Consider the source
 

Hello All,

The subject of visual source material, working from life vs. photographs etc., is obviously a topic of interest and controversy among portrait artists. Lots of strong opinions have been expressed on this forum regarding the effect of various visual sources on the appearance of the work. A few weeks ago Linda Ciallelo posed a link to some of her work in which she invited participants to pick the works that were done from life as opposed to using photo sources. I thought this was a brilliant idea, a kind of pictorial analog of a wine tasting competition. If the connoisseurs assert the claim that the source of a painting or drawing is manifest in its appearance, then they should be able to identify which works were done from photos, for example, with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

Unfortunately, the exercise was cut short when Linda revealed her source material early in the proceedings. I, however, was fascinated at the prospect of repeating the experiment, so I

Steve, Our IT Guy
 

#1.

Kimmy
 

#2

Jeanette
 

#3

I would guess that #1 and #3 were done from photos, because of the extra dark cool shadows.

John, you forgot to tell us what we win!

I am still looking! :)

My guess is #2 from life, the other two from photos.

I'd have to agree with the others. #2 from life. My rationale is that there is detail in the shadows in #2 which you could see from life. Of course, a good artist should be able to compensate for that so you may trick me yet.

Good idea for a post, by the way.

Interesting!
 

Very good responses, whatever that means. Beth, I didn't think of this as a contest in that sense, but what would you suggest as an appropriate prize? ;) Wait a minute! I've got a Canon 35mm. camera with zoom lens and a 60 CD programmable player, both new in the box. I won them in a sales incentive contest from DuPont Corp last May. I also won a 27" T.V., but it was too big for the house so we sold it. The haggling over the T.V. was so bad that we never put the other stuff up for sale. I know DuPont is going to 1099 me on this junk, so I've got to unload it. How about your choice, camera or CD player, F.O.B. Alameda, CA? On the other hand, we could offer your choice of the paintings. But who needs more of those? I never thought of this as a contest in that sense, so I don't have a criterion for winning. Somebody could get the correct attribution of sources by chance alone. But I'm flexible, what do you suggest?

I am going out on a limb here and guessing the first one is from life, for the reverse of what Michele said. I think the first is more dramatic and you might have over compensated for shadow in #2 and #3.

Please don't make us look too foolish. I feel like I am at a wine tasting.

By the way, I was just kidding about the prize, but all listed sound really acceptable!

Thanks for playing Beth. I don't think anybody should feel foolish. One of my unstated hypotheses is that the task is essentially impossible. I agree with Margaret that an accomplished artist could work in such a way that the method/sources are opaque to the viewer. My suspicion is that even a rookie can fool the experts most of the time if we stick to what's in the paintings themselves.

I certainly had no idea which of Linda's works were done from life based only on looking at them. I consider her to be an accomplished artist. I got lucky and guessed one right, but only because it was a self-portrait and I thought to myself: "No problem getting the subject to pose in that case." From what was in the self-portrait itself I was clueless!

One man's opinion
 

Well, John, I have avoided this long enough to think about what to say. And I issue a warning: I am holding nothing back here so if you are easily offended I would stop reading here.

At first I thought that I would take a guess but to be honest all three of these paintings, to me, look like they were done by an artist that still has not learned enough to produce work that makes this discussion relevant.

I am not saying this to put you down or to make myself more important. Not at all. In fact I am the most critical of my own work.

The thing is if you are trying to make a point or to silence those of us that advocate the importance of painting from life, this is not the way. I can show you very good paintings done using photographic reference and I can show you bad paintings done from life.

Yes it is possible to see problems in a painting done from a photo that was caused by the limitations of photography but only if the painting is good enough to have reached those limitations. A very skilled artist who has observed life enough can create a painting from a photo that surpasses the reference.

It is possible to paint from life and still produce work that looks like work done from photos. If you paint flesh tones based on a formula of color "X" mixed with color "Y" is always halftone "A," then your work from life will look like you work from photos as far as the flesh tones are concerned.

If your image from life is not accurately drawn then any photographic distortion you might have gotten from a photo is irrelevant.

Since I have not seen your photos you may very well have surpassed your reference but I do not have to see them to know you have not approached reality with any of these. So even if one or all of these were done from life it does not matter. Any one could also have been done from a bad photo and still look like this.

Again I am not trying to put you down in any way. If you take an honest look at your work and compare it to the work of the best artists at SOG that paint from life (you can know who they are by looking at their procedures page) or even those that paint using a combination of photos and life or all photos you can see for yourself that your work hardly compares. (Most of my own work doesn't either so I am not taking a shot at you personally.)

The point I was trying to make with my posts about painting from life was that for the artist that is still training and learning, painting from life has no equal. The lessons learned from observations of nature and copying it with paint without any intermediate photographic reduction to 2D images is essential if your goal is to be able to capture life as the human eye sees it and not as the camera and Eastman Kodak capture it on film.

Once these lessons are learned one can then choose to use a tool like the camera or even the lucy or projectors along with photos to speed the creation of art and guarantee accuracy on a deadline without it becoming a crutch or being limited by your reference.

I hope I was not overly harsh but I really feel that to jump to the short cuts of the pros before having a strong foundation is like building a house of cards. I will freely admit to the use of every trick and gizmo available to me in my commercial art.

Photos are a tool but they are no substitute for learning to observe from life. The truth is many artists do not have the training or the skill to draw from life accurately enough to not use photos so they have no choice but to use them.

But those that have the skill most often prefer to paint from life. Others after training from life have chosen to work from photos because of the demands of clients and personal preference or as a guide when the subject is of a fleeting nature or is impractical to paint live. But they have made a choice, not been forced to because of a weakness of skill or lack of training to use a crutch.

In closing, if you cannot see the difference between the work of Nelson Shanks vs. the work of photo copiers then I guess nothing I say can convince you of the importance of learning from life and the results of a poll like this mean nothing.

You are free to "consider the source" of my comments and ignore them if you wish. I have no illusions about my own skill or level of training. I still have a long way to go and may never get there but I know that getting there by a short cut will only hurt myself and I choose to continue to work from life even if I fail. I still learned more than I would by producing a better painting from a photo.

I do not think it is possible to positively determine which were from photos. I would rather guess that #2 was from a photo, since it is back lit and appears to be an outdoor shot. 1 & 3 are similar, are poorly lit and, I might add, rather weakly shaded. It is possible that they were done from life, but they could also be from poor photos with low lighting.

You're on to it here, Michael. The point isn't whether you can fool the viewer, but whether you can fool yourself -- and even if so, whether that's what you're looking for.

The most unfortunate element in overusing "aids" in drawing and painting is that finally mastering the skills is SO DARN MUCH FUN! Yeah, you can "play piano" by flipping three switches on the Casio keyboard and tapping out a one-note melody to go with the midi stock tracks, and you can, a la Britney Spears and her, um, accessories, squeal, "I wrote that!" But even though lots of people purchase it, no one is buying it. It's fun, we're goofing on ourselves when we lay the money down, but we know it doesn't matter.

Here, it matters. I've gone from being completely inept at drawing and painting to being, well, less inept. I have a couple of pieces in my portfolio that are based on photographic reference (a koi pond -- those fish just won't be still). They're good, but not my favorites, and I wouldn't ever show them as representative of skill.

Michael, you've touched on the salient point of these sorts of "tests", which involve questions about what the artist is working toward.

Whatever the outcome of this challenge, I hope fervently that anyone who is new to this vocation (or this Forum) will not imagine that there's no benefit to learning how to see, to draw and paint, instead of to merely copy, or log into a website or fire up software. I don't say "merely" with any pejorative intent. I occasionally copy, when it suits me or my schedule. But I've also spent hundreds of hours in front of a model. So I've done drawings and paintings from photos and from life.

Life Rules. Don't let anyone steal that Truth from you.

If any of you have backstage tickets to Britney's next local concert, I'll give you top dollar, with a very nice tip.

Steven

BTW, I need four tickets for Taipei, or no deal.

I'm with Michael Fournier. Just think of going to art exhibits and then looking at the catalogue where the photos of the paintings never, ever come close to accurately reproducing the real paintings. I had been going to night and weekend classes since 1989, so twice a week (three hours on Mondays and six hours on Saturdays) I got to paint from life.

I also benefited from being in the NYC metropolitan area where art clubs and informal studios for additional drawing and painting practice from life abound. But when my work schedule conflicted with the times when the clubs were operating, I hired my friends' teenage kids to pose. Teenagers are a wonderful resource: they can hold a pose like a statue, and they're very cooperative. At least that's my experience.

Only when I paint or draw from life am I able to tell where I'm having difficulty with my drawing and what I need to practice more on. Even if you live in the boonies, you and possibly other artist friends can pool the money to hire a teenager or an older person to sit for three or four hours a week while you get some practice from nature.

Clients commissioning portraits may be put out to pose for a painting done from life, so relying on photo references may be unavoidable. But the more practice you do from life, the greater is the likelihood that the painting will far surpass the reference.

I vote for numbers One and Three as done from photos, and number Two done from life.

However, based on the poses, this is the obvious choice. So, if you used reverse psychology to intentionally lead the contestant in that direction, I have it exactly backwards. However, if you used double-reverse-super-secret psychology I may still have a chance. :D

Minh Thong

Hello Minh,

Thanks for the response! Would I be that devious? Me? :bewildere

I'm going with 1 and 3 from photos because of the poses. I'll catch you at the end of the week. Please don't leave us hanging.

This is an interesting topic. I have to agree that Michael and Steven pretty much said what I was thinking, and then some. However, just for fun, I am going to play along.

I think #1 and #2 were done from photos, and #3 was done from life. My theory is that artists that have not yet mastered painting from life often paint with less accuracy and detail due to time restraints.

All Is Revealed!
 

Hello All,

I

Thank you for going through all that trouble to make a very valid point. I feel there is not just black or white, but many shades of gray.

We do go around in circles based on the convictions we tend to represent, rather than looking for the merits in that which differs from the norm. Seldom does scientific study put a question to rest by offering concrete evidence. Even then the topic gets resurrected through new inventions and theories that disprove the original findings.

John,
You can sell the camera and send me the money so I can sign up for the William Whittaker workshop.

Kidding.

My logic would have been totally different if one of the SOG artists had done this little test. As it is, I think painting from life is the ultimate test of one's abilities. I do see artists that paint pretty well from photos, because the photo doesn't move and gives you plenty of time to get it right. However, painting from life separates the "men" from the "boys". It takes a lot of time and practice and knowledge to nail it. It is the ultimate accomplishment.

Kimmy Photo
 

This is the photo used in painting #2.

Results based on a seven-subject, uncontrolled sample of respondents who happened to play along could not, of course, lead to even the most minimally significant statistical conclusions. But aside from that, the results of this experiment were foregone from the outset and flawed for more fundamental reasons

Steven, based on John

I did not participate in this experiment because I think it misses the point and further encourages people into a photo vs. life mentality - it's really not about that.

As artists, our ultimate goal should be to produce the best art we can and to constantly push our boundaries and enhance our skills.

So, to me, being an artist means being able to do great work from photos, and doing great work from life. Why? Because I firmly believe that it will help me make better pictures and enhance my ability to "see".

Look around you at the artists who you view as the current crop of "world-class" painters. I will bet that all of them have had extensive experience working from life and that even if they work from photo reference, they will extoll the virtues of learning to draw and paint from life as an essential part of how they learned to make art and how they "see" today.

That is certainly true for all of the most successful portrait painters today.

So it is not about either or, it is about using both photos and life to push your skills to a higher level.

The realities of portraiture today mean very few artists get to do very many portraits totally from life - people are too busy to sit. So photos are an essential part of making portraits, but it is important to know that working from photo reference is part of the beginning, but not the end of making good figurative and portrait work.

You can work from photos and make wonderful art - but if you stop there and never explore working from life then, in my opinion, you are cheating yourself as an artist.

Michael, you are absolutely right. The way I formulated my last sentence didn't come out right.

I meant regardless of which was used, life model vs. photo reference, the skill and knowledge of the artist will in the end be the deciding factor of the quality of the work. If the artist can make us wonder and ponder how a work was created, they ultimately have overcome any challenge which might have been present during the creation.

No question about it, Enzie, if the skill is there. That's the absolute essence of my point. However, the cautionary note about believing too strongly everything you see in a photograph isn't directed at the skillful, but at those who have yet to develop an understanding of the human form, as you correctly pointed out, and the way it "behaves" in light and space. With that understanding, you're all set to go.

Fidgety models are a slightly different matter, because there you're getting good information -- but it keeps moving around on you. I was every bit as guilty as every other beginner when I protested that the moving model made it impossible to do an accurate drawing. (Thankfully, I was never allowed to get away with it.)

After a few hundred hours of dealing with the problem, you solve it, and just as with solving the "problems" with photographs, once you've done it, you're in good shape to handle anything that comes along and to make the absolute most of any resource or reference you're working with.

When it comes to drawing, I do not encourage drawing from photos or from life for beginners. I think it is a mistake to thrust someone into drawing until you show them the basic use of the line. Line technique is almost non-existent in most artist's work these days. In my view, the art is in the line.

When I was starting out (at the wee age of seven) we were only allowed to copy drawings which were of the classic sanded point method, or we copied the demonstration drawings of our teacher. We were drilled relentlessly in the line techniques before we ventured off into working from life settings or photos. By then we had a useful quiver of line techniques to apply to the drawing, regardless of the source.

Rather a narrow way to learn, I'll grant you. There are many ways to draw and paint, but there are fewer good ways to learn.

Perhaps I am stuck in the mode of the beginnings and fundamentals. This conversation perhaps deals more with advanced work from photos and life. But when you discuss the merits of working from photos and from life, for the beginner, neither is advisable.

OK where to start:
Michael G.
Yes, Michael you are absolutely correct. Your point is a good one and I think you are right on with your philosophy on painting.

Enzie

Well, yes, there are many artists that work from photos and produce great work. Others work from a combination of life and photos and still others prefer to work only from life. But notice they say "prefer" since many of these artist have done good if not great work from photos when the situation dictated that they had no choice.

Now I did not vote on this because I felt that it did not matter really. For in the end if you have learned how to draw and paint well and understand the limitations of photos then you produce good work regardless of the use or lack of use of photos.

If you have still to master your craft or have become a slave to your reference then it will show in your painting. Many artists struggle, working for years from poor photo reference or painstakingly trying to copy all the information in good photos only to produce less than stellar paintings. Why? Because they did not take the time to learn from many different sources needed to produce good work. And these are in my opinion:[list=1]
1. Of utmost importance, if you intend to capture life in your paintings, is drawing, painting and observing from life.

2. The study of great work which came before you such as the work of the great masters.

3. Instruction from someone who knows how to paint and can pass on their knowledge to you ether directly or though writing or more modern methods such as video or the internet. But I feel direct instruction with the right person can do more for you than just pass on a few skills. I gained much from my mentor both about art and about life.

4. And last, the unavoidable necessity to acquire any skill, practice, practice, practice.[/list=1]
So in the end it is not about, "I think that painting was done from a photo or that one from life." No, it is about, "is that painting a good painting?"

It may fail to be for many reasons. Being caught by the shortcomings of photographic reference is only one reason. But until all the other reasons are addressed photographic reference problems are irrelevant. An artist that has acquired painting and drawing skills can be hindered by poor reference and it will show in their work.

Unless they have acquired painting and drawing skills what shows first is the artist's lack of those skills even if they have great reference.

So, in closing, I will add that there are many paths to the end we all seek but there is one golden path for each of us. There are no shortcuts along this path, and whenever you try and take one you are only stepping off your golden path following a mirage, an illusion of your goal. Find your golden path and stay on it and you will reach your goal. Look for shortcuts and you will just make your trip longer wasting time chasing a mirage.

This post is mainly in response to Steven

John,

If it was eight respondents instead of seven, I stand corrected.

We

Hello all,

I didn

Draftsman Drawing a Reclining Nude

[QUOTE] Here

There's the rub indeed. A little further down Hamlet says:

"Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action."