Actually it was Bill Whitaker's profound observation that started this discussion. I think it should be reread by all of us.

I have read to the arguments both pro and con vis-a-vis the use of photography. Somehow I cannot imagine Sargent snapping Lady Sasoon's picture, bowing out gratefully and tacking the reference to his easel to finish the painting.

I have some beautiful photos of a Eurasian student of mine at RISD. She has gone back to Japan. I would love to use them, but I keep hoping I will find another model that could substitute.

I am not negating some of the fine work that has been done from photographs, but I am saying, it seems to be increasingly the modus operandi, and I think realism is suffering because of it.The arguments I have read seem to say that, yes, because of the state of portrait art, they are a necessity. Also, models are expensive and hard to find. I have not seen an argument that photography is a better source, only a more convenient one.

I can only speak for myself . When I first started using models it was like looking at my subject without a scrim in front of her.

"For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face."

(If this isn't the right article, Sharon, give a shout.)


A Bastion Against Cultural Obscenity

In a speech delivered at Burlington House last night, the critic Robert Hughes calls for a revitalised Royal Academy to defend art against the degrading power of the wealthy collectors.


Many years ago, when I was still cutting my first pearly fangs as an art critic, one thing used to be taken for granted by me and practically everyone I knew in what is so optimistically termed the

Thanks Steven, It is!

Sharon, I admire and respect your work and your decision to work only from models.

As you pointed out yourself - you havent done commissions since realizing the client wont sit for you. Most here on this site are looking to paint commissions - it is primarily a site made up of portrait artists, not figurative artists.

You point out above that people are saying models are hard to find and expensive. But - the folks here who do commissions arent painting models - they are painting clients who hire them. This is classic apples and oranges.

How many Governors, Senators, 5-year-olds or even housewives are going to sit for an artist? Not to mention dead people. Sure, it's a great thing to want to change the business. If we all go on strike perhaps in 30 years there might be a switch and folks will make the time to sit for artists again. I could also give all my money and food away to help end world hunger. It is noble and admirable, but unrealistic.

Bill did start this thread - and his call to work more from life is one we should all heed. When the wording gets so strong as to say we should all give up photography completely, then who can listen? Bill knows that it is necessary at times - Ive seen his portraits done from photography as well. And his point that working from life makes all the difference - sure shows in his skill when he has to use a photograph.

So, while most agree that life practice will make a world of difference in their art - most can not do what you did - and many wouldnt want to anyway because they like painting commissioned portraits. For you to work only from life you now paint figuratives and sell them after they are completed. That is primarily what Bill does also I believe.

Incidentally, it is also what I do. And perhaps that explains why I am taking you on about this issue. As a figurative artist, theoretically I could use models live since I am not painting for a client. If I had a spouse that helped pay for the expense or if I sold more of my paintings at higher prices. And someday I expect to. In the meantime, Im not about to be embarrassed of my work because it wasnt created in the way classical tradition commands. No matter how much you rant. :o

I dont think there is much we disagree on - except how far you take it in your wording. Your wording, to me at least - seems to be saying we should be ashamed of ourselves. (Have I mentioned you remind me of my mother?) Ive seen so much wonderful work on this site using photographs and those artists have no reason to feel ashamed. Not striving to try to do out best, to get the best training we can (which includes training from life) or not learning to take decent photographs would be reasons to feel ashamed.

And lest we forget - there are many types of painting styles out there. This is certainly a site for artists who work in a classical realistic style, but it isnt the only style out there. I cant speak for anyone else - but I love a lot of work that isnt done in the traditional ways.

I think the only thing any of us should ever feel ashamed about is if we stop trying to improve - or give up all together.

ps. Im wondering if you would take my children for a week or two? I know you dont have children, but your 'guilting-skills' are really good. Im thinking you could have my kids shaped up in no time flat. I cant afford models, but I could scrape up the money for that. ;)

I'll admit to being hopelessly shallow. That's good enough for me (for now) - rant on. Later I will expect to be called 'Master'. ;)

I'm kidding - dont hit me! :o

Thanks for saying this, Kim. I couldn't agree more.

Being that I'm (re)learning and that I'm a new kid here I tend to keep my head down, but since Patty has called me out in this thread already I'd like to add my two small pennies.

I'm not going to comment on using photos for professional work, because I'm not currently professional. I have done it before though, many yeas ago, and I expect I'll have to again when I turn professional. What I would like to comment on is the idea that working from photos is an acceptable way to learn.

I don't see is why using photos for expediency's sake should preclude anyone from working from life. Or why not having available models should preclude anyone from working from life. Life is all around us, it couldn't be more available.

My models are the people down at my local cafe, (very undisciplined, but they come in great variety and great numbers.) They're also pieces of fruit and veg, my own head, or my eye or hand. If I'm feeling particularly reckless, I ask visiting friends if I can draw them while we chat. I'm not trying to put myself across as some paragon of virtue, I'm just saying that it's really not difficult to find subjects to work from, as long as you accept that they won't be ideal. Life isn't ideal, but that doesn't mean it's not worth living, or drawing for that matter.

This, for me, is what working from life is all about. It doesn't matter if I'm working from a person or a pomegranate, I'm after the same thing, I want to see it as it really is, then attempt to transfer some of what I see to my paper or canvas. To me, if I work from a photo, I'm left with what the camera thought was worth noticing, not what I thought was. I find that the more I work, the finer the resolution of my eye becomes and the more I see. I don't think I'd get that quite as much if I learned by working from photos.

The other day when I was drawing my eye, I noticed a small flap of skin in the corner of my eye called the plica luminaris. To students of anatomy this will be old news, but to me it was a small revelation, I'd never seen it before and didn't know it existed until I drew it. Would I have noticed it if I was working from a photo? Possibly, but only if it was an extreme close up. I think it's unlikely.

This quote from the piece above by Robert Hughes says it all. In my very humble opinion, students of drawing and painting are doing themselves a great disservice if they work from photos. Working from life, as well as being more challenging, brings you into closer contact with the world around you. I believe our visual sense has been dulled by the daily battering it takes from the media. It's necessary to learn to see all over again if we want to really appreciate the complexity and beauty of the smallest objects we come across in everyday life, which we ordinarily wouldn't spare a second glance.

It would be very tidy if I could now back that up with a post of a wonderful drawing from life, unfortunately I can only do the from life part. This is a sketch I did in the cafe Saturday morning of an old guy sitting near me. He looked worn out, something in me responded to that. I hope I'll eventually get to a stage where I can put that kind of thing across in a drawing, but I know that's going to take years. In the meantime, I got some practice in, enjoyed myself, and my model was free.

Not being professional means I have no troublesome clients wanting this or that, I have the luxury of working how I choose. None of the above is intended as a criticism of the people here who work from photos, I'm just trying to explain what I think I get from working from life, and why it's so important, when you're learning and especially when you're having to teach yourself, to give yourself the best training you possibly can.

Paul,

Your extraordinary gift of that post has likely had ink-jet printers running all day to get a hard copy for repeated examination.

It has steeped in me, as well, all day, and I keep coming back to your sketch, which leaves nothing essential left unsaid. That isn't the sort of thing that just leaves the banker or the marine biologist saying, "I wish I could do that." It leaves a lot of artists saying the same thing, and as importantly, resolving to.

We are largely inhabitants of lives of our choosing. You've made some great choices.

That's quite a gift, and it was most generous of you to give it away.

Well done. Thank you.

Apparently I write better than I paint, maybe I'm in the wrong job :)

Seriously though, Sharon and Steven, thanks for your comments.

I hope so! Apart from being good practice, drawing people in cafes is probably the most fun you can have with a pad and pencil.

Paul,

I'm really glad you described how you find things to sketch in everyday life. It's such a natural way to learn. I guess I can relate to it because I'm more interested in "catching" people at their usual activities and in their typical environments than in posing them under consistent lighting conditions in the studio. It's a great way to practice drawing and to think about how to portray the essential characteristics of someone. For most of my childhood and adolescence I did the very same thing (in a more primitive style befitting my age,of course) and I never thought of it as practice or learning, only as fun. Later, in high school, I got a little more serious with some figure drawing, but I still filled up sketchbooks. I'm really just reiterating what you said, but also thinking of how it is one of the best ways to learn, especially if you don't have a lot of time. Now I usually keep my sketchbook at home unless I'm sketching for a portrait commission, but I think I'll start carrying it around. Time for a bigger handbag! Thanks for the great idea.

I have read all this tread with interrest. It came just in time for me, because I was asking myself those questions since few weeks.

I don't think I can add much, except a few little thoughts. I always consider photo like a tool , not a perfect one ( Happily because it would be hard to still find an interest in painting)

The funny thing when I was painting some trompe l'oeil is that even the best full size photo will never fool you, and to reproduce exactly this photo with paint either. I was used to paint from life and photo, but the finished painting was finally very different from the photo ( I had to change some perspective some contrasts...to make them more believable) But it was a long time ago.

Those 6 last months, I painted exclusively from photo. Portrait was a new field for me. I think I learned a lot working from photos, but I will never know if I would have learned faster if I had work only from life. I needed practice in mixing paint , softening edges etc... Some basics exercices I could easely do from photos.

During my WIP, I realised that I was using photo not only because it was convenient, but also like a crutch : I was afraid of working from life.
Afraid of having awful results, afraid of having to work a lot, afraid of taking much more time.

I drew some nudes from life 12 years ago, but I was sure that I lost all I knew... Anyway, I pluck up courage, and began some self portraits, I was very surprised that finally it was not as awful as I was expected.

I lived so many artistic emotions during those 6 last months, but I have to say I'm once more overexcited, and couldn't sleep once more : Yesterday I could draw my first self portrait with a real likeness, and then went to my first open studio ( I can't believe that I found a very cheap, not far from my home open studio: with the help from a supportive husband I will go each week!!!!)

So that's it, I woke up for the second time. I feel a total freedom, I feel free to work with photo or not. I too will need a huge handbag to put the sketchbook near the juice, the cookies, the diapers etc...

Thanks Sharon,
it's not the first self portrait, it's the third : the two first I went too quikly in the details ( as always)and the drawing was wrong... It' s such a relief to feel no more this fear.

Marina,

I think this observation about the trompe l'oeil visual phenomenon is brilliant. The difference between the photo image and the trompe l'oeil artwork is what Mark Twain might have said was the difference between a lightning bug and lightning. (He actually said it about the right word and the almost right word.)

It's so very difficult to try to "say" what's missing in the photo that one could see by working from the object or subject itself, and this is the perfect example. As you suggested, no eye is "fooled" by the photograph. That magical quality is added by the observant artist who can accurately translate those observations to the canvas or paper.

It is that deft translation of the actually observed that distinguishes both the process and the product. It may be difficult to articulate the distinction, but we know it when we see it.

Thanks for lending that example to this particular discussion.

[Sharon was hoping to get the text of the referenced article posted. Here it is:]

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

Secret is out about the latest presidential portrait

By Edward J. Sozanski
INQUIRER ART CRITIC

You and I aren't supposed to know this, but Bucks County artist Nelson Shanks is painting a portrait of William Jefferson Clinton for the National Portrait Gallery in Washington.

This seemingly innocuous fact is being treated as a state secret because the commissioning of presidential portraits for the White House and the portrait gallery, the two principal collections, follows Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

Artists are engaged and presidents sit for them, but no one in government will admit that pigment is being applied to canvas until the process is completed and the portraits are unveiled.

Not identifying the artists ensures against embarrassment if a portrait is rejected by its subject. Lyndon Johnson denounced Peter Hurd's White House portrait of him as "the ugliest thing I ever saw."

Ironically, Hurd, Andrew Wyeth's late brother-in-law, subsequently donated the painting to the portrait gallery.

Given Shanks' extensive experience, his glittering reputation, and the magnitude of his successes to date, his Clinton portrait isn't likely to flop.

He already has one president to his credit - Ronald Reagan, whom he immortalized for the Union League of Philadelphia about the time the 40th president left office in 1988.

Reagan isn't even Shanks' most famous subject. That would be the late Princess Diana, whom he painted in 1994. His scrapbook also includes former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (twice), former Queen Juliana of the Netherlands and tenor Luciano Pavarotti.

So when President Clinton recently tapped Shanks to put him in the portrait gallery's Hall of Presidents, the 63-year-old artist wasn't awestruck.

"My career doesn't depend on painting Bill Clinton," he remarked during a chat in his studio overlooking the Delaware River in Andalusia.

"It's not exactly my direction. I try to push portraits as far as I can beyond the academic, traditional, straightforward boardroom style. I try to bring the art out."

However, the Clinton commission poses a special challenge even for an artist as skilled as Shanks. His interpretation has to concede something to the 200-year-old tradition that requires leaders of the republic to look appropriately august.

Tradition has produced a procession of sober poses, dark suits and earnest expressions, softened here and there in more recent portraits by hints of a smile. "I'm not crazy about business suits," Shanks commented, "but there's probably no other way to paint a president right now."

Furthermore, he added, the Clinton portrait has to be set in the Oval Office. He isn't sure how he's going to manage that, given that Clinton no longer works there. "I have no idea how I'll get access."

Is Shanks painting the "official" Clinton portrait? It depends on whom you ask. Carolyn Carr, the portrait gallery's deputy director, said there wasn't a single official version among the several that would be created for places such as the Clinton library.

Betty Monkman, the White House curator, disagrees: "We consider our portraits the official ones."

A Clinton portrait for the White House collection is also in the works, but Monkman declined to identify the artist who's painting it, in keeping with the aforementioned policy.

Monkman did confirm, and Carr concurred, that Shanks isn't painting both portraits, although a few artists have done so. The most recent example was Everett R. Kinstler, who did both Gerald Fords.

(Newsweek magazine has reported that Washington artist Simmie Knox, a graduate of Tyler School of Art in Philadelphia, is also painting a Clinton portrait, but did not say whether it was for the White House or some other location.)

The secrecy protocol for presidential portraits also deflected a query regarding why Clinton chose Shanks for the portrait gallery commission. A spokeswoman in his transition office said the former president couldn't comment on the matter until the portrait was accepted.

Although Shanks' portrait is destined for a public collection, it will be paid for with private funds donated by benefactors who aren't yet being named. Carr said the amount of Shanks' fee hasn't been discussed. He has received about $200,000 for a full-length portrait.

Shanks didn't seek the Clinton commission; it came to him, which isn't surprising for an artist who has been described by D. Dodge Thompson, chief of exhibits at the National Gallery of Art, as "the most talented contemporary traditional portraitist."

"A number of collectors of my paintings are connected with the president [Clinton] in one way or another," Shanks said. "There must be 10 people who have told him that I should paint his portrait."

The protocol for selection of presidential portraitists puts the White House curator in charge, Carr said. "It goes through a fairly lengthy process of interviewing artists. Our contribution is advisory," she said. "The president decides who he wants to represent
him."

Shanks went down to Washington on Dec. 15 to show Clinton his portfolio, which apparently impressed the president, because the following week, Shanks was asked to do a study.

"They gave me an hour and a half at 5:30 on a Monday afternoon," he recalled. "I told them I couldn't do it, that it could take me an hour to get set up, and besides, at that time, it was dark at 5:30. I need daylight."

Instead of painting a study from life, Shanks brought a photographer. During a photo session in the private quarters of the White House that lasted about 90 minutes, he clicked off close to 500 exposures.

During the session, Shanks said he and the president talked some about books - "I got the impression that he reads a book a day" - and also discussed a Childe Hassam interior, one of several works by the artist hanging in the room.

"We also joked a little about presidential portraits," the artist added. "He told me that he and Harrison Ford had been joking recently about how chins drop with age, and he didn't want to look that way."

Unfortunately, the photographs in lieu of a life study haven't proved to be very useful.

"I only had one or two that were even conceivably acceptable," Shanks said. "Not one of them would be an expression you'd want to use in a finished painting.

"Photographs and reality are just night and day. In reality, the information is all there. A photograph is just kind of a hint."

That being the case, and given that Shanks works traditionally, why not make preliminary drawings instead of photos?

That's no good either, he replied.

"I almost never do drawings, because I have found over the years that doing something in one medium and translating into another doesn't work. I like to conceive a painting in real scale and in color," he explained, noting that the Italian baroque master Caravaggio
worked similarly.

To help him do that, Shanks sometimes uses custom-made mannequins, especially for clothing details. The one he had made to represent Clinton stands in his studio, dressed in the obligatory conservative suit and holding a portfolio.

After the photo session, Shanks put in 10 hours on the portrait in his studio before he was called down to Washington on Jan. 10 so Clinton could examine what he had done.

That clinched it. As a Clinton aide explained, "The president was reviewing the work of other artists as well, and he decided to give Nelson Shanks the opportunity to do the portrait gallery portrait."

In other words, the commission, still not contractual, was contingent on the president's final approval. Until then, it didn't exist - officially. According to Carr, at that point even the benefactors who were going to pay for the portrait didn't know who was going to
paint it.

Pending notification of Clinton's availability for posing, Shanks has put the presidential portrait aside to work on several other unfinished commissions, including one for Philadelphia philanthropist Dorrance "Dodo" Hamilton.

"As far as I'm concerned, the serious posing hasn't been done," he said. "But I'm now guaranteed that he's going to do considerable sittings. I'm not sure how much that will be, but I'm not going to do any more until I find out."

Shanks said that once the posing sessions begin, he might begin the portrait from scratch. "That's probably what will happen, because I can do more from life and get further in a hour than I can in 20 hours from photographs."

The artist said that he expected the sittings would take place in the spring, but that location hadn't been decided.

"I'm hoping he'll come here. It's also possible in New York because I have a great studio there, and I understand he'll be spending a lot of time in the city."

Shanks said he thought he'd prefer to do a full-length portrait, about seven feet tall by four wide, with Clinton perhaps leaning on a mantle and holding a book.

Full-length poses aren't common in presidential portraiture, which began with Gilbert Stuart's famous paintings of George Washington. Both the White House and portrait gallery collections begin with a Stuart.

The White House has a version of the so-called Lansdowne portrait, which is full-length, while the gallery owns Stuart's bust-length Athenaeum portrait jointly with the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

Both collections contain works by highly regarded American painters, although these are more prominent in the 19th century than in the 20th.

Besides Stuart, White House artists include John Trumbull, John Vanderlyn, Rembrandt Peale, Samuel F.B. Morse, Eastman Johnson and John Singer Sargent. The portrait gallery has some of these, plus George Caleb Bingham, Edmund C. Tarbell and Norman
Rockwell, who did President Nixon.

By and large, though, neither portrait collection is first-rate in aesthetic terms, especially for the decades after World War I. The quality at the White House began to slide after Sargent painted Theodore Roosevelt and Anders Zorn portrayed William Howard Taft.

Zorn's painting of Grover Cleveland is one of the most animated portraits at the gallery. Generally speaking, though, the examples there, like many at the White House, are pedestrian.

Shanks is hoping to achieve a more distinguished result.

"There are times when I love to play all kinds of complicated games in painting," he observed. "But I think this is one case when I need to be fairly straightforward. I'll just try to paint the man, his intelligence, his amiability and his stature, maybe paint him fairly close to humor and try to get it just right."

Edward J. Sozanski's e-mail address is [email protected].

This are my favorite highlights from the article. I've read it some time ago, but it's still like fresh ink to my eyes.

Well, this quote is a little interesting too! ;)

Yeah, for $200,000, I'd be willing to try to do a life painting of a whirling dervish with pet hummingbirds as they went through the express lane at Home Depot (I had to slow them down a little there, in order to get the mouth right.)

L O L
 

I couldn't expect anything different from you Steve.

I only have a few minutes but wanted to put in a few cents worth. Thank you Paul for your contribution to this wonderful thread, of which I have downloaded to read in the evening when I have the chance.

You are all artists I admire greatly, who I learn from daily.
I am eternally grateful for all of you, your intelligence, your thought- provocing comments, the time you take out of your day to share with us. You are all GREAT teachers to we students who come here to soak up as much as we can.

God Bless!
Patty

Painting From Photos Is Easier
 

Painting from photos is a lot easier than painting from life, because you are translating one flat picture into another flat surface and you are only concerned with angles and flat proportions. Painting from life requires translating three dimensions into two and it is definitely more difficult. That is why painting from photos is something that should be left to the seasoned artist who has done hundreds of life paintings and he can see in the photo a lot more that we can. I think that beginners should abstain from painting from photos, because by doing so, they will never learn how to see like an artist which is the whole essence of painting. Beginning artists that rely on photos get a false sense of security, because with little work they can paint recognizable figures or faces, forgetting that likeness is only a very small part of a portrait. A very common reason for this practice is because we do not always follow the old academic rule of not using color until one can master the drawing, and the other reason is that when you post a painting for a critique, they ask you to place along side the "reference" photo. So in a way ,there is a subtle or not so subtle encouragement to use photos. I suggest that the oil critiques for beginners should be limited to paintings done from life and that those who use photos, should limit themselves to submit monochromatic drawings. Experienced painters who paint from photos do not need a critique anyway.

Hmmm. This thread is so long I feel guilty taking the time to read it, since I really should be across the room working on the still life I wanted to finish last night. My point, which I think Paul(?) already made, is this - do a still life. You work on the same issues - lighting, composition, drawing, value, edges and color. And it won't cost you a thing if you glean the objects from your home, or your neighbor's home.

I hear my teachers saying the same things to me about my still life paintings as they do about figures and portraits. What I'm hearing recently is this: make the forward things come forward and the back things go back. Whether the forward thing is an arm or a teapot spout makes no difference, the practice of making it hold its proper place will increase one's skill in all areas of painting.

Once I asked one of my teachers what would be a good thing to paint that would prepare me for working on skin; she told me to paint a sea shell. So I added a sea shell to my next still life; she was right, it helps.

Back to the still life.....

Three months after this thread began, there are still vehement and vilifying emails and personal messages being distributed in campaigns behind the scenes, and I, having been directed back here by the inquiries of another member, decided to re-read the thread and, in particular, my posts, to see if I had indeed been too blunt or abrasive, as the indictments charge. After several hundred posts over a number of years, it admittedly is possible that one can have an off night (or a bad year) and do unintended damage.

I wouldn

I was going to say something about still life paintings, but it is not necessary anymore, Debra mentioned some very nice points.

By the way, have you guys seen anyone painting a still life from a photo?

I don't want to offend anyone, but that would be hilarious.

Hello there,

After my last post, I received the following link from a visitor.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5410362

Thanks Thomas.

That was interesting.

The whole thread, in a nutshell.

Amen. Funny how the flawed messengers get hanged for the message they deliver.

From "Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art" by Madeleine L'Engle:

"Credibility in creativity is a hard lesson to learn, and I

Julie,

It is interesting to me that you are going through a time of reflection as well. It seems as artists, we set these goals and as we achieve them we are never quiet satisfied and yearn for more.

Commissioned work has many benefits, but it places also many constraints on the artist. Most portrait commissions are like a nice acquaintance, you are happy to see them, you do everything in your power to make the time you spent with them a success, but when it's all over you yearn for something more fulfilling.

I yearn for a love affair, a commission that gives me sleepless nights, has me up in my studio at 6am and keeps me enthralled until the sun sets.

This search for artistic fulfillment happens only when a client is so enamored with your painting style, that price becomes no objection and you are offered the "carte blanche".

I believe the only way to reach that point and to attract such clients, is to break free from the mundane. This might involve hiring a model or bribing family members to pose in garments and staged settings, that allow the artist to be as creative as he/she wishes.

By creating such a body of work the artist is thus able to not only explore his/her artistic expression, but also push the art of portraiture to new heights.

Hope it is possible, Enzie. I think of artists like Thomas Eakins, whose (I think) best portraits were ones of family and friends, or of Rembrandt, with no paying commissions, doing his own work, free from constraints.
I doubt I will ever get to their level, but want to do the best, most honest work I can.

Hard to cross, isn't it?
http://www.ushistory.org/washingtonc...whatswrong.htm

Be courageous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM

Working from photos for portraits.
 

Wonderful to read the words you are writing. As a painter from life, I am thrilled to read someone encouraging the rest to get out of their dark studios where the overwhelming majoring of 'professional' painters are tracing away without the least bit of confidence and are wallowing in their guilty denials.

Painters today are taking money and accolades for something that once took skill and turning it into a patience contest call 'Who Can Copy the Photo Tighter'. I have no problem with tight work as long as it is good work. Most is tight only to overwhelm the uneducated buyer.

Portrait painters used to be painters first and then specialists. This has been reversed to the point where most portrait artists cannot paint anything but their portraits. Sad to say these words and if they weren't backed up by 25 years of observing, I wouldn't write them at all.

I hope painters find encouragement in the push to work from life from painters like Bill and realize that their work will greatly improve in color and design by working from life.

Lastly, the idea that a powerful influence on the work is created by the EXPERIENCE of being with your subject not just copying the shapes of value and color captured by a photo. Photos have their place as a valuable tool but they are a crutch that many lean on to the detriment of the art in their work.

I hope this came off as a call to arms for us to rise up and make ourselves better painters and not just snippy. I'm passionate about the ART of portraiture and find so very little of the last century. The Great Masters weren't magicians, they worked harder. They had no secrets.

Clayton

Encouragement
 

Your words provide inspiration and encouragement. No wonder Chris Saper told me that you are an outstanding teacher!!! (loved your portrait of her at SAS) You have provided a clear pathway to progress. Thank you for taking the time to write.

Sharon, absolutely!

However, for many of us (both professionally and logistically) photo reference continues to be a necessary deal with the devil. I feel how badly this "dependence" affects one's work is an inverse proportion to how much time one can put into workng from the life.

I was amused by a conversation I overheard the other day . . . a gent whose work isn't half-bad (in fairness, it's also not half-good) was enthusing over the prospect of buying (for around $5k) a new Canon digital camera, with the expectation of "seeing" what he is not currently able to see in photographs . . . I don't believe he'll ever "see" until he looks with his own eyes.

On another tack, I happened to catch a recent documentary on Chuck Close . . . he said what interested him in the thematic of the work he's been producing, is how a photograph is the sitter's image in a split-second of time . . . the usual artspeak bulls**t followed, philosophizing over that single point.

In contrast, it struck me that the very thing that interests me, that separates painting from the life from photography, is the continuum that reveals the sitter's being through a session, and multiple sessions. To me, the resulting "in flux" composite is what contributes (one hopes) to a wholeness of expression in the image that is the antithesis of instantaneous photography.

Painting from life and life it self
 

Well I am back and had to comment on this subject.

Can't get a model to paint?
Paint what ever you have paint a Apple until you could identify that one apple in a basket of apples.
Paint a vase of flowers not so it a generic vase of flowers but so it is that vase of flowers. If you can paint you can paint anything.

Sure the human face and skin is by far more interesting then painting a still life but a great still life requires all the skill as a painter that does a portrait in fact I might even add it is harder to breath life into a still life then to paint what already has life.
Now painting from a photo you are now trying to breath life into a dead image.

I almost lost my daughter to the same mental heath problem I also have and it brought things to a much different perspective to me. I find I now understand what life is and although I am now painting again I will not paint from a photo any more.

I spent 3 years not painting at all because of depression that caused me to doubt not just my art but my self being. I needed to paint and produce art to pay bills to support my family but every time I took a commission I would feel overwhelmed with producing art from reference that left me empty I would destroy paintings even though my ability to pay my bills depended on selling that painting. In the end I just had to stop painting and find other sources of income.

Now it was not just painting from photos that caused my fits I had a serious medical problem but I feel I started selling portrait paintings out of a need for income so I did what ever I could to make money in the end I failed because for that very reason I lost my perspective and my sanity over it. So I say yes it takes years of practice to become a great portrait painter (or any realistic painter) but once you become a professional artist and your income is tide to producing art it is easy to try and shortcut what it takes. DONT DO IT.

You may not have the same reaction I had due to my own mental state but unless you don't care about anything but money at the very least you will know inside that you are a fake. If you can't paint from life you can't paint life in your art. Many times I would doubt myself and the target of a lot of it was the methods I used to produce art became second to how much money can I make. I cheated myself and my clients I would paint only when I had a paid commission I lost all the joy I once got from my art.

Now my experience is unique but I have to agree completely with Bill that the ability to copy a photo is not going to make you an artist and I would add it won't give you the satisfaction of producing work from life.

Also do not try and become a professional until you are actually ready.The pressures of producing a great painting are one thing but adding to it the pressures of life and you could set yourself up for more then just a failed career.

Welcome back, Michael. Glad you found your way. The "wind of the wings of madness" is chilling and brings a lot of torment.

Your posts from the past always came from the heart and the head, and it's no surprise that you have arrived at the convictions to which you're now committed.

Best wishes

[QUOTE=


Now painting from a photo you are now trying to breath life into a dead image.

Also do not try and become a professional until you are actually ready.The pressures of producing a great painting are one thing but adding to it the pressures of life and you could set yourself up for more then just a failed career.[/QUOTE]


Michael,

I so agree with you. I have so much still to learn and think working from life is much more enjoyable and helpful in learning to paint.

Cecelia Cox