Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Linda Brandon
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.
|
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