Naked men
 

Yesterday, I saw the Eakins painting of the "ole boys at the swimming hole" that was one of those featured on one of ARC's Eakins' pages. I personally think the flaws of painting from weak photos are very obvious here. There are several places where you can tell he didn't have good info and just faked it -"blurred and blended" and hoped no one would notice. This was once one of my favorite paintings. Our goals and appreciations change over time.

Eakins
 

Here's that work. Art, like baseball, has no secrets. All that's been done is ours to study and learn from.

the artists, so called . . .
 

There would be no profit (for me or anyone else) in my wading too far into the whirlpool of the Eakins debate, but I can't help but note that this reproduction seems to be -- to say the least -- quite bad, strangely overbrightened and "yellowed", as if worked over in Photoshop. The posted version isn't true, even without having seen the original, because there are other publications with better production values. It's hard to know what could be forcefully argued on the basis of this "clip" from somewhere. I hope ARC's repro is better.

I have with me a copy of Robert Hughes' "American Visions", which happens to include quite a good (much sharper, at least) reproduction of "Swimming (The Swimming Hole)". Having spent more time than I really cared to, doing life drawings and paintings from nude models, I find very little "faked blurring and blending" in what I'm seeing here. Indeed, most of the anatomical forms are extremely well rendered, not surprising, given Eakins' three-year stint at Gerome's atelier. Sure, the diver's a bit dodgy -- probably an antsy model who couldn't hold that pose -- but five out of six (and a pond pooch to boot [hard to see in this approximation] isn't a bad score.

Hughes, noting the photographic basis for the figures, writes of the painting: "[I]t actually tries to outdo photography's grasp of the instant: the arms and head of the youth diving into the water have thrown up a spray no camera available in 1883 could record."

Hughes also quotes Walt Whitman, whose portrait Eakins had painted: "How few like it. It is likely to be only the unusual person who can enjoy such a picture -- one who can weigh and measure it according to his own philosophy. Eakins would not be appreciated by the artists, so-called . . ."

As a waterman as well as a painter, I would be remiss not to convey gratitude for the introduction to Eakins. I've been viewing his sculling and sailing paintings -- magnificent!

(Admittedly, I also always read all selections from banned-book lists.)

It was the Eakins "Swimming Hole" painting that I was referring to in my earlier post. We had the opportunity to see the wonderful Eakins exhibit recently when it appeared in Philadelphia, and that painting was included. The image that Tim included doesn't hold a candle to it and I also can't see the fakery he refers to. The exhibit also featured many of Eakins' photographs of people in the nude and it was obvious that he studied the human figure extensively. That study is evident in paintings such as this one.

well
 

Sleeping in a garage doesn't make you a car. I'm never moved by the fact that anyone studied with anyone if the student's work doesn't reflect that superior influence.

I thought the color of the work had bad color too(when viewed in person)...same remarks as you. Probably should have made color sketches from life. The compostion is one of , "Oh what can I put there to fill the void?" type composition. The boring block of landscape on the far right is regrettable. Most of the faces are dark smears (see the red-head).

Ole Walt , I'm sure, liked the subject matter.

Not all work by even great artists is great. It's Ok not to love everything these artists made. Here's a work done from life that has an awesome composition (in my humble opinion)

Hmmm, interesting, revealing comment . . . perhaps closer to the heart of the real objection to Eakins. Not being a Whitman scholar, I wouldn't know if the innuendo is based on fact. But in any event, Whitman was talking about his own portrait, not about the "Swimming Hole" painting.

I haven't had the pleasure of seeing the original painting. As I said, I had two reproductions side by side, and there was such a contrast between them that they might have been from different paintings. I don't think the better one was manipulated to make it appear that the work was competently executed.

It's unfortunate that a once "favorite" painting can no longer be enjoyed because of intervening education.

By the way, I slept in the garage one night, hoping to become a Porsche, but I turned out to be an SUV. Not very pretty, but useful in deep snow and on steep grades.

My this has been a long roller coaster thread - but I must say to learn Steven awoke as a SUV instead of a Porsche made it certainly worth it!

I loved the 5 years I spent drawing from life and still life, but now unless I can pin down a family member or friend - with whom a bottle of wine will be consumed, leading to a much looser drawing style - I don't get to draw live.

So it is important to me to get a good reference photo, but not a perfect one, as to the fact I don't want to invest in the equipment and become a portrait photographer. I think if an artist has received a foundation for drawing from life it is helpful and obvious. To make the best of a lesser than great situation, I like to have the children in my studio for the first day, notes and photos and getting to know their personality. Then on the finishing day to look at the areas my photo has not given me.

Just a point to ponder...

If cameras were available during the Renaissance, do you think the old masters would have incorporated them into their tool box? Would we then look at this subject as a progression in technology? I do remember when Microsoft Word came out and offices everywhere started to make their secretaries typesetters and graphic designers. Yet, without a good design background all the best tools in the world will not help!

And you know Steven, I keep waking up in the garage as a dang Mini Van. How do I get to be an SUV?

Oh my gosh, Tim, of course I'm in Florida and a big election is right around the corner, but I swear that was right from the mouth of Ross Perot.:cool: May I use that one at work?

Yes, absolutely. But, like we all ultimately should and IMO, must do, they would have also realized they needed the experience of painting and drawing from life in order to really excell. Life is a journey, so is art. We must grow.

Practice.

Somehow I fear we are evolving into tech drones, who are more and more dependant on the TV and the motorcar. Our art is only a momentary escape from the reality of our world. We march forward in step like a great mass of robots powered and programmed by the demands of the modern world.

I'm in a bad mood. Sorry.

Tools
 

Cameras are tools. Any tool used by someone that really understands the limits and advantages of the tool gets far greater results. When someone uses a camera understanding the need for working from life along with it you get the likes of Morgan Weistling, Bill Whitaker and Anders Zorn.

Enlarge a photo w/o any knowledge of reality and you get Chucky Close, known in some art circles as UPCHUCK!

So Lon - are you telling us you woke up in the garage as a DeLorean today. :bewildere

It is raining here today too.

One's art should never be able to be outdone by a PhotoShop filter which, IMO, is what happened with Mr. Close.

Hello All,

Rembrandt had it, Leonardo Da Vinci had it as well. There is a depth to painting that in my opinion doesn't exist in todays artists. I believe industrial age paints and mediums are one reason for that. Another, is modern "conveniences." While writing about the face of President Lincoln, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the book with me, Walt Whitman wrote that there is a certain quality to the President's face that does not come through in the portraits done of Lincoln. It would take one of the portrait artists of the past to reproduce it. This comes from a passage entitled "Lincoln's Portrait." It can be found in "Specimen Days," or "Democratic Vistas." Both books often accompany the more well known, "Leaves of Grass."

There is no horse deader than the photography vs. life discussion, but I feel the need to get my licks in.

To Tim's point, cameras are only tools. When no one's holding them, they make nice paperweights.

In the hands of a master, photography can be as transcendent as painting. In the hands of an amateur, the results are well...amateurish. If my painting betrays photographic origins, and a lot of it does, it's my fault for not applying myself to mastery of the tools and the thinking, not a fault inherent in the tool itself. I had a European colleague who taught with me several years ago in the local community college, and he complained about his students, observing "Americans are constantly mistaking tools for skills." His students thought if they made an image on the computer, it was inherently better than an image made by hand.

This discussion gets hyperbolic awfully fast, and wild statements castigating or defending the camera as a tool usually just reveal the particular prejudices of the speaker and how comfortable and accomplished they are with it. Anyone who insists that all work, regardless of the artist, that has some tie to photographic reference is automatically inferior hasn't seen enough of what's out there. And anyone who insists that they can categorically identify work with photographic origins, regardless of the artist, is blowing smoke.

And I can't buy the notion that the quality of one's art is somehow a function of slavishly adhering to centuries-old materials and methods, ignoring anything currently available. If Vermeer could have mail-ordered from Dick Blick (or Old Holland, maybe), he would have. Burt Silverman spoke to this in a demonstration at PSOA, saying, "Spend more time trying to make great art, and if it's good, someone will be there to take care of it."

One's ability as an artist is the sum total of years of practice in a variety of situations with an array of tools, and mastery or lack of it resides in the mind and the heart, not in the toolbox. I agree that there is no substitute for working from life, and that there are no shortcuts. But why try to convince the world that an inanimate tool is the diabolic invention of Satan? The only thing that speaks for or against us and our ability is the thing on the wall, not what was in our hands when we made it.

Photophobics, I call them.

Since I started this thread it has taken on a life of its own. I think it might have made me appear to be anti-photo and that is not the case.

I think what prompted me to start this was a discussion about elaborate photographic studio lighting and the question it brought out in me as to why the use of all this fancy photographic equipment was necessary to become a portrait artist. I just figured that if many of the best paintings ever done were done without the aid of any camera or artificial lighting why should we need it?

I am not against anyone using any of this stuff. If you have the inclination to buy a complete photo studio full of strobe units and fill lights and umbrella flash heads then, fine, if you know how to use these things and it helps you produce good work.

I just do not want to get into all that stuff. If I did I would have become a photographer and not bothered learning to paint at all. I would probably be making a better living if I had, though. If you look at publications, photographic images are used much more than illustration these days.

Hmmm, maybe that is it! I have some deep seated resentment against photography taking illustration work from illustrators. Maybe I should call my analyst about this. Maybe I have that Photophobia Mike referred to. Or maybe it is contagious. You can get it from over exposure to scanners and working in Photoshop all day. :)

Absolutely right, Michael! Using or not using any particular tool is just one more free choice made by an individual in what is an infinite rainbow of choices made in a lifetime. And centuries of stunning work managed to take place without all that gear.

I just think that it's folly to insist that one's choice of tools automatically defines the quality of the result.

But I re-read some of your posts and they're pretty balanced on the whole, so not to worry.

Best to all!

I think we've all said about everything that can be said on this topic so I'll be closing the thread.

Thanks, everyone, for weighing in on this one.