Life vs Photo

[Tom Edgerton]

Marvin's point is well made, but you REALLY have to hear what he's saying. The camera is just another tool. If you master it, it becomes as fluid a tool as your favorite brush, and the possibilities for creativity are no less than with any other approach. But you have to dedicate yourself to the same mastery of it as you seek with brushes and paint. The guiding principle is that you will only be as creative and visionary as your weakest link will allow.

Perfunctory work with a camera will result in a perfunctory painting. I've made this mistake often enough to know it's true. The camera won't tap you on the shoulder and tell you to look at something from a higher or lower angle, for instance. If you imbue the camera with a creative mind it doesn't have, you do indeed relinquish your responsibility and your soul as an artist.

I've seen truly stunning photographs that beat the artistic pants off of mediocre paintings. Tools are neutral, skills are not. And tools aren't skills--we shouldn't confuse the two. The heart isn't in the camera (or not), it's behind it.

[Chris Saper]

Beautifully stated, Tom.

[Michele Rushworth]

Well put, Tom!

(Chris, you and I must have been reading this post and typing the same thought at the same time. )

[Richard Monro]

This thread is a breath of fresh air. Sanity prevails in the life vs. photo debate. Marvin, Tom and others have allowed reason to prevail.

Just a few days ago I was debating proposing a one year moratorium on the the photo vs. life discussion. The subject has been debated ad nausium and no real additonal benefit is being presented. Let this thread be the capstone of this topic.

So please everyone stow away your weapons of debate and let us get on with other worthy topics.

[Alexandra Tyng]

I agree with you, Marvin. Tom, Julie, Allan, Chris, Michele, et al. Well stated.

[Marvin Mattelson]

I'm happy to hear that there are others out there who agree that the way portraits are referenced is not necessarily so cut and dry. There is far more to it than: this is good and this is bad.

As human beings our natural tendency is always to compartmentalize things and then file them away, never to be questioned again. This is a function of our basic survival mechanism. We then label these ideas as beliefs, truths, rules, or whatever, and defend them staunchly. Unfortunately, this judgmental dogmatism engages a mechanicalness of approach, which, I believe, is an absolute death nell when it comes to creativity.

Yes, something may not work for me in my creative process, but can I categorically deny it's effectiveness across the board? And perhaps, there exists the remotest of possibilities that my original conclusion was a result of my lack of understanding or my shortcomings.

Is it possible that my deepest truths could indeed be myths?

Welcome to my wheelhouse!

[David Draime]

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

... the way portraits are referenced is not necessarily so cut and dry. There is far more to it than: this is good and this is bad.

Well put.

Originally Posted by Tom Edgerton

The guiding principle is that you will only be as creative and visionary as your weakest link will allow...

...Tools are neutral, skills are not. And tools aren't skills--we shouldn't confuse the two.

I think Tom got to the heart of the matter here.

[Richard Bingham]

A moratorium isn't a bad idea, but what would we do to while away those idle hours? (ha ha ha)

Certainly it's not an "either - or" proposition. Good thoughts, Marvin, on the subjectivity, and relativity of those things we like to latch onto.

I think bubbling enthusiasm for the very real benefits of working from the life led to a "compartmentalized" conclusion that photography has no place at all. It's even easier to bash photos when there seems to be such a dependence on them among painters . . . especially novices.

There are some really good thoughts voiced in this thread!