Life vs Photo

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.

Marvin Mattelson · 05-23-2008, 09:52 AM

Patty, I agree with you (cue music: we belong to a mutual

Michele Rushworth · 05-23-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

If I was independently wealthy, or if I could find a benevolent benefactor (hint, hint, hint) to fund me, I would paint professional models from life exclusively!!! Unfortunately, I have a family to support and am currently putting my second child through college. All in all, I still consider myself very blessed to pay the bills by holding a brush in my hand every day.

I can certainly agree with all of that!

Enzie Shahmiri · 05-23-2008, 10:41 AM

Patty, painting from life is definitely easier. I am always astonished to see how fast a painting done from a life sitting is finished vs one done from a reference.

But I have to admit I love the idea that my work has made it as far as Pakistan. The internet has changed the way we do business and artists are working on a more global base now. Clients are no longer in our neighborhoods, but scattered all over the world. We have to make a choice if we want to work only with those who are willing to fly us out to paint on location or limit ourselves to those who live close to our studios.

I consider myself an artist without borders and have chosen to stay busy. I am working very hard at overcoming the obstacles photos represent and try to find ways to infuse each painting with s.th that is truthfully a touch of artistic insight. It saddens me deeply when I see that some have to create such schism between what they think portrait painting should be...

Regardless if you paint from life or photo, you have to know what your weaknesses are and try to work at them. Just as Marvin said, if you don't know what to look for it will not make a difference if the client is in front of you or on a photo. Not every portrait will be an award winner, but working consistently and trying to aim for excellence is what sets good portraits apart.

SB Wang · 05-23-2008, 11:01 AM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british...amera_04.shtml

What happens is that the lens spreads bright points of light into so-called circles of confusion. Such effects would not be seen by the naked eye. The art historian Charles Seymour and the photographer Henry Beville have tried to reproduce these effects, by photographing a similar decorative lion's head in a slightly unfocussed plate camera, with some convincing success. Several authors, including Seymour, have argued that Vermeer painted this and another tiny portrait, Girl with a Flute, using a box camera. The sizes of both pictures are of the order of size of a typical box camera's screen.