Tracing and transferring images

[Jacqueline Dunster]

I am new to this forum, but I am hoping this is the right place to post this topic.

I was perusing Amazon.com for good drawing/art books, and found a bad customer review for a perfectly decent book on drawing portraits. The reviewer poo-poohed the book because it taught "details and all that stuff". He said, "there's a simpler way." The reviewer then went on to praise another book (which will remain nameless) that taught the "grid" method only. (The reviewer said that he didn't even use the grid method for his drawings, he just went ahead and traced the photograph.)

I was appalled by this attitude. I almost popped a cork. Since when is learning and understanding the portrait considered a waste of time? What's so wrong with really learning how to draw? I hope this person's opinion is in the minority. How depressing.

I am pretty stuffy and stubborn about this issue, I confess. (I will remain a "purist", who only wants to draw freehand.) But am I the only one? I have always assumed not.

I've been drawing and painting for a while, but have an education based more on illustration (where tracing is not uncommon). Being the stubborn "purist" that I am, I've never traced a photo when creating one of my portraits. I never liked the idea.

I understand that some artists in the past have used the grid method, and I understand that the grid method can be a great help for learning, and for certain tasks. But I always assumed that fine artists who used the grid method also knew how to draw as well. However, the impression I'm getting is that some artists nowadays don't know how to really "draw" and are unable to get an image unless they use a grid, or trace it. I guess that's OK for more "funky" artwork, but for more "traditional" forms of artwork, it just doesn't seem right to me.

So, I am curious. Is the lack of drawing skill a common thing for many artists? Is it acceptable to trace (or grid) a photograph in more traditional fine art portraiture? I assumed not, but I am kind of out of the loop. I thought this forum would be a good place to ask!

[Jacqueline Dunster]

Oops. I did search to see if this topic had already been convered. I did. But I see that this subject has kind of been covered on this thread. (But it's not an identical subject.)

I gather from this other thread that tracing from photographs is a heated topic. I hope I'm not opening some big can or worms here. Maybe it would be better if this thread was moved to another section of this message board? I'm not sure how this works!

I guess part of the reason I started this thread is to find out how common tracing is, if many artists now consider the traditional skill of drawing to be not that "important".

[Nathaniel Miller]

An interesting topic. I share your views on drawing freehand.

You know, a noted artist in who lives in my town was commissioned to do a portrait which is now on permanent display in the governor's mansion.

Not only is the artist a known photo-tracer, but the portrait is mediocre in comparison to the portraits shown on this forum. There's an animation on the artist's website of the portrait in various stages of completion, and at step one the face is completely rendered.

Throughout history, artists were trained for years in drawing, and I think that's as it should be. However, it's one thing if you get an outline from a photo for time's sake and go on to produce good work, but another if you rely completely on the shapes, colors, and tones in a photo, do none of the drawing yourself, and still come up with a lackluster portrait.

Just my cent-and-a-half.

Nathan

[Steven Sweeney]

You're right, it's a contentious issue, unresolvable here or in any other forum. You've expressed your preferences and there's absolutely no reason why you can't or shouldn't work according to those preferences, no matter what anyone else says or does in their own practice. The gracious turnabout that some practitioners won't embrace is that other very dedicated, skillful, enthusiastic, and honourable practitioners use different methods.

I was fortunate to learn to draw and paint from life, without having relied upon photos or gridding, but there's a footnote here that has to be told. I ALWAYS had to do a charcoal drawing first, of anything I was thinking of rendering in oils, and this included portraits as well as still-life. After all the "hard work" -- the most correct placement and drawing of everything that I could accomplish -- was done, to such a degree of finish that I could proudly show the charcoal to anyone [and indeed I used to exhibit these charcoals alongside the paintings], I didn't just start over and re-draw everything on canvas. I did as I was trained to do in a "classical realist" atelier: I placed a sheet of acetate over my drawing, traced the contours, and then transferred them with graphite paper to my stretched canvas. Where's the "cheating"? I'd already done the measuring, the sighting, the drawing, once. Why, for the sake of purists' imprimatur, engage in redundant and repetitive work re-drawing it on the canvas?

But, yes, it's a bit of a stickier wicket, isn't it, to project a photo onto a canvas and trace the contours. That's faster and easier than gridding, which is faster and easier than marking off major divisions and filling in the bits, which is faster and easier than just having a go at drawing someone or something without any mechanical aids.

We all work within the limits of our time, and our talents. My best work is from life, and some of my least satisfying work is from photographs. But I have some pretty darn nice pieces from photos, too. I was recently on a tour bus in southern Taiwan and I saw a colourful oxcart sitting near the entrance (frequented infrequently by tourists) to a locally famous coastal sand dune area, and I instantly thought, there's a painting, and I lifted my camera and brought home only that image. I've painted it now, and though I'm not completely happy with it or how it came about, it was recently shown with a series of other "Taiwan influenced" paintings, and this particular piece was singled out by a Taiwanese-born Chinese woman as the one that most evoked, for her, a native Taiwan scene. "That," she said emphatically, "that is Taiwan." And that, I'm noting for the benefit of this discussion, is the only one of the pieces that showed a painting done by reference to a photograph.

We all have our own work to do, and our own sensibilities and preferences. My own take on the protocol is that as soon as someone tells me that I'm cheating, or doing it wrong, or not doing "fine" or "good" art, I find it beneficial to try to omit that person from my circle of counselors. Most of the critics of the way I work aren't even working artists, I find; they're failed artists, or disenchanted former artists, or collectors of what they like, or just folks with an attitude that they learned from reading other folks' opinions. I'm doing the best I can, ALL the time, with my time and talent and circumstances -- some of which aren't where I'd like them to be. And sometimes that means drawing from life, sometimes gridding up from a photo, and yes, the god of arts forgive me, sometimes projecting something, just so I can get on with what I love to do, which is painting. Believe me, it's a LOT harder to paint a really good painting from a photo reference than most people imagine. Because I've done the boot camp of drawing and painting, I can perhaps make the most of a photo. The real hazard is in slavishly copying one, or gridding up from or tracing one, without having been inquisitive and disciplined enough to know what things and people look like away from the lens as well as processed through one.

There's room for all of us. Not everyone likes that -- but so what? We're all here to stay, whoever likes it or not, if we're committed and conscientious enough about it.

Steven

[Jacqueline Dunster]

Thank you for such a thoughtful and gracious response!

Because I've done the boot camp of drawing and painting, I can perhaps make the most of a photo. The real hazard is in slavishly copying one, or gridding up from or tracing one, without having been inquisitive and disciplined enough to know what things and people look like behind the lens as well as processed through one.

I think this is the crux of it for me too. I've seen work that was created by a person who obviously hadn't been through the "boot camp". They traced, the portrait is dead-on accurate, but it's just missing something.

If I see a painting that sings, is gorgeous, and has personality and life to it, it doesn't matter so much if it was traced or not. Obviously the artist has "paid their dues", and it shows in their work.

I think the thing that seems "wrong" is when the artist doesn't really comprehend it all yet, but are able to get quick and easy results (by using "shortcuts" like tracing). I saw it a lot in some of the illustration classes I attended. Such artists may do well for a while, but sooner or later, that lack of foundation ends up being something they regret not having. Or - even if they don't regret not putting in the time to develop the foundation, it becomes obvious to others that they are missing something.

That's the way I see it, anyway. I can't imagine not being able to draw from life, or not being able to invent sketches from my imagination, without needing to use a model or photograph. Such drawings are often the ones I love the most. I cannot fathom why some people would choose to not learn how to do that, but if they don't, they don't. (Sorry, I obviously don't get why people trace!)

Nathaniel Miller: I was able to quickly do a Google search and find the painting you were discussing in your post. Yeah, it seemed a little sterile to me too. I prefer the examples of artwork I've seen on this site as well.

[Steven Sweeney]

I cannot fathom why some people would choose to not learn how to do that, but if they don't, they don't

Well, I don't necessarily attribute any particular intent to one's opportunities, even though I believe our intentions shape much of what happens to us once we understand how self-determinative we are. I'm the oldest of nine kids off a very poor western states farm, and the only reason I stumbled into some quality instruction in art was serendipity, extreme generosity of others, events that couldn't possibly have been foreseen by me, and many (many) hard lessons learned during a few decades -- some misspent -- of sorting things out.

It's scary to expose our creative efforts, however modest, and plenty of folks feel excruciatingly vulnerable in doing so. I think it's their right not to be afraid, and it is a great pleasure to me just to be able to say, well done, is there anything I can help you with?

Steven

[Jacqueline Dunster]

Well, I don't necessarily attribute any particular intent to one's opportunities, even though I believe our intentions shape much of what happens to us once we understand how self-determinative we are.

Yes, that's true.

I should always be mindful of the fact that I don't know the background of each artist. I shouldn't make hard and fast assumptions about their choices. But you know, I've met more than a few that were definitely making a conscious choice to not learn how to draw.

They seemed nigh onto belligerent in their unwillingness to not learn how to do it. And it wasn't because they didn't have the opportunity - able teachers and classes were readily available - they just weren't interested. I even had experiences where I was treated as if I was a "chump" who was "wasting my time" because I was devoted to developing my drawing skills. ("Why do you want to bother to draw that when you can just trace it?") There was a subtle contempt towards those of us who were bringing our sketchbooks everywhere and working very hard to develop and perfect our skills. I detected an attitude that I can only describe as laziness among such people. I am sorry to be blunt, but in my experience, there are people that are like that. There is a lack of love and enthusiasm for the artistic process (in my opinion).

Sigh. I suppose such negative experiences have colored my attitude a bit about this matter. (Ya think? )

[David Dowbyhuz]

My number one maxim in art, which can replace all others, is:

THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

'nuff said.

[Mike McCarty]

For me it is pretty much as David has described. A finished piece of art must stand and be judged. The journey which brought it to that place cannot help or hurt it. Personally I paint only in an open field. From memory. In the dark. During thunderstorms. Should people give me credit for this when they judge my work?

[Jacqueline Dunster]

If a painting delights, it delights. That, of course, is the bottom line.

What I have seen (and what I am critical of) is work that lacks something subtle. And then it turns out that the artist who produced it didn't put enough effort into honing their foundational skills. Obviously, I've seen plenty of this.

"The end justifies the means", but when the "end" is lacking something, and when you can pinpoint why it is lacking something, you start to form opinions.

Obviously I have!