Photo or life?
 

was it done from a photo or from life?

How long did she sit for you? ;) Very nice, Dan.

Garth

I like the sculptural look and intense reflected light. Lovely head.

Photo or life? I prefer life and do my best to work from life as much as possible. My sketch book is a constant companion and is in constant use.
As per your question whether your drawing was done from a photo or life is a tough one or is it? If you wish a honest answer then this is what I see. I personally do not think it was done from life. If it was, then your proportions are not in line and your values are not rendered accurately.

As is often the case in the photo-versus-life escapade, it

It has been done from a photo because of the intense area of light on the left hand side of the background - the intensity and shape of that background light is what a flash from a camera does.

Photo

Dan,
I could believe that it was done from life because of the relaxed expression of a long held pose, it's easy to sit in that pose for longer periods.
If it is made from life I would say that you have treated it much like a typical photo copyist.

I second Mischa's words.

Nice work.

Lettermen
 

Let's see if I can make this a little easier, and lighten the mood.

Is this painting from life or from a photo, keep in mind Dave's from Connecticut and so am I.

Photo.

Imagination.

Both are great work in their own category. but I believe they have no quality of being work from life .So I am curious to know what you want to tell us, Dan?

No intention of being churlish, but . . . "Who cares?"

Why is this important? The purpose and merits of any piece should stand on their own, and transcend the methods employed regardless of what they are.

For nearly 170 years now, artists (and the public) have been influenced by and have learned how to respond to images produced by the "one-eyed monster". The deficiencies and differences between the single camera lens, and the human perception process are well known to artists (or should be).

There are no short-cuts to learning the observational and manual skills required of rendering from life. One actually needs to be a relatively competent draftsman even to trace adequately from a photograph.

At least in my scheme of things, there is nothing better than working from the life in natural light. This is not always possible.

One may as well ask whether the paintings were done with natural hair brushes or synthetics . . .

I tend to agree. While everyone agrees that working from life is best, why does the source material matter if the resulting work of art is good?

The photo vs. life threads always come to cross-purposes and burn out, almost always for the same reasons.

Anyone who can work from photo references (even poor ones) and produce excellent work is blessed indeed and should continue to do so and reap great fortune. They are gifted with an eye for life, even if they cannot always work from life. For some, the gift is natural, and for others, it follows from careful attention and practice in life settings.

The only time (for the most part) that it matters whether a work has been drawn from photographs is when it looks like it, and the artist doesn't realize it. That's the hazard, and I believe that's the problem 99% of the time when a photo reference issue comes up.

One other issue, which is rarely spoken of, is that the habit, the dependence upon references can sometimes leave one adrift, as the musician who cannot play at all if he hasn't any sheet music to read. The audience usually doesn't care whether the piece is played from written notation or from memory or through improvisation, if it sounds good. But in the musician's head, these are very different methods and meditations. Not "good" or "bad," just useful in different ways.

An excellent, cogent point!

I suppose dependence on references could then be extended to include working from a model, depending on the artist's need? For example, although Degas drew inspiration from observing the productions of the Paris Ballet which he attended regularly for many decades, there's no record he ever sketched or worked during performances. He did, however, pose models in his studio and combined the results of multiple poses to compose many of his paintings.

Development of visual memory was an important facet of academic training in the 19th century. In the public's imagination, "done from memory" continues to be a major qualifier that elevates the perceived worth of a lot of mediocre work simply by dint of the process alone . . . and so does "done from the life".

to whom it may concern
 

I really didn't have a point to this thread.
I've worked as an illustrator and in doing so became proficient at working from photos.
I was curious as to weather the artist on this forum could tell the difference between my work from life and that from photos. I actually thought it would be a fun diversion.
I also thought it would be a good way to display some of my works.
I didn't realize what I was getting into when Alexandra suggested I move the thread to this section.
I respect you all to much to ever revel whose right or wrong, so have fun and guess away.
by the way the celebrity post where done from photos, you'll have to guess the rest.
These next few will be my last post but feel free to post some of your own.

Gosh, Dan . . . I didn't think comments in this thread communicated "touchiness" on the subject.. I for one am not at all offended, and I'm grateful for the look at your work. Great stuff, I especially like the Letterman caricature.

To be sure, unless you have some incredible connections or opportunities, celebrity subjects would have to be from photo references.

I think some discussion topics get re-visited perennially because the exchanges often provide the participants with fresh insight even though there can never be resolution (like "What is art?"). Obviously I think this is one of 'em, or I wouldn't have posted. I also hope no one's upset or offended . . . it's sure not my intention to offend.

We're getting lines crossed here -- this is to Richard's earlier post --

I don

And Dan, none of this should have discouraged you. This should have energized you. You might actually, with a slightly different perspective, feel exhilarated by the possibility of an additional way of "seeing."

If your originally posted drawing was from a photo and you're discouraged by the unanimous vote that it was in fact from a photo, you have nothing but opportunity in front of you to learn the "why" of that perception in the minds of others and -- if you choose -- spend some time on those elements.

Hey, it's all free, and it's fun, too. If you search for "photo life" in this Forum, you'll find many threads over many years in which this issue has been hashed out. It's nothing personal. Everyone's trying to help, to move the discussion and the process forward.

Email vs spoken word, photo vs life.
 

Stephen
Your last comment reminded me of an article I red once on email and how hard it is do determine the emotion behind the message. The difficulty arises when the human is separated from the words, the facial contortions, the gestures, and tone of voice, visual clues that aid us to determine what a person is trying to convey.

How appropriate this is to the subject at hand life vs the photo, or dare I say artist vs camera.
A well trained artist ( see Whitaker's threads on what it takes to be a well trained artist) can process information much more efficiently than a camera ( apologizes to you photographers ) Just as talking to another human is far more superior to typing them a message.

In conclusion: In order to paint a portrait that's true to the subject you have to meet and get to know that individual, see them, hear them ,study them in their environment, note their unique features and habits and then process and incorporate all that information into your portrait, all things a camera can not do.

So you see stephen I have been encouraged and energized by this discussion.