Life vs Photo

[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!

[Dan Landrie]

No one ever mentions the study of anatomy during these photo vs. life debates, am I missing something? I was taught that a solid understanding of anatomy was the foundation of all good drawing weather from life or photo.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Dan, you should definitely start a new thread to discuss the topic of anatomy in portraiture, specifically. If you feel it's of great importance, instead of burying it here under the name of another subject where people wouldn't necessarily look, give it the prominence a specific title would insure.

That said, here's my take on the subject. If you've read everything I've written on this thread, you would know that my point here is that the worthiness of a painting has more to do with what the artist brings to the table as opposed to the source of the reference. To a large degree, this has to do with the level of understanding an artist possesses of both their subject and the craft of painting. One aspect of this is certainly anatomic knowledge, however knowing where all the bones and muscles are located plays but a small part in the making of a convincing illusionistic painting.

Proper anatomy doesn't necessarily insure that a painting will be a good. In fact, there are many great paintings done by artists whose anatomical prowess is considered sub-par (Vermeer and Raeburn). I've also seen paintings by anatomical masters that display a strong tendency to over-accentuate the anatomy, at the cost of depicting form in light (Michaelangelo). In my experience, anatomy is but one stone in the wall of painting aptitude, however, I don't know if it's the entire foundation.