|
Actually it was Bill Whitaker's profound observation that started this discussion. I think it should be reread by all of us.
I have read to the arguments both pro and con vis-a-vis the use of photography. Somehow I cannot imagine Sargent snapping Lady Sasoon's picture, bowing out gratefully and tacking the reference to his easel to finish the painting.
I have some beautiful photos of a Eurasian student of mine at RISD. She has gone back to Japan. I would love to use them, but I keep hoping I will find another model that could substitute.
I am not negating some of the fine work that has been done from photographs, but I am saying, it seems to be increasingly the modus operandi, and I think realism is suffering because of it.The arguments I have read seem to say that, yes, because of the state of portrait art, they are a necessity. Also, models are expensive and hard to find. I have not seen an argument that photography is a better source, only a more convenient one.
I can only speak for myself . When I first started using models it was like looking at my subject without a scrim in front of her.
"For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face."
|
Threaded Mode
