Quote:
|
I can show you very good paintings done using photographic reference and I can show you bad paintings done from life
|
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