Go for excellence in portraiture
 

The world of contemporary portraiture is much too dependent on photography. Far too many practitioners can

To In-spire
 

[QUOTE]The world doesn

Amen Bill
 

Professionals like yourself are our esteemed mentors and inspiration and we so often soften the gratitude you so very well deserve for your presence in this forum and other sites on the web where you so freely share your wealth of knowledge to us all. One day I hope we can share the burden in educating the public and educational institutions to see through our eyes.

I am constantly awe struck by the amount of unknown masters that has come before us on sites like ARC. The wealth of knowledge and real artistic history that has been refused its place in historical accounts because our esteemed art critiques/art houses/sellers like Salons and places such as Christies etc continue to be allowed to manipulate the public with their unqualified consultations and courses in modern and leading edge investment art. I believe our earnest is certainly due more credence towards educating the public into real artistic skills and the push must come from the professionals with the students supporting in the shadows but increasingly growing in numbers. The lifetime of skills developed by our forefathers to produce their majestic artworks cannot be understood by a mere voice in one or two editorials or by winning a few prizes, the awareness must come from continual publicity and advertising with the tables turning only when the majority of art competitions actually cater for a traditional/classical section and our institutions actually teaching skillful art. Publicity can be manipulated to our advantage, if we speak frequently and loud enough.

I certainly will be doing my bit at every opportunity and am open to new ideas to help popularise skillful artworks. We certainly have more avenues, technologies and events than in anytime in our history to increase the reputation of skillful art. What's stopping us taking this advantage? Numbers? Voices?

I always listen carefully to what Bill says, I think I've read everything he's written in the forum.
I cannot always hire a model to sit for me, so I follow Caravaggio's example on exercising with a mirror. I love to work from life, it gives me a pleasure that I cannot explain in words, I take advantage of every single opportunity to work from life.

I have drafted and now deleted three pretty long posts for this thread, because I have some strong feelings about the wisdom that Mr. Whitaker has offered. What the heck, here goes.

My opportunity to receive the training in the classical fundamentals was so far beyond my means and experience and ability that I worked in embarrassment, albeit very earnestly so, for years and yet will simply always feel blessed by it, even if I have made less of it than I might have. I paid a very high price for that opportunity, and only in retrospect can I say "gladly."

Fact is, most of the reference photographs I've seen on the Forum have been awful, sorry to have to say, though I don't often assume the role of curmudgeon here. And though those photos provided convenient excuses for the resultant flaws in the paintings, the fact is that the reference photographs revealed the (lack of) artistic sensibilities of the artist, not an aesthetic failure of the subject. If the artist had known what he or she was after, in terms of fundamentals, the photo would not only have likely been perfect, but it would have been unnecessary.

When I came on board the Forum many years ago, it was the case that even to admit you'd copied a photo was something you protected from disclosure. Now, a few competitive years later, we're proudly displaying our photography skills and our ability to copy those intermediary renderings.

I work for a publishing company whose competitor stole our editorial stuff for years, in the early Internet anything-goes days -- let's call that competitor the Smith Corp. -- and it happened that we produced a t-shirt with an image of a photocopy machine with the legend, "The Smith Editorial Department."

Sadly, that's the level that we're working at when giving up on life, on the real thing, and just copying an intermediate rendering already produced in another flawed, however instrinsically beautiful, medium. Nothing wrong with photographs, but you can't train your eye that way.

If one simply cannot find models -- family members, paid street urchins, kaffeeklatsch sipping buddies -- and, so, cannot proceed save by artifice . . . it may be best to stop. Many schools continue to offer degrees in accounting and archaeology, as well as studio art.

Or continue in portraiture, for the self-fulfillment of it. But don't wonder why your fiddle doesn't play Bach, while you go to book club. Or why the absence of a photograph leaves you completely unable to work.

Understanding Need
 

Bill,

What a great thing you have posted. It's a much needed spark for me. I need to hear this because I use photographs in about 90% of my illustration work and in my brand spankin new portrait commission work. But, here it is! Your statement for us to grab something really special. We are now admonished to reach and strive for that one-in-a-million prize of having the skill to completely do portraiture that captures a striking likenes of the subject without the use of photos - at all. This is obviously a gem to dig for with great lust and fervor that includes many hundreds and thousands of painstaking practice hours.

But, I perceive an already mentioned dilemma with regard to doing what has been laid before us. For instance, nearly 100% of the full time professionals I see use photo references to get the work done. In fact, I see all but one here in this thread (so far) that states quite clearly in their websites and on posted works in the other sections, that specifically use photos in their portraits. And I believe we all would know why. It's as Sharon just stated. "It's what the client wanted."

So, my question to myself is, what do I do....use the photos for my "day job" then, practice like a maniac at every other spare moment for the true prize of mastering a pure free hand?

~Gear

Babe in the Woods Speaks
 

I have taken two Marvin Mattelson workshops and painted from life, twice. What an incredible experience, what beautiful colors to observe under good lighting, FROM LIFE.

Having made the decison to seriously begin my studies in portrait painting, I am moving to Gainesville, GA, to live as cheaply as one can. And I am not taking a computer. And I only own a small cheap digital camera, so in essence will not have a camera to use.

There will be no laptop next to my easel.

I hope I will find models to pose for me, or at least a good mirror! Why wouldn't any serious student want to learn as the masters she so admires? I think it will be absolutely necessary to learn from life before thinking of learning how to use reference photography.

I have read about many artists' studio set ups and practices here over the years. The system that makes the most sense to me is to have the client sit intitially, mainly to learn the subject and then to have a strong color study. Then one can utilize photography as an aid in executing the painting (few clients can or are willing carve out time for several live sittings). Towards the end of the painting call back the client for one more sitting, to review and readjust any color discrepancies.

I am a relative babe in the woods with painting, but I do not believe I am being too idealistic. I have seen paintings receive oohs and ahhs that simply look like copied photographs, right down to some obnoxious chotsky on a table in the background just because it was in the photo. Where is the breath of life, one searches for and hopes to find in a work of art?

I hope everyone who takes portrait commissions is at heart striving to produce something "more" than a "mere likeness" or a correct image.

The constraints of portraiture for pay can well nigh strangle freshness of vision and creativity: issues of "likeness" in agreement with the patron's eye, their preferences (or demands) for pose, setting and aesthetics, the difficulty of finding and scheduling time for life sittings, and so on.

I feel photo references are a "necessary evil", and would like to know how others manage this aspect of the problem. I also feel that past a certain point, there's too much emphasis on technicality in this field and perhaps not enough on aesthetics.

I share the same thoughts
 

"Reference photo" is the name for an excuse for painting from a flat surface to another flat surface and then wonder if one has achieved the "likeness". I believe that to achieve a 100% likeness is better to leave the photo alone. Rembrandt had some of his portraits rejected because of not having sufficient "likeness" . Singer Sargent would care less about an absolute "likeness", he painted his sitters taller and beautiful and no sitter got mad at him for not getting the "likeness". If you had seen the actual photos of some of the famous people he painted, you will notice how different they were from his portraits. I do agree that nobody should try to paint realistically if one is not sufficiently skilled with drawing, but this skill should be used to make an artistically beautiful painting and not as a substitute for the camera. Rembrandt and Sargent were skillful enough to have rendered photo-realistic pictures and yet they refused to do so. The goal or objective of a painter should be only one: to get better. To me, the search for perfection had nothing to do with the artist's professional or commercial goals. Whether a painting is beautiful or ugly does not depend on having achieved a likeness or not, but on whether the painting as a whole, inspires emotions on the onlooker or not. Nobody knows how the real Gioconda's wife used to look, because there are no photographs of her, but Leonardo's famous Mona Lisa still overwhelms me.

Sharon,
Thank you for this post. I have been thinking about this issue myself lately. I use photos. I used to trace them, but I have begun to break myself of that crutch, in the pursuit of stretching myself to prove (to myself) just how serious I am about all of this. Most of my clients don't have the least bit of interest in sitting for me, but I have talked a blessed few into sitting for at least part of the process. People are surprised that I even request this much, and I find myself reminding them that that was how it was done when the world's most memorable portraits were created. My relatively little bit of work from life has taught me SO much for the time that I put into it, I wouldn't give anything for it. I always appreciate your posts, and I have a lot of respect for you as an artist.
Louise

Either do I. If you look at what he's saying in general, it's not too far off the mark in many respects. Also, it's always wise to see what the "enemy" is saying about us.

But I have to admit I don't see photography as an intrinsic evil. It exists, and it is human nature to find clever ways to use what exists. It's not going to be uninvented; on the contrary, it's becoming increasingly high-tech and accurate. It's how artists use photography that can be detrimental to creativity and to clients' expectations and understanding of what art is.

As soon as visual aids existed, artists used them. Not all artists, but some of the best. They weren't the best because they were more photographically accurate, but because their work had a transcendent quality, a compellingly expressed concept and vision.

Copying photographs might not be a bad way to learn some things, like mixing paint, but it's true you've got to go beyond copying photographs if you are going to push yourself to really put in the hard work that it takes to become all you can be as an artist. If you are painting from a live model, you'll learn a lot more about every aspect of painting, and you will learn it faster.

I like using photographs, but as a visual aid, not a crutch. If I am using photographs, I will use up to 20, even 30, to help me with a single portrait. I don't trace anything! I use my eyes. I get so into what I'm doing, I feel as though I'm right there with the person. I think my portraits end up looking very different from my references. They are much truer to the concept in my head. I also paint from life every chance I get, and do studies from life whenever the client can sit. I go to open studios, and I paint landscapes outside. The continual practice from life has been invaluable. I am not at all afraid of painting anyone's portrait totally from life.

Photos are great for catching a fleeting gesture or expression. Often I'm looking for something elusive, and when a person settles into a three-hour pose, the expression is not there. Of course I could wait for it to appear, and paint around it, while engaging the client in conversation, but most clients don't have that time. Those fleeting expressions are, I think, part of what gives a portrait life. If I can use a combination of life sittings and photographs, I can often fit into the client's busy schedule while also capturing that spark of life and movement in the portrait.

Photography has opened our eyes to innovative composition also. After photography became common in the 19th century, artists cropped figures and included parts of objects at the periphery of the canvas. You can see that in Degas' and Sargent's work, for example. Again, that's not to say we should just take a photograph and copy it exactly, including where things are cut off at the edges. We should think about how to arrange the composition to express what we want to express. But certain compositional arrangements are accepted now that were not accepted before the advent of photography.

Bascially, I'm saying 1) yes, it is extremely important to not be satisfied copying photos if you are serious about art. And 2) it is unrealistic to think photography is going to disappear from the art world. And 3) it is destructive to be automatically critical of anyone, including ourselves, who uses photography. There are many, many ways to use photography besides copying from a photo.

Owing to stories too short to be told, like the drawer full of string too short to be saved, my last two paintings have been dogs. Not that they were terrible, but they were paintings of dogs.

This much is true.

A colleague today revealed that she had, sketch pad in hand, surreptitiously captured me at work on one of these efforts, and I post here her depiction, a preemptive defense against charges of working from anything but life.

Kidding aside, here's a card worth sliding into the index file for after-the-fact consideration -- what percentage of submissions, and of awardees, of the Portrait Society's annual competition were produced from photographs?

Yet that may not be instructive, because at that level, even those artists are undoubtedly capable of painting from life, and so the photo references are capitalized upon as an edge rather than a crutch. One of last year's honoree works was in fact earlier presented on this Forum as a presumably hopeless reference photo, which was alchemized into precious metal.

But that's the ether breathed at an altitude different from that which I think many members are talking about in these threads, which is the level of training one's eye, one's sensibilities. I think the misgivings are being expressed about the short-circuiting of the development of aesthetic musculature. We're becoming content with being artistic wimps, while machines do the work.

Are those voices in the wilderness we hear? Probably. Is it too late? Probably. How many of us have lately witnessed the triumph of tradition in any aspect of our lives? (And when we do, that alone becomes the subject of celebration, it is so rare.)

Computers and robots build cars now, a natural progression from Henry Ford's assembly-line paradigm. Soon it will be likewise in rendering likenesses in whatever medium you choose.

But there will probably also always be a source, a place, a practitioner, about whom people in the know will say, "You've got to come see this person's work. The studio's hard to find, but you have to come with me and talk to him [or her]. There's nothing else going on anymore quite like it."

It may be enough to resolve to be the artist they're talking about.

Some artists can paint from life forever and never produce a great work of art. Other artists can paint exclusively from reference photos and create a masterpiece that far transcends the reference.

Talent, experience, craft and effort conspire together in all great works. Paints. brushes and yes reference photos are just some of the tools that help get to the end product.

Bougureau created great art. While he could have used photo references, I personally doubt it because he was known to be able to create portraits from memory. Was that the secret of the great masters? Having a photographic recall of images? Perhaps, but if most of you are like me, we can't capture that illusive, fleeting expression that makes a painting live and breath from a mental image of perfect recall. We mere mortals do that via a reference photo.

It is the ability to recognize and capture that illusive image combined with the magic of the ability to create a painting even beyond that image that separates the artist from the mere image reproducer.

For me the debate between photos and life is a tempest in a teapot. What really counts is the end product. Did we create a great work of art!

Okay, I have to admit, this is a subject that

Painting from photos
 

Some portrait painters of renown have told me that after you have mastered the skill of painting from life, you may use photos because by that time, you will be able to edit the photo and not copy it. When you can paint from life, you will discover that a photography carries many errors that you have to discard and screen out, such as wrong values and distortions from the lens. Besides, a photo reproduces only one single and brief look of the sitter that may or may not be characteristic of his personality. Painters who are only interested in getting a likeness can certainly get it quickly from a photo, but a portrait is supposed to represent more than a likeness.
Frequently they ask you to reproduce your "photo reference" along with your painting before they can give you a critique. Jeff is right when he says that most of the critiques center on pointing out "errors" of drawing, by comparing your painting with the photo, as if the "likeness" is the only thing important in a portrait. I said before that some of the most famous portraits in the museums are considered masterpieces, even though there are no photographs of the sitters, available to compare. To me, a portrait has to be looked in its totality, no piecemeal. A portrait does not only represent the sitter but also the painter, a photo only represents the surface appearance of the sitter and leaves out the person and also the painter. Finally, I want to say that before painting, one has to master drawing, just like writers who have to know their grammar before attempting to write.

I have something to add to this photography argument but I am having some trouble organizing my thoughts about it. I do want to say that 1. it takes a lot of self-confidence to paint a realy good portrait from life and 2. an artist is not going to get that self-confidence from strictly photo work. That fact alone should convince artists to put the time in to paint from life. I think bravery (foolhardly or useless as it may be) is a very big component of being an artist.

Many of the artists I know that do excellent work from photos are also very good draftsmen and do excellent life work.

I think that people in our society are inured to seeing themselves in photographs to the extent that the photographic image is more real than any dubious 'reality".

I also think that models and friends are much, much easier to paint than clients, for a variety of reasons. I frequently draw clients in my studio in charcoal and they figure out after the first hour or so that I am the one having all the fun, they are suffering, and furthermore, they have to pay me.

I personally am trying to figure out a way to do entire paintings from life for clients which are not in the "loose oil sketch" category ot flashy painting.

Oh, that Bourgereau! Incidentally, if there are any satyrs out there reading this who would like a portrait painted from life, please contact me. Now, that would be fun!

The critique exercise is, I think, different from the creative process and the "internalization through practice" skills development, the loss of which is being lamented. In the studio/atelier setting, the model would be sitting there, and the instructor would indeed point out every single detail of difference between the model and the drawing or painting. Over time, there would be less and less difference in each new work. That doesn't mean that any art has been created. It means that you have developed the tools to create art.

But we're not in a studio setting here and so the best substitute for looking at a model is to look at whatever reference photo a member may have chosen to post. I look at those photos not as images in themselves, instrinsically worthy of slavish copying, but as if they were indeed the model. It's a lousy substitute, but it's all we have here. And if the photo image is aesthetically or artistically better than the drawing or painting, I point that out. I don't believe anyone has ever insisted that the photo image be copied in all its details, if those details are flawed. I know that I very often add a caveat that modifications are not suggested for the purpose of duplicating the photo, but because they will in fact enhance the drawing or painting, as by, for example, better representing form or a value design.

If a photo image in fact contains useful information that a student artist has failed to see -- which happens quite often, however poor the average reference photo -- then any critique worth the price of admission should point that out. Entirely different exercises are involved as between saying "This isn't artistically pleasing," and pointing out that "This isn't accurate."

If the student artist does not want comments on accuracy, but only on "artistry" or aesthetics, I'd prefer that the reference photo not even be posted, for it then becomes irrelevant. Copying the photo is never the point. It is a resource. It isn't art, any more than a live model is art, nor is a copy of it. The only chance for art is what we make of it.

Again, if accuracy isn't a concern, and if one is confident that a drawing or painting successfully includes all the "good" information in the reference photograph, I see no point in including the photo in the critique request.

I think the uses of photography are getting a bit muddled here, so that we're posting at cross purposes to some degree.

Sorry Steven.

I didn't mean to imply that everyone here is guilty of photophilia. And I agree that the reference photo should not always be used when asking for a critique, but sometimes the photo will be posted in the SOG photography forums, and people naturally refer back to it when they see the finished work in the critique forums.

I wonder, do you professionals allow your clients to see the reference photo again after you've painted the portrait? It seems the client is in the best position to judge the quality of the portrait without looking at a photo, and should probably not be given the opportunity to look for minor differences to nit pick over.

If anybody has suggestions for convincing people to pose for life sessions, please start a thread about it.

Well, who can argue with that ?? :) FWIW, Bouguereau did utilize reference photographs . . . to what extent ? I dunno.

What is troubling to me is that many painters whose work "isn't half-bad" don't seem to apprehend all that entails in the differences between working from the life, and relying on photographs.

I'm not addressing this to anyone in particular, because in fact so many members have raised the question of how to find models.

I had trouble with this, even when I advertised at art stores and such for models, promising a worthwhile hourly rate. The only reason I've ever done a self-portrait is because I couldn't find a model in Minneapolis in mid-February. Imagine that.

Eventually I did, and I promised her $8 an hour and paid her $10 (and I probably would have married her afterwards.) The reality is, if you can't find models, how are you going to find clients?

You have to get out there and hustle. And you write some checks.

Meanwhile, you can do what I did, which is to ask my family members to sit for me -- if a family member won't do this, you might want to find a more supportive family -- and I was never turned down.

An uncle by marriage (I don't blame him for the marriage, and he and I are still friends) was in town for an event and needed a place to stay. I knew that he was a TV addict, so I lined up a couple of worthwhile shows or DVDs (I don't remember which), and asked him to let me sketch while he watched TV. He had a bad back and could only sit still for about 15 minutes, so we did 4 or 5 of those sessions. He left with a matted and framed original drawing, my "payment" to him.

It was too large to scan so this must be a photocopy of a printout of a photograph. I remember that his shirt was a red plaid, and I put in a couple of small areas of sienna Conte in the shirt for a little bit of surprise accent in the charcoal, and he was very pleased, and I had another drawing's worth of experience under my belt. It was an hour's worth of drawing time, maybe a bit more, and it's not going to hang in the Met, but that wasn't the point.

Learn to hustle. It's the least enjoyable part of the whole gig for me, but there isn't an easier way. People aren't going to come to you and say, "I hear you're just starting out in portraiture and I wondered if I could pose for you." It's gotta go down a different way.

Excellent post Steven.
It is hard for most of us to be assertive. After all, when we show our paintings, most of us feel worse than naked.

There seems to be an inverse relationship between artistic ability and assertiveness. Those with modest talent generally seem to do better at selling themselves than their more gifted peers.

The older I get, the better I am at being assertive. Of course my talent seems to be in the decline....

This subject comes up every so often here - with great passion. And certainly no one would dare take on the esteemed artists here on this thread about this issue. Those who work mostly from photos and have reached a certain level of sucess with them stay off these threads and don't participate.

Who can possibly argue that working from photos is better? Of course not - every artist that isnt still in diapers knows this.

What Bill said above at the begining of this thread was a call to arms for artists to get better. It is not only noble - but highly prized advice from a well-respected, talented, kind and generous artist as well as teacher.

Some of the comments that follow are not so kind.

What some of you may call 'excuses' - I call Jamie, Dailey & Jacob.
Or...mouths to feed.

I will not accept that not having the means to hire live models for every painting session will result in poor paintings. Nor will I listen to nonsense from artists who want to say that if you cant do that - you should pick another career.

Those of you speaking about sacrifices... How many of you would take grocery money from your family to pay a model? How many of you have painted 12 hours a day or more for years and years? Or gone without meals to be able to afford to take a workshop with a master painter?

I wont argue the 'from life' is better - no doubt about it. We should all be encouraged and reminded of this from time to time.

I will argue though that with enough study, skill and hard work...even without a live model - great paintings can be made. Maybe not as often - but it can be done. With enough determination - many many obstacles can be overcome. And working from photos is an obstacle.

I also refuse to be ashamed of the way I work. Am I working under the best possible conditions? No. Nor am I using the best easel, or best brushes...or had the best training. I would go so far as to say that hard-core determination will beat out the best circumstances any day.

In honor of myself and others here who work from photos for the most part - for whatever reasons....I would just like to say that professional respect for colleagues went a little south in this thread. When disparging others working methods it might be wise to use words carefully..... or some things could be construed as disrespectful. Im sure none of us wants that.

Actually, during much of the three years that I spent going back for intensive instruction in the fundamentals, I had two school kids at home and I was the only parent around. All I did during that time was take care of the kids, transport them around to school and Scouts, band and sports, and whatever else, and go to the studio, an hour

Check out Paul Foxton, a new member here, and what he is doing on a daily basis http://www.learning-to-see.co.uk .

I greatly admire his daily cafe sketches and the approach he is taking to re-learning color in his series of single pieces of fruits or vegetables.

This is always tricky, with intervening time and posts -- we should probably be doing this over pizza and a pitcher, with everyone shouting at once -- but let's take stock.

The thread wasn't started to insult or castigate anyone (if I may presume), but instead grew from precisely an opposite urge, to inform and inspire and motivate, and it hasn't willfully developed with malicious intention, however perceived. There has been a generous offer of advice and experience about how it might be possible to move to a new level of appreciation and excitement and fun-to-get-up-in-the-morning and productive practice about what we're all doing here, simply because it's what we most dearly wish we could do in full blossom and, yes, full, casino-grade recompense if possible.

I often hear Forum members talk about how they feel stuck, doing the same thing over and over again, not feeling like they're getting anywhere. Feeling dull and jaded. Feeling like they don't know if they have it anymore.

Bill and Sharon have made some suggestions about that. No one has to follow them. No one has to feel offended that others have experienced what these folks are talking about.

About 98% of the time, the tide in this Forum raises all the boats at once, which is about how 99% of us hope it will go. I don't see why this discussion should be any different. I've learned some things here myself.

I've gone back in and cut this post by half. Not half enough, some might think, but this is my earned and final observation.

I have wondered before about the notable absence of some of our distinguished colleagues on these threads. The ones who use photographs primarily. I figured they didnt feel the need to defend or explain their use of tools to help their paintings.

There is another reason perhaps. This is a 'portrait' artist site. It is googled regularly by artists and clients. If I did more commissions I would not have even put my 2-cents in on a thread where it is indicated that the clients have no taste. I assume that the artists making a living at only commissions enjoy what they do - or they would be doing something else. They enjoy the challenge of merging their skill and vision with that of the clients. Several of us yapping on this thread do figuratives for a living. It is a completely different ballgame since we paint our vision without having to please anyone - but sell it later.

Or...perhaps our colleagues who use photos to aid them...are just too busy painting Governors and Senators to bother with this thread. Then of course there are the ones that will be picking up their awards at the PSA conference next week.

Im sure that when their waiting lists thin down, after they cash their checks and after they hang their awards...they will find the time to be ashamed of their use of tools. Or perhaps not.

oh - and I agree with Steven that over a nice casual table and pitcher would be much better for discussing this. And then when finished - whoever can afford to pay for the pitchers is the winner. ;)

Sharon,
Sorry! i can't agree with you. I am with Bill on using models to improve our art. I also agree whole heartedly with what Steven and Kim have said.

Many of my paintings are of children under the age of five. Without photos, trying to do a decent painting of any one of these dynamos would be almost impossible. You have chosen a particular artistic course and I applaud you for it. However, to imply that any other artist who choses another course of action is less of an artist is just plain wrong.

Just another example of the many ways in which photography can do things that Frans Hals might have liked. And used. (We'll never know.)

I don't care if I'm the maverick point of view, I'm going to say it: I believe photography, if not relied on as a crutch, can be a valuable tool rather than an evil. I can't say how many times I've seen someone with light falling across their face in a certain way, or in a certain position or setting, that fills me with vision and a burning desire to paint. A lot of these moments can't be recreated later in a live pose for various reasons, but they can be recorded by my camera.

At the same time, photography is no substitute for learning to paint from life. And I believe this learning process should ideally never stop. We should not assume that we've reached the skill level at which we no longer need to paint from life.

There are many people on this forum who are learning to paint by copying photos. I don't see anything horribly wrong with that up to a point. Who said you have to learn to paint from life FIRST and THEN you can paint from photos? Why can't people take different paths? There's a lot you can learn about edges and color mixing, using a photo. I don't think we should assume these artists are on the wrong track simply because they start out this way. In fact I have seen many of them get to a certain point in their work and then become dissatisfied, realize they need to go to the next step, and start working from life. Some of them do and they turn out to be amazing. They need encouragement, not criticism. I believe that those who are really determined to put in the work necessary to be REALLY good will take the leap. It's up to them. We should not assume that anyone's an automatic loser because they start out at a certain place.

I've seen many cases of the opposite problem: people who have excellent training from life, in a good art school, etc., who end up painting only from photos and lose the spark. So, as I said, it's how you push yourself all through your life that makes a difference.

Sharon, I never paint the image, I use the image (and life studies and sketches) to paint my vision. There is a huge difference. Plus, my photos, though good for their purpose as references, would never stand alone as art.

In practical terms, when I paint children, I do pretty much the same as you describe.

I picked up a recent issue of American Artist from the library not long ago (December 2005 issue?). There was an article about painting from photos, versus life. It included a quiz: "Guess which paintings were from photos". I really couldn't tell.

I think that part of the problem with photos is that we tend to switch gears when using them, and try to make a more identical copy than we would from life. Working from life, one might start with a nice gestural sketch, and go from there. The same artist might skip the gesture when working from a photo, making a strict copy, which looks like a copy.

The artists who use photos successfully say that they rely on their life painting experience to get them through. It's a hybrid approach. The life work makes the photo work better.

I absolutely agree that I need more life study. I really enjoy making excuses, though. I have a big mirror behind my easel, so I can easily glance back for a different perspective as I work. Maybe my easel is facing the wrong way. I should turn it around and do a self portrait from time to time. Too bad I have such an unpleasant face.

Genius
 

My one more observation on this subject would be to offer the suggestion that Whistler, Sargent, Rubens, and the rest of the masters we've spoken of here, were almost unbelievably good artists. What they did, in fact, was genius. The fact that any of them may never have used "light and mirrors" in any fashion didn't make them geniuses. That was their born gift. The fact that they worked out their masterpieces, like Bouguereau, with sometimes a hundred sketches and finished drawings of each subject is absolutely essential in realizing how some of them acquired such perfectly rendered paintings.

I believe it was as Mr. Whittiker states (and I believe his only intent) , the fact that the study of drawing and painting from life is incredibly important. It's important because that is where we all grab the molecular life force of a thing. It's where the organic aspect is born, if you please.

I also agree that it can and has become very difficult to please clients as the decades have gone by. This is probably due to the fact that photography has gotten so dang good! It's made everybody much more 'sophisticated' visually. It's exactly like other technological scenarios, such as audio. I mean c'mon, how many of us can hardly stand listening to our favorite music on vinyl or a cassette any more...as opposed to enjoying it on a CD?

And I'm sure most of us can almost feel Sharon's life-changing soul-wrenching decision to move into an arena where she feels she honestly NEEDS to be with regard to her artwork. Even though her portraits she's made are extremely well done (in fact, forgive me, I see them as superior to the Hogarths and Cassats posted) and the colors, the buttery smooth textures, the realism is so well executed, I can sense her desire to acquire an unction to move into a whole other realm artistically. I say God Bless her for "the call."

And I'm quite sure that if we, as Mr. Sweeney has presented, were actually around this table in real life with mugs in hand, and our best artworks hanging on the walls, we would all be getting misty-eyed support from each other in regard to our individual desires and goals.

I lift my mug and say, may all our goals be met and all our strokes be genius!

~Geary

Even after 90 sittings the portrait still did not look like Stein. However, it definitely was a Picasso. His vision is what shows through and his training helped him achieve that vision. Early Picasso's show that he could paint a formidable likeness, but what he is known for are the art works that went beyond the image.

I agree with Sharon that all great figurative artists had basic skills and craft honed to an exceptional degree. Life studies were and continue to be critical in the development of such skills. However, to me, it is the vision beyond the image that makes great art sing.

The question is not whether or not to use use tools like photos or grids, brushes or palette knives to get to end then result, but rather do we have the vision AND basic skills to produce that great piece of art.

So let me summarize what I think this thread is trying to tell us:

1 - Acquire the basic skills of an artist That includes the proper use of all the artist's tools including photo references (without being a slave to them).
2 - Build on those skills with live models wherever possible.
3 - Above all, be fearless in having a vision and then execute it to the very best of your ability.

Richard, I wholeheartedly agree with your summary. Well put.

You know Sharon...my wife and you are two women I know of who don't like THAT term. She's a classically trained soprano singer and she will concur that she's never met a "sissie" that became a good soprano. :cool:

~Gear

Amen. Every successful person I know always had a strong core confidence in what they were doing and in their vision. They would charge ahead in spite of all the nay sayers. Indeed art isn't for sissies

Critiques
 

I believe that a critique is a great teaching tool that helps the student (we all are) to SEE like a painter and to improve our artistic TASTE. To ask: "are you satisfied with the likeness?" is an unnecessary question, because if one isn't satisfied with the degree of likeness in a portrait, no paint would have been used, only charcoal or thinned paint for a sketch.
Once a painting has been finished, the more useful teaching comments would be about composition, color harmony, achievement of the illusion of atmospheric depth, roundness of form, adequate perspective (linear and aerial), mood, etc. Of course, to obtain these effects on a painting, one has to have adequate drawing skills, a sense of color harmony, adequate use of edges and most of all, to be able to put together an attractive combination of shapes, chroma and values that make a painting a pleasant picture to look at. The likeness of the sitter doesn't make a painting good or bad, it's the total effect that the artist has put on the support that counts, regardless of whether the painter used live models or photos, and also regardless of the painter's artistic or stylistic goals. As I said it before, when I look at a painting as a whole, I can feel attracted by it, rejected by it or causing no feelings at all. I prefer to be told you: "why don't you try it again, your painting does not look good..." rather that try to dissect it into edges, color temperature, proportions, values, etc. As serious painters, we all are supposed to be able to pick up most of our errors in technique and be able to correct them without somebody having to tell us "this is what you did wrong". I have seen many paintings submitted for critiques that have been "corrected" according to various "advices", and to me, those paintings never stopped looking flat and unattractive, because the problem was deeper that an edge being too sharp or an "unnatural" color..

Using a photo requires that you have taken one and that is where the problems begin.

Sharon is putting her finger on a sore place and we know it.

I once tried to have a debate about this issue, in the tread

To sort of "piggy back" you Allan, this statement makes me think we should all think more like SCULPTORS than anything when we are drawing and painting from life, photos, or the combination of both. I say this because I always am adding on and then taking away stuff when I'm working. Just like a sculptor. Oh, to be like a Heidi Maiers!!! ;)

~Gear

I was about to quote and comment on the same words of Allan. In fact, learning the fundamentals of painting a good picture completely changed the way I take photographs, even if I don't intend to use them for references. If what I see in the viewfinder wouldn't make a good painting, I usually don't press the shutter button anymore. It's really jazzed up my photo albums a lot.

But another aside -- not a continuation, because as I said, I've contributed what I have on the subject, but I realize now from intervening comments in another thread that I've been misunderstood here, and a clarification is needed.

For critique purposes, by all means post the reference if you'd like. It's always useful to some degree. As I said before, it's essentially the "model" to which we compare your execution. To reiterate, posting the photo is most useful if you want to know if your painting accurately depicts the information in the photograph.

The catch is that, even if it does, it still may not be a good picture, in terms of design, composition, or other elements. That assessment can be made from the painting alone. However, it still may be useful to see the reference (the "model"), simply because it could be the case that the vision, as it has been put, in your photograph actually exceeds what is revealed in the painting. In that sense, seeing the photo could concededly provide some basis for discussing elements other than mere accuracy.

And it can go the other way. A reference photo could, yes, "prove" that the painting was accurate, and yet prove too much, if the result is, say, a poor value design in the photo itself. You must be willing to hear that, too. (If in doubt, consider pre-posting in the reference photo critique thread.)

If nothing else comes of this thread, it may be an appreciation of the fact that you are the artist, and you are in control of your artistic expression, and you, not a photograph, are responsible for what you put on the canvas (and for what you put on your palette, and so on).

An analogous pitfall that is heard by every teacher of fiction writing is that, well, since it "really happened!" (or, since it's in the photo), it is therefore a believable and good story. That is as false in visual as in written art. Another is the protest that it took 10 years of selfless toil to write a manuscript for a novel, and therefore it must be worthy and publishable (that is, "good.") No it musn't.