Picture in your mind

[Michael Fournier]

By working from one's mind one faces the distinct possibility of being mechanical or repetitious. This may be sufficient in certain types of decorative applications but for maximizing realistic illusion I believe it falls short.

I would never advocate painting only from your imagination no more than merely copying photos.

Photography is a great tool for capturing information, but most artists don't have the patience or the understanding necessary to master it and use it to it's best advantage. Sadly, there is an implied and intrinsic bias against photography by far too many artists.s short.

Marvin, yes photographs are a great tool. I do not deny that. But if the goal is to paint only what the camera can capture why not just sell the photos? After all an original is better than a copy, no?

I have no bias against photography. I use it often. I am also not a portrait photographer. The goal for me is not the photo. For me the photo is only a tool to help my mind remember what it saw, like a sketch. But what captures the intangible details that make a painting more than a representation of its subject?

I also feel that reference is essential. And I also do not deny the importance of working from life. After all how can you paint from memory if you have not first observed from life?

This is not a debate about should you use a photo or not or paint from life or not.

I stand by my statements that the camera has limitations and I will defend its strengths as well. I have always been crazy about getting the best reference I can. But I feel even the best reference is not enough. Something must come from within the artist for a painting to be more than just a good rendition in paint of the subject.