Quote:
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 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?