Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell
Blake Gopnik recently trashed the field and I don't blame him.
|
Either do I. If you look at what he's saying in general, it's not too far off the mark in many respects. Also, it's always wise to see what the "enemy" is saying about us.
But I have to admit I don't see photography as an intrinsic evil. It exists, and it is human nature to find clever ways to use what exists. It's not going to be uninvented; on the contrary, it's becoming increasingly high-tech and accurate. It's
how artists use photography that can be detrimental to creativity and to clients' expectations and understanding of what art is.
As soon as visual aids existed, artists used them. Not all artists, but some of the best. They weren't the best because they were more photographically accurate, but because their work had a transcendent quality, a compellingly expressed concept and vision.
Copying photographs might not be a bad way to learn some things, like mixing paint, but it's true you've got to go beyond copying photographs if you are going to push yourself to really put in the hard work that it takes to become all you can be as an artist. If you are painting from a live model, you'll learn a lot more about every aspect of painting, and you will learn it faster.
I like using photographs, but as a visual aid, not a crutch. If I am using photographs, I will use up to 20, even 30, to help me with a single portrait. I don't trace
anything! I use my eyes. I get so into what I'm doing, I feel as though I'm right there with the person. I think my portraits end up looking very different from my references. They are much truer to the concept in my head. I also paint from life every chance I get, and do studies from life whenever the client can sit. I go to open studios, and I paint landscapes outside. The continual practice from life has been invaluable. I am not at all afraid of painting anyone's portrait totally from life.
Photos are great for catching a fleeting gesture or expression. Often I'm looking for something elusive, and when a person settles into a three-hour pose, the expression is not there. Of course I could wait for it to appear, and paint around it, while engaging the client in conversation, but most clients don't have that time. Those fleeting expressions are, I think, part of what gives a portrait life. If I can use a combination of life sittings and photographs, I can often fit into the client's busy schedule while also capturing that spark of life and movement in the portrait.
Photography has opened our eyes to innovative composition also. After photography became common in the 19th century, artists cropped figures and included parts of objects at the periphery of the canvas. You can see that in Degas' and Sargent's work, for example. Again, that's not to say we should just take a photograph and copy it exactly, including where things are cut off at the edges. We should think about how to arrange the composition to express what we want to express. But certain compositional arrangements are accepted now that were not accepted before the advent of photography.
Bascially, I'm saying 1) yes, it is extremely important to not be satisfied copying photos if you are serious about art. And 2) it is unrealistic to think photography is going to disappear from the art world. And 3) it is destructive to be automatically critical of anyone, including ourselves, who uses photography. There are many, many ways to use photography besides copying from a photo.
Threaded Mode
