Photo trap?
 

When looking at naturalistic paintings one can often tell if the painting was made from a photo or not?

I don

Months ago, I emailed Peggy about this same subject. She was overseas at the time, but said she'd post about it when she got home. I didn't want to pester her about it, but maybe we can coax her into addressing it now.

I specifically liked the sauce portraits that she had done of her children, and emailed her about their apparent lack of photo realism. She had done the portraits from photos, but had done an excellent job of making them look like they had been done from life. Fantastic work.

Photos or Life?
 

Hi,

Right now I am struggling through a sight size, life size, 53"X 69" pastel of a dancer. Its inception started from a series of photos I took, intending them for some quick drawings to send to a gallery.

I liked one so much, I decided to make it into a life size pastel. As I started redrawing from the model, I was really surprised at how much distortion there was in the photo, relative to the actual figure.

When I got the drawing finished and scaled up, I was surprised again at the difference between the relative drawing I had done and the sight size figure I was now attempting.

One thing occurred to me, was that the "distortions" that happened when actually working from the model were happier ones. Even though there were inaccuracies, they were my inaccuracies and gave, I thought, more of a charm to the drawing. I find, often, than in trying to render from a photo, we stiffen up, we don't allow our natural visual tendencies to flow, we are trying so darn hard to copy that photo accurately.

Another happy result was the color. Freed from the domination of the photo, I was able to introduce a more playful fancifull backgroud and take liberties with the costume as well. It was not the picture, I intended, far from it, but I think it is much livelier and more inventive.

I will post it as soon as I get it done, with the original photo reference, if I can figure out how to do that.

Sincerely,

Hi Sharon,

I see that you have the same experience as so many artists must have. The line must have a life of its own. Especially when working in a big scale, as you are with the the dancer, the "distortions" justify themselves, they make the show.

Photo is a handy thing, being 2 D, it is easy readable. But it can be hard to get into the 3rd dimension and really sense the volume of a figure.

For instance, when doing croquis, from model, you have to work fast, often 2 minutes at a pose, and the best you can hope for is to catch the movement. To achieve this you must explaine the relations between the masses/volumes in the figure. The line expresses the way that you see.

We do see in 3 dimensions and therefore we must draw like a sculptor. Sculptors often make good drawings because they go straight to the facts, they sense the form, and explain it.

Working lifesize as you do must be like sculpting. I am anxious to see the finished pastel.

So am I!

[QUOTE=Allan Rahbek]

What I had in mind was the "frozenness" of action and the accidental meetings of lines and forms. For instance a shadow taking the role of an independent figure. I see it all the time and believe it

Add Water and Stir
 

And another thing. Life is wet and death (or, maybe in a broader sense, non-life) is dry. Life is fluid, in all senses of the word, both in terms of movement and actual wetness.

Photographs tend to dry out subjects and painters need to put it back in. In this respect we need not add electricity to provide animation; rather, it's a question of hydration.

Sincerely,
Dr. Frankenstein

Photography, to use or abuse.
 

Benson used photos, so did Degas.

I think it is a question of point of view. They used photos as springboard for their paintings, not as something to copy slavishy. "See Mom! Doesn't this look really real!"

As artists our fragile egos are sometimes so battered we need the affirmation of the public when they see just how close to an idea of reality we have come. "Oh you are so talented" ! What we hope for is not the dreaded phrase, " It's so real it looks just like a photograph"!

I find it extremely difficult to work from life. As I did not have any classical training my mistakes are time consuming, expensive and frustrating. I cannot always afford the luxury but I find the effort worth it as it informs some of the work I do from photos, both in color, light and especially style.

But in retrospect, I think we have to let go of the idea of mistakes, that does not mean reverting to carelessness or crudeness. After a while it can get boring and academic chasing the really really real, whatever that is.

I think a picture that has the most life bursting from it comes from an artist who is willing to be his or her most genuine, not reverting trickery or dishonesty just to beguile an audience.

Oh, to be able to accomplish that! We so want to be adored! At least I do!

Sincerely,
Dr. Frankenstein

One step only.
 

Dr. F.

The life arise between to contrasting points, as you may know Mr. Frankenstein, who gave life by lightning.

Animators too give life by connecting differing positions, or showing them in one scene.

When painting from live model the expression will be the sum of many impressions. In that way you allmost allways compromice and implantate some imposibilities. Like a sculpter that create tension by stretching the figure so that it holds to positions. I am thinking of Rodin

The problem can be the photo!
 

[QUOTE=Allan Rahbek]Dr. F.

The life arise between to contrasting points, as you may know Mr. Frankenstein, who gave life by lightning.

Animators too give life by connecting differing positions, or showing them in one scene.

When painting from live model the expression will be the sum of many impressions. In that way you allmost allways compromice and implantate some imposibilities. Like a sculpter that create tension by stretching the figure so that it holds to positions. I am thinking of Rodin