. It was reminiscent of the great controversy about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Then, one day, I rediscovered the joy of not using photos. Once again, I discovered the power of limits.
But the fact is, photography trained my eyes to see faster. I came to the conclusion that an artist’s understanding is senior to realty.
To elaborate on that “book in a phrase,” I can draw, oh, say for example, a running horse because I’ve studied so many photographs and practiced drawing so many horses that when I look at some particular horse in some particular place and light, I need only spot the variations from the mental models. But since I’m not too terribly chained to that horse or that moment, I can still put it all together in a new way without all the clutter that reality is always thrusting at one.
Dion,
If I look at this question as a viewer, I would have to ask ‘what would I care?’ about the method of production (so I would be interested to have Karl expand on why he thinks it is important to know). Either the resulting painting works for me or it doesn’t.
But if I were to look at this question as a producer, I might easily care. As others have said, the method of production will effect the outcome. It would also effect my enjoyment of the process. I can imagine that for some, sitting in the outdoor is a part of the process that is vital for them. Whereas for others, the act of setting up in a public place puts them off ever doing any art.
I use photo reference for much of my work. Since I build up the painting over the course of several days, working out on site is not very realistic. I have struggled with this in the past but with what I am doing now it just seems right. While I do landscapes I am not really going for the plein aire look and part of the whole process for me is deciphering and translating what is in the photo to create the painting.
I have also spent many, many years working from life (though not the landscape) so my basic skills are there and I am able to rely on those as well.
I had a teacher once who said that if you must work from photos you should a).use your own photos, whenever possible. b).use bad photos and c).not be a slave-change things around. I tend to follow this advice.
A note about b-I find it very difficult to work from good photographs. The best pieces that I have done have come from poor photos, where I must use my creativity and imagination to compensate.
Well that is funny to see this morning since that is the issue I brought up on my blog a couple of days ago LOL!
In repsonse to this statement: “Not because the finished work would look like a photograph, but because it takes all the fun out of creating the work in the first place. ”
how do you know what part of the creative process should or shouldn’t be fun? for some it is all of the process, for others it is the actual painting, yet again for others it is the satisfaction of the finished piece.
For me using a photograph is just one tool in my repetoire of tools to use and it depends on what effect I want. The key I think to making it work is having enough drawing skills and having studied the form enough so that one is not relying on the image alone.
Dion I just went back and visited your old entry, and I loved reading all the comments and opinions.
ps. GREAT to see you here, I LOVE your blog.
Tracy, this is wonderful advice:
The best pieces that I have done have come from poor photos, where I must use my creativity and imagination to compensate. .
My view is that if the painting has an impact and the viewer is satisfied why should anyone care that there was a photograph involved. If we go to someones house and have a great meal do we questioned and feel disappointed that they didn’t use rock salt, but instead Morton’s? I think we (artist) do a disservice to ourselves by creating ways to legitimize what it is that we do by saying it “needs” to be done a certain way. Lets face it we are not building automobiles and no-one needs to know what’s under the hood.
Thanks, Birgit, It has served me well.
I agree with Bob too. While I am often curious about what sort of reference is used, knowing what the reference is doesn’t diminish (or improve!) my opinion of the work itself. If it gets me, it gets, me and I am happy with that.
I think this comment on “From the shadows” was probably intended for this thread, and is certainly relevant anyway:
My work involves photographs as a starting place and although I’m not a great photographer, I pick and choose elements from photographs or old family albums. Occasionally I will take a posed photograph for a piece.
(I do figurative work now leaning toward more abstract in fiber and stitching. Some of my earlier pieces were based on the photographs of Julia Margaret Cameron)
But I think the choice of photographs (for me, anyway) comes from some place deep inside—and I think the angle you choose, the image you choose–are all appealing to you because of a similar place inside.
Several years ago, I did a portrait of my father from an old black and white Brownie camera shot. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I was saying good-by to the dad I knew as a healthy vibrant man—I was checking him into a nursing home at the time. Other people see it and see sadness in that work–it crept in and I didn’t see it until much later.
Sorry, I can’t post a photo of the image–I’m still working on my website.
Tracy and Bob,
Let me amplify on my earlier comment. Recently I was looking at a figure painting that I assumed was made from a photograph. I liked the painting a lot. Later the artist said it was painted from life. I was impressed with the artist’s technical skill. But the truth is, I liked the painting less when I learned it was from life. Why? Hard to say exactly. But the effect was very clear to me in my feeling about the work. How a picture is made does matter a great deal, at least to me. Think of it this way. When looking at a painting, do you care if it is a Monet or by some unknown 20th artist? If “who” matters, why should “how” matter any less?
Karl, et al,
Actually if I am looking at a painting purely for the visual experience it doesn’t matter to me who painted it or whether they had a photographic source or not. I may get curious about who the artist is and look at the placard, but I try to look first, read later.
Personally photography has opened up a whole new world for me in terms of subject matter, point of view, capturing fleeting moments as others have mentioned.
And since I allowed myself to use photos a few years ago I have become increasingly interested in artists who use photography or digital imaging of any kind and are clearly having a dialogue with it in their work. The digital age is here and it affects us and how we see, period. So why isolate ourselves from it? Why not take advantage of it? I am with David and others who are surprised that this topic is still relevant, but it is. Fine artists tend to get a bit stuck on being “pure.”
Several artists come to mind as having really interesting dialogues with different forms of technology:
Eberhard Havekost, Brian Alfred, Gerhard Richter, many artists in that great anthology “Vitamin P: Contemporary Perspectives in Painting.” I love the idea of working from “poor photos.”
When looking at a painting, do you care if it is a Monet or by some unknown 20th artist? If “who” matters, why should “how” matter any less?
I care, but perhaps not for the same reason as some other people.
Last night I had to replace a light bulb (okay, I had help). The one I used was made by GE, and I think it was a pretty good one. I put it in, it worked, and I didn’t think much more about it.
But if someone showed me a light bulb and told me, “this is the actual bulb that Thomas Edison created - it’s the first one that worked”, I’d look at it in a very different way. It’s not that he had to work harder at it, made it by hand, or that it’s a better bulb (it’s not). It’s that I’m seeing something that’s a part of history, and what I’m impressed with is Edison’s inventiveness. But if if I had to use a lightbulb, I’d use the GE.
Same thing with Monet. His paintings are beautiful, and I appreciate them for that. But what I value is not just the individual works, which certainly many people have imitated, but his contribution to the visual language of art.
When we look at a painting or any other artwork, part of our understanding is that it was something created by a human being. It isn’t just a beautiful object that happens to exist. Understanding how it was created is part of the pleasure of appreciating it. If you feel that you were deceived about this, you might justifiably be upset. (Likewise, in looking at a natural object or scene, some understanding of the science and history can be valuable.)
Leslie,
The digital age is here and it affects us and how we see, period. So why isolate ourselves from it? Why not take advantage of it?
I’m mostly sympathetic with this view, but at the same time, I can understand why many painters are wary. If we accept that this is indeed the digital age, painting begins to look like a laughably anachronistic activity. So it seems that conservatism is almost built-in.
Vitamin P is a neat book. I like many of the abstract artists.
I am reminded of some work I saw years ago by a painter of precarious situations: in mid-air, sitting on a busy highway, etc. It was strangely amusing to imagine the easel straddling the double yellow line, the artist’s unwavering commitment and the anxiety between the ponderous brushstrokes and on-rushing traffic.
I also remember watching E’s dramatization of the OJ trail and imagining the actor, playing the role of OJ, just giving up and confessing.
The relationship between the experience, its representation and its rerepresentation and its… can be fascinating.
D.
Karl,
When looking at a painting, do you care if it is a Monet or by some unknown
No, except in the historical sense that David has mentioned.
This really intrigues me. Can you articulate why you care (either about the provenance or the technique)?
But psychologically, I think its hard to separate history or technique from visual experience. I see something interesting and I want to know how it got there.
I should mention that I do care a great deal about how something is done, but not because it matters to me in terms of the work’s legitimacy. I’m interested because I’m looking for methods and insight to integrate into my own creative process.
I don’t look exclusively, or even mainly these days, to just artists for this. I’ve learned useful things from housepainters, signpainters, carpenters, engineers, flooring installers, computer programmers and machinists. And also from other artists besides painters, like writers, photographers, printers and musicians.
There are sometimes factors outside what’s in front of me that are part of the work, and those can influence my experience of it. For me there’s a big difference between just seeing a blank piece of paper, and knowing it is a DeKooning drawing that’s been erased by Robert Rauschenberg. That’s an interesting distinction. But whether someone painted from photographs or not just isn’t an issue for me.
Hi all — I’m new here, although I’ve been lurking for some time — Lisa Call recommended your blog to me.
I’m in the middle of preparing a slideshow/ talk using materials I gathered in September and have worked some with since. The materials I gathered were from 27 days of painting (watercolor & oil) and photographs from the John Day Fossil Beds National Monument in eastern (high desert) Oregon where I was artist-in-residence. When I returned from eastern Oregon, I began the process of translating my paintings and photographs into what I think of as my primary medium, stitched textiles based in traditional quilting techniques.
The talk that I’m giving is really my first foray into a discussion of how the different media interact as the artist works out of a physical experience.
So am I working from photographs? — heavens yes. I’m actually printing them on silk charmeuse and quilting them. Am I working from my experience of the light and shade and air and space and rattlesnake fears and sense of adventure? — heavens, yes. I am also working out of my own psyche, a psyche that is old enough to have very specific takes on light and shade and air and space and color and rattlesnakes.
So I suppose my understanding is that photography can be the medium, it can be used as a translated medium (printed on silk), it can be a reminder of a moment, it can act as a series of studies of moments, or it can just sink one’s soul back into an experience out of which something totally different comes. Each of these is legitimate in art.
Ultimately I am going to have an exhibit in which all the approaches are shown together in a single venue, allowing the viewer to suss out what happens in each media.
You can see something of what I am exploring at my website: juneunderwood.com >Recent Works >Works in Progress.
Arthur:
But psychologically, I think its hard to separate history or technique from visual experience. I see something interesting and I want to know how it got there.
Wanting to know, yes, I can understand that, even if I don’t necessarily want to know. That is, perhaps, a function of how much you know already. But I’m understanding Karl to be saying something more than this.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding. But I remain intrigued.
This is slightly off the topic, perhaps, but how many of you can tell whether a photograph was used or not? I have heard artists say (often somewhat scornfully) that the painting is from a photo — but unless it’s really really obvious, I can’t tell. Particularly with oils, where overworking is part and parcel of the process, and putting aside our desire to know the ambiance/ the context/ can you really see whether a photo was used? And if so, how?
June,
Each of these is legitimate in art.
Couldn’t agree more.
The talk that I’m giving is really my first foray into a discussion of how the different media interact …..
Sounds interesting. Any chance you might put up an online version?
BTW: Desert Dancers leaps off the screen.
Thanks, Colin, for the comment on Desert Dancers.
An online version of this process is an intriguing thought, but I’m wary of getting entangled in writing that could take me away from doing the art. What I really need is a Writer-in-Residence :-)
June,
The art work is amazing. Did you frame it or is it free-hanging?
I meant that it blew me away. I seem to get a better feeling for appropriate terms in conversational english by doing comments.
June,
You make a perfect point in regards to using photos… if you can’t tell by looking at it, and the artist won’t tell you, there is no way to tell. Why should a magician be forced to tell “Karl” how they perform their tricks because he wants to know? I think we should only get to see the finished project, (the way most all artists like it), forget “micro-managing” the process of the talent. It is a fact the many of the the worlds best artists have been photographed with photographs and projectors all over there studios. Singer Sargent is one of the best who was known to have used a projector and photos in certain cases.
It is far more common for artists to use “the limiting factor” on others to justify why their own works are lacking…”oh, at least I don’t use photos” or ” I only use 6 colors to paint with”, etc.. As if there is some rule to force us into an exact “handicapped” belief system, much like what has happened to classical music with students being told exactly how to inflect their notes,(thus killing the nuance of the spirit of the individual). It is also interesting to note that those who outwardly refuse to use resources other than natural observation, can actually only paint “still and motionless” scenes. How great is that? Darn it!..the dragonflies just wouldn’t sit still today, so I had to scrape the whole project. Ha Ha Ha.
June,
Nice komono!
I think it’s also worth noting that there are artists who paint from photographs and deliberately make use of the visual artifacts introduced by cameras. Like Chuck Close’s early super-photographic portraits with their shallow depth of field, or Robert Cottingham’s very photographic paintings of neon signs. There are many others. These aren’t artists who are using photographs as stand-ins for painting from life, but are embracing the way a camera works as part of their conceptual framework.
Hi June,
Nice to hear a new voice. Excellent comments.
I noticed the link to your website did not show up as a link, so I thought I’d show you how to type it in the comments so it does in the future.
Like this: <a href=”http://juneunderwood.com”>Your website</a>
Rex,
What did you actually type to get that result?
Hi June - glad to see you comment.
The easiest way to get a link to show up in comments is to just start out with the http:// part and wordpress will do it for you automatically:
http://www.juneunderwood.com/
If you want to name it something else you can type the following:
<a href="http://www.juneunderwood.com/">June’s Website</a>
which will look like this: June’s Website
This is the part that is important (an anchor tag) - you have to get the syntax correct for it to work:
<a href="WEB ADDRESS HERE">TEXT HERE</a>
Thanks Rex and Lisa,
June’s Website I Hope
Just my attempt to get up to speed.
Back to the comments at hand. Karl, I rather liked your commment about wanting to know if the artist used a photograph, because I think that art is not the single image or impression that the object renders, but rather the entire experience. This is a fairly heretical view, because it means that as an artist, I have even less control over the effects of my art than I had imagined.
But seeing a Madonna in a church is different than seeing one in a bar. Knowing that the artist committed suicide immediately after seeing his work in an upscale restaurant changes the way I see the work. Knowing that the artist was sitting in a rain storm with icy water down her neck while she painted a watercolor changes the way I look at the painting.
There are degrees of difference, of course. Some aspects of the context are more important than others — I’m not sure that photograph vs. no photograph is among the biggees. But it’s still part of the context of the painting, which whether we like it or not, is part of our experience of it.
(I could go on and discuss whether it makes a difference if we know it was done from a photo, but Karl has spoken of that, and from one point of view, that way lies trees falling in the forest and sheer madness).
And incidentally, Birgit, most of the textile work I do does not have to be framed. It’s easy to hang the work as a flat wall object by sewing a sleeve on the back and equally easy to use a binding as a kind of “stop” or frame, if the piece needs such. I do float small pieces on matboard or whatnot to avoid the dreaded placemat look, but framing the large ones would be done only by those with big $$.
June,
Yes.
Hi everyone, I am an artist in hawaii. I paint with photos, and direct from nature, as well. My father was a professional photographer, and so I was was raised with a creative and technically skilled teacher from whom I learned that camera work can be more challenging creatively, then a painting even. However, beyond snapshots, and copying, there should be soul and the artist’s spirit, as well as essence of the subject in the work.
Thus, when I use my photos or the photos of others as references, I honor the technological advancements, and they assist me. I paint from memory even with a photo before me, as we can’t really shut off say all the memories of painted waterfalls, photographed waterfalls, or waterfall memories of first hand, in-nature, or Comments by anyone ever ~who has communicated about waterfalls.
One major issue with copying photos is, ~does the artist bring their multiple experiences to the photo, or is the artist just copying for better commerical success in representing an image.The other question is also, has the artist avoided learning skills that are traditional to speed up their success;realisticly representing something does not necessarily mean the artist has captured the essence, or is anything other than a good craftsman or copyist. Is it just a copy? This question must be answered by each individual artist. I do not personally respect an artist’s works if they are mass produced from even their own image rather than also, getting close to the ‘live’ subject in nature(if possible).
There is also the question of copying a great composition and design of a talented photographer without getting permission from the photographer, then not honoring their skills in their media. That is another, personal, and moral question. If I use my photos or the photos of another, I feel responsible to interpret, transform, and change the image, the quslities of the image, etc. by bringing my own creative style to it. I make it ‘mine’, in others words.
One must learn by copying nature preferrably, and use skills and technology to aid your own vision, your own seeing of what is before you. Being an artist is a special way of seeing, that can be both unique and universal. Using a projector exclusivley, and copying too much captures a momentary aspect(actually not the soul of the subject, ala Indian’s fear that the camera would capture their soul), the deeper meaning of your own evolving style, and the subject, thus can be enhanced with a camera, and multiple shots, or it can be stifled.
Recently, I observed an exhibit of an artist new to the islands. She has produced many large hula dancer paintings, It is evident to me a plein aire, and studio artist as well, that she leaned heavily on tyracing her own photo images projected on the canvas. The capturing of motion was highly succesful, as was the in-editing of capturing composition and design, and great motion of blurred movement. However, something disturbed me. I had to look at the images many times. Then I got it. I looked at the eyes, and no-one was home. The eyes were dead.
The artist, revealed her lack of depth in her work by not capturing the light, and personal spirit in the eyes of the dancers. There were no black pupils, no sparkle, not even color in the iris. If as Plato stated B.C., The eyes are the portal of the soul, tyhen this artist has lost me as a viewer. To me, this ‘artist’ no longer interest me as a fine artist. She has used the techbnology, and the Hawaiian culture to mass produce art in a commercial way. By the way, I found out later she is trained as a graphic artist in a more commercial field of the arts. These soulless paintings to me have failed in a major category of art.
Technology can make the making of art too easy, and thus a failure. The Proccess of art needs to keep a spirit if passion is part of its meaning, not just graphic accuracy in copying. My own style is luminalism, not realism or impressionism, my own ism. Personnaly, realistic art has been done, the camera can do it, also. Copying and realsim are boring to me, they take the soul out of art, and the subject, as well. My artsblog open journal: 360.yahoo.com/pacifictalent
Mahina and others have mentioned the key point that the artist must “make it mine” in some way for the work to have integrity. (This raises the question: is “unoriginal art” an oxymoron?) It’s interesting that poor photos make this easier to do, if photos are being used.
The question that really interests me is about what is different when the artist is forced to work over time in front of the subject. Is something gained (depth?) as well as lost (spontaneity?)? Though a photograph can be taken quickly, photographers have tried in various ways to re-introduce time into the capturing of an image. This time question could be a subject for a separate post (not necessarily by me).
When I was in grad school I taught undergraduate drawing for a number of years. One assignment I gave was to draw a self-portrait by looking in the mirror. Some of the students of course “cheated” and worked from photos, and you could spot these right away. (I mean “cheated” only in the context of the assignment). Anyway, the next assignment was to draw a self-portrait from a photo.
Not only did the students get a chance to approach this task in two different ways, but they got to experience the difference between them. Each method seems to me perfectly valid, as do combinations of the two. Neither approach is better. They are just different. You learn different things from each. Depending on what your work is about (not just the subject, but the conceptual basis), one or the other might be more appropriate.
I personally use a combination of photography, life, mirrors, still lifes and imagination.
My latest painting was worked from a photograph that I manipulated in photoshop first to get to where I wanted to be… it would be my next sunday post…
Very late seeing this thread, … sorry.
Well I will ‘admit’ that I work a lot from photographs … and 99% of the time they are my own. I say ‘admit’ because a lot of people seem to think that by using photographs you are trying to recreate the image in its entirety.
But, similarly to Tracy who said “The best pieces that I have done have come from poor photos, where I must use my creativity and imagination to compensate”, my use of photos is for reference only … to get the form, or the light source, or the perspective to a convincing state of ‘rightness’ for MY purpose of the moment.
I may only use part of a photograph or I may use several in one painting… it all depends. If you are ‘telling a story’ in paint then I believe that you should be able to use any or all the tools available to you.
And while I can admire artists who produce paintings of ‘photographic realism’,if nothing else then for their technical skill, this is NOT what I want to do and is not how I use my reference photographs.
And I see nothing superior or saintly in sitting ‘en plain air’, or staring at a still life set-up, or trying to sketch a fidgety model. If thats what you want to do then that is fine by me …. but I will only do it WHEN and IF I want to!
And the worst thing that anyone can say to me about a piece of my work is “that it looks just like a photograph”. Because if they say that then I know that I’ve failed in what I was trying to do!
Hi Lesly,
Looking at your site, I would say that your work, for example, ‘The way we were’ is the perfect example of using photography in painting. I recognize this instantly as from a photo (although I confess that I have been wrong in this type of “recognition” in the past on occasion), but I would not say “that it looks just like a photograph.” The painting is far more than that. By the way, why is it not for sale?
I have only ever painted from direct observation. I do it for several reasons, but the biggest is that no matter how good the photo is, it lacks the variety of color that real life offers. Yes photos can have brilliant light and be beautiful in it themselves, but they lack the ability to show all of the colors.
I don’t make judgement calls for or against those who paint from photos, but for me what I lose is to great compared to the conveinence.
for me painting is choosing and selecting what I deem beautiful from the turmoil that surrounds me. whether it is the light changing, or the effects of the weather or the effect the surrounding colors have on each other the color is my subject, so photos are lacking in that respect and for me the paintings from them lack that variety too.
Personally, I have been going to hawaii every year since my family bought a time share on maui. I love it. i dont understand how people cant just go once. Io fell in love with it!