Life vs Photo

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Thanks SB - that is a great fable and makes a great point!

If one is not proficient in at least the basics of drawing should one be posting the work under "Unveiling's, for the Seasoned Pro"?

To degrade another artist's work is definitely not a sign of professionalism and a practice that I refuse to participate in, no matter how low the blow.

The artist represented by 'A stroke of Genius' have to submit their work to be considered by Cynthia and definitely have to have attained certain standards to be considered for representation. To question the drawing ability of one of this organizations artist is equal to questioning Cynthia's experience in selecting of what caliber work she is representing on her site.

I think in all fairness that there should be a better distinction between the Unveiling sections. The Novice/student/emerging artist section is fine and well defined .

There should be a Professional Artist section, one for all those who are practicing professionally and are making a living selling portraiture.

Finally a Masters category (or Seasoned Pro), which is exclusively reserved for those who have received overall recognition within the field of portraiture.

I am sorry to have veered off track Marvin. Regardless of how we each work, each and everyone of us deserves to be treated with respect and I had to address this.

[Vianna Szabo]

Painting from life is definitely best and after years of doing commissions from photos I can never say the word photograph without the words "soul sucking" in front of it. I have been painting plein air now for several years and find it is the best resource for developing artistic skills. I also find that it sharpens the visual memory allowing me to find what is essential in a scene and place those elements quickly. I have been using it for portrait as well and find I enjoy the process much more. I am currently working on a portrait of a Native American performer. He has been kind to sit for me and we spent much of the time talking while I paint. I did shoot photos but I find the portrait goes smoother when I put the photos away and trust what I know and what I remember. In this case the photographs become a distraction. Photographs freeze a moment in time but the memory is more fluid and I find better for remembering expression and personality. Memory also leaves out unimportant details that a photograph will accentuate. Developing visual memory has freed me from a bad habit of copying.

[SB Wang]

Vianna:
Very good point!
I've read your blog! I'll try that device.

Photorealism, a reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperre...%28painting%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Close

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Vianna,

On the subject of developing a visual memory here is what Robert Henri proposes to try out:

...I have often thought of an art school where the model might hold the pose in one room and the work might be done in another. The pupils would have their places in both rooms, one for observation and the other for work. The pupil would return to the model for information. In getting the information he would view the model from his place or could walk about and get an all-around concept; he could also make any sketches he might desire to make-for information-but these drawings are not to be carried into the work room. Into this room he only carries what he knows.

[Vianna Szabo]

The Art Spirt is one of my favorite books, Enzie, and Henri is right on about using memory to paint what you know. This knowledge only comes from logging in a lot of easel hours painting from life. If you only work from photos you will be limited in your ability to portray edges and middle values correctly.

I have been using visual memory exercises with my students and have been astounded with the results. One of the exercises for sharpening drawing skills is where I have them draw an item quickly from life, and then remove the subject and have them repeat it. 90% of the time the memory drawing is stronger in shape and value pattern. When students are in front of a model I take them out of the room and have them describe to me what is important about the pose and do a quick value sketch conneting the light and shadow pattern as simply as possible. We also discuss the color of the light and shadow as well as how to mix it. Again, I find it amazing how much stronger this makes composition. I am not against photos but they offer too much information and allow the aritst too much time to dwell on unimportant aspects. In Plein air painting you have limited time to describe form and light and it strengthens your ability to portray scenes concisely. I find I now use the same approach to the model. It gives me more freedom to adjust to the models movements which can make the pose more dynamic.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Vianna,

Sorry but the whole point of this thread is to underscore the idea that working from photos is a valuable tool that when used correctly and this intelligent use can actually enhance the end result. If someone feels that working from a photo is "soul sucking" for them, that's fine. However it's not a logical indictment of the process for one and all, nor does it make a compelling argument for it's avoidance.

It's my experience that using photos doesn't have to be the equivalent of selling out. There are numerous posts, on this forum, bashing the use of photo reference. I chose not to interact on those threads and spoil the party by presenting a dissenting view. So therefore, I'm presenting my alternative point of view here.

The point of this thread is to present a rational discussion about the intelligent use of photo reference, and in particular to point up that good painting is a function of making appropriate decisions and utilizing well thought out strategies. The reason I started this thread is to go beyond the idea that any one particular methodology is "The Way".

I'm sure that working from memory has it's uses too, but it all comes back to purpose. Henri may have used it to his satisfaction (and yours) but for me personally, I much prefer to embrace the work of Henri's teacher Bouguereau. Bouguereau employed working from life, plein air studies, and using photo reference when appropriate. The key here is "when" appropriate.

If we look back through history we can find numerous examples of artists using every and anything at their disposal to advance their paintings to a higher order. I do believe that the idea of being a purist is much more of a modern rationale.

[Julie Deane]

If I don't have that understanding of what I see and try to translate it into paint then I will have a painting that is poorly executed, no matter how faithfully I copy a photo.

I'm presently working from photos, and realizing once again the limitations. But without those photos, I would not be able to work at all, because the subject would never sit for me.

It's been an education, because I've been trying to analyze what I'm seeing from what I can best term a "sculptor" point of view. What part of the face/figure projects frontward most and now can I describe that information in terms of color intensity, edges, etc? From where is that light coming and on what portions of the face should the light be resting? What units of the face can I describe as belonging to the same area and what parts should I differentiate?

Marvin, much of what I am trying to do is a direct result of studying with you, so thank you. Thanks, too, to you SOG members, who faithfully give critiques to struggling artists. Sometimes I need to hear a message from multiple sources before I start seeing for myself.

I could work from life all day long, but without an understanding of what I'm seeing, I will not get far.

I could work from photos all day long, but without an understanding of what I'm seeing, I will not get far at all.