How do you get from photo to canvas?

[David Carroll]

Thanks Virgil, I believe I understand what you are saying, and I don't think we are very far apart on this issue. Although I continue to work from photo's I take in my studio, I much prefer to work directly with models or from nature. I frankly do not enjoy the process of painting from a traced image for exactly the same reasons you have stated. In many ways it has become a tool from my past, not because I think it's cheating, but because it diminishes the joy of facing an empty canvas and seeing what happens. I draw with my local open figure drawing group and I am able to draw pretty well, but unfortunately for me I do not get the same sense of joy and pleasure from drawing that I get from painting. Drawing for me is exercise, that builds strength in every other creative endeavor I pursue.

Peace, Dave

[Tom Edgerton]

Hey all--

I finally got down to reading this thread, and it's very informative. Also interesting to follow the debates.

By the way, Kim, thanks for pointing out Kinko's. I've used them to blow up designs for my house, but not in my painting. If you wanted to use one of the methods Sharon outlined, they might be easier to find than an architectural copy service.

I don't have a problem with measuring tools or tracings and such, as I think that keeping yourself from what's useful and efficient to make a philosophical point is misplaced energy. As a European colleague once observed in reference to the computer, "You Americans mistake tools for skills." They're not the same thing. A tool, whatever it might be, will never make one an artist, it will only aid in the process (or not). I've related this anecdote in the Forum before, but it's become a real touchstone for me.

So, I don't believe that any given tool is more or less artistically "pure" than another. Any failing in my art isn't a result of the wrong tool, it's a failure of my vision.

My path with all of this went this way: I used to use all kinds of methods to get a detailed mechanical tracing, but it became a principle of diminishing returns--it seemed that the more points I plotted, the tighter and stiffer things became. So now, I use a variety of tools to get a very broad contour drawing on the canvas as quickly and accurately as possible, and then finish a more detailed, comprehensive drawing within this by eye and hand only. But I also measure relentlessly as I need to. I found if I rushed and skipped this second drawing, and tried to paint over a tracing only, I was always out in the woods and the painting took forever, with many corrections and repainted passages. Tracings alone can be a trap--you think they hold more information than they do.

When I make myself draw the more detailed freehand rendering, two things happen:

1) I understand the structure and anatomical underpinnings of the subject in a more fundamental way, so the likeness in the painting comes very quickly. Even though the drawing is completely covered very early, I have a "sense memory" of it underneath.

2) As I explore the subject with this second freehand drawing, I begin to see where even the slightest deviations or alterations from a slavish copy can enhance the expressiveness and character of my subject. In other words, I see "how their face works" by shoving it around in the drawing.

Also, I've found I rely less and less on laborious measurement with tools as I develop a more accurate eye. But the tools were an aid in this progress, at least at first. My speed has increased organically and naturally, as Richard Schmidt predicted it would in his book.

However, when I paint quick studies from life, I paint with only a brush and my thumb to measure. It's painting without a net and it's a whole other animal. As Richard found in his library sketches, it either goes swimmingly, or falls totally apart. But it's exhilarating. I don't do it often enough.

In a workshop I took one week with Burt Silverman, we drew in the morning and painted in the afternoon, both from life. He is always stressing how drawing your subject--a number of times if possible--sets up the exploratory environment and psychological relationship with your subject that always informs any subsequent painting for the better.

Best to everyone--TE

[Garth Herrick]

Tom,

Thanks so much for a really insightful and helpful reply. I am in agreement with you in my current evolution. I have used and explored many useful transfer tools and methods without shame or regret. They have helped me to grow and mature and interestingly, become less reliant upon them over time. But I feel I have gained so much from their use and exploration.

Feeling more securely grounded, I am not using much in the way of "tools" at the moment, and feel good about that too. I still reserve the right to use all or any if I wish, though. Tom, as you say, being less rigid and specific in the start of a painting is more freeing, and opens up possiibilities of better expression. I think we are doing something similar at this point.

I still can't resist rechecking my hand and eye from time to time. There always are corrections to make through the refinement and development of a painting, and being less specific and rigid in the beginning helps to make the inevitable corrections and revisions easier to absorb and flow into the structural context of the painting.

Again, thanks for your experienced insights!

Garth