Life vs Photo

Marvin Mattelson · 05-21-2008, 10:35 PM

Michael, I agree totally that copying a photo will not make a great painting, but neither will copying from life. It is the understanding that the artist brings to his work that makes it something more. How to strategize the construction of a painting is the commonality I believe that distinguishes the work of all great artists.

SB, Look deep. I'm sure you can find your inner M.

Michael Fournier · 05-22-2008, 08:56 AM

First it was your nice post Marvin that sucked me in to this thread to begin with I feel you are correct that a painting done from life is not better just because it was not painted from a photo. And it was not my intention to say it was.

I did not post to counter your point just to add a caution to those that might use photos as a shortcut. Never mind that they are missing out on one of the greatest experiences in art if you ask me. I Love the interaction between model (or portrait subject) and the artist it just adds something to the experience that painting from a photo will never have.

Now when I am working on details or backgrounds it is great to have a photo that never moves never complains about posing for too long. The lighting in a photo never changes with the weather or time of day. A fleeting expression can be frozen and the sun never sets in a photo. There are many advantages a photo can have over live subjects so if used in combination you are correct you can have the best of both worlds.

So can we agree the debate it is not photo vs life but a debate between; uninspired, poorly executed and poorly plained vs inspiration, a mastery of your tools and great plaining.

Patricia Joyce · 05-22-2008, 09:52 AM

Marvin,
Thank you for your post It helps us students a great deal to read your posts. You create for us hope that we can learn to paint beautiufl portraits, as we envision them; ie the personality, the life, the spirt, mannerism unique to each person. I understand that a painting is successful, also, if you can grasp that we live in atmosphere and one of the largest goals of a student is to study masters' works to see how that atmosphere is created.

When using the photo reference one must have acute recall of the sitter. The more time you spend with the subject, interacting, the easier that recall becomes. I believe a great master portrait artist has a special ability to absorb the personality/spirt of their clients. When I paint/draw my subject I spend allot of time thinking about that person and I have been complimented time and again for my abiity to capture essence.

In conclusion, I do not believe it is wrong for students to use photography, however one must remember it is a tool, just like calipers are a tool. And I am convinced the great inventor Leonardo, would use photography as well. He did use cadavers, didn't he!!

I hope I speak for students who need encouragement every step of the way, that painting portraits is not completely mystical, but that there is a way to learn to SEE, to ABSORB, to RECALL, and then naturlaly to accurately DRAW. If you cannot draw/paint from life you must spend time with your subject...

May today be a day with paint under your fingernails...

Marina Dieul · 05-22-2008, 08:30 PM

Here is what Harold Speed was writing about his own experience in 1917 :

"It was not until some time after having passed through the course of training in two of our chief schools of art that the author got the idea of what drawing really meant. What was taught was the faithful copying of a series of objects, beginning with the simplest forms, such as cubes, cones cylinders, &c. ( an excellent system to begin with at present in danger of some neglect) ,after which more complicated objects in plaster of Paris were attempted, and finally copies of the human head and figure posed in supended animation and supported by blocks, &c. In so far as this was accurately done, all this mechanical training of the head and hand was excellent; but it was not enough. And when with an eye trained to the closest mechanical accuracy the author visited the galleries of the Continent and studied the drawings of the old masters, it soon became apparent that either his or their ideas of drawing were all wrong. Very few drawings could be found sufficiently "like the model" to obtain the prize at either of the great schools he had attended."

SB Wang · 05-22-2008, 09:03 PM

Vermeer in hiding:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/maggiesworld/1839233133/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/50487705@N00/1151419/

Marvin Mattelson · 05-22-2008, 10:50 PM

Marina,

Harold Speed's are the only ones I'll recommend when somebody asks for technique books. I've drawn the same conclusion as dear old Harold by studying the paintings at the Met and at Sothebys and Christies auction previews. When I take my students to the Met I focus on the way the great painters manipulated reality, not copied it.

Michael,

I never thought you were contradicting anything I said. I agree that painting from life is the most fun anyone could ever have.

Patty,

Obviously,as you well know, I place a strong emphasis on working from the live model. That's the way I run my classes and workshops. I just think there is so much more to it than that. I just think that people put the onus of creating great art based on merely copying from life.

You can paint from life until you're blue in the face. If you're not properly guided you'll never have the foggiest idea what you're actually looking at.

Patricia Joyce · 05-23-2008, 09:13 AM

Marvin,
I agree totally. It seems easier to me to paint from life. The paintings I have begun in your classes are always better than anything I have done from a photograph. But I can't imagine painting these restless 7/9yr olds from life. They would look miserable! I have convinced mom and dad to let me to color studies early on and then at the end though.