Are we painters or photographers?

[Michael Fournier]

Administrator's Note: This was split off from another topic that was discussing technical aspects of photograpy.

Hmmm. What's wrong with just setting up a studio with good north light and sitting your model (person or subject) in that natural light? Set up your easel with that natural light over your shoulder and paint.

If you need reference to work from when the model is not there, then use your camera and a tripod and take some shots in the natural available light. No flash, strobes or hot photo lamps needed. If you bracket, you will get reference that will have both detail in the light areas and the shadows. Maybe not all in one image, but it is reference. You do not need to work from one single image. And as for color in photos, forget it, it is not what we see in life anyway. You are better off with B/W values and painting the color from memory and experience from painting from life.

I find all this discussion on getting that one perfect reference photo absurd. It just seems unnecessary - we are painters, not photographers. Many of the most beautiful portraits ever painted both by living artists painting today and those of artists of the past were done using natural light. No elaborate lighting or professional photo sessions needed.

Now, I am not trying to say I have more experience than those who have posted on this topic before or after me. And I have a long way to go in my own work before I would consider myself a master. It just seems to me that all this time spent learning to be a portrait photographer could be better spent learning to be a portrait painter. All you need is a canvas, your paint, your eyes and a subject lit by natural light. And, of course, many hours of practice.

[Mike McCarty]

Michael,

I respect your point of view. I think you have described a method which is ideal. But how would you respond to the question that my attached photo asks? How do we capture in a painting, that moment which exists outside of our studio?

I don't offer this as a great photo but just one that might illustrate my point.

[Sharon Knettell]

Michael,

I was just about to contact you. I had just read your photo suggestions. I can see you are a very passionate upholder of the great traditions of figurative art.

I do paint from life. All my photos are reference shots taken in the same lighting as I paint my subject, which I place next to them. I have a south light studio, very warm light. As I take 3 months to do a painting, the photo helps me correct my drawing when the model is unavailable. It is especially helpful when the light is poor.

I like photos for many reasons - they may capture an expression that is sometimes unavailable in a bored model. They give you the luxury of doing a correct drawing when the model is not there, and then just use her for color when she is. I am now doing paintings on dance and it is impossible for models to hold some of the poses.

I freehand draw from large photo blow-ups and models and use an 8 head format. I never use photographic proportions.

I am now doing life-sized figurative pastels. One of them is posted in my 'introduce yourself' thread. Since you are in Mass., I have another one hanging at the Vose on Newbury St. in Boston until Oct 19, 2002, that you could visit if you are so inclined.

I never worry how an artist gets somewhere. Van Gogh was unskilled, yet his paintings stop my soul. It is the point of view that is the most important.

I would like to see some work of yours. Where is it posted or where can it be viewed?

[Michael Fournier]

First off, I did not mean that we should paint only from life and I know at times it is necessary or preferred to work from photos for many reasons. And of course a certain amount of photographic competency is required to take reference photos. But I just can't see going to the extremes of setting up a portrait photography studio in order to get reference photos. I do not hold anything against artists who work from photos. In fact, one of the artists whose work I love and whom I actually went to visit recently is Zhuo S. Liang http://www.liangstudio.com/index.html He works from photos for his portrait work and I feel he is a fabulous artist. But he did spend many years painting from life as well.

As for my own work, a link to my web site is listed in my profile if you want to see it. I have only a small sample of my work there now and most of my most recent work is not yet online but will be soon. Also, the address and directions to my studio are listed there as well.

I am not sure if the inquiry as to where my work could be seen was a challenge to my competency as an artist or my knowledge. But the link to my site has been in my profile since I first became a member of this site.

Here is an excerpt from my previous post.

Now, I am not trying to say I have more experience then those who have posted on this topic before or after me. And I have a long way to go in my own work before I would consider myself a master. It just seems to me that all this time spent learning to be a portrait photographer could be better spent learning to be a portrait painter. All you need is a canvas, your paint, your eyes and a subject lit by natural light. And of course many hours of practice.

My intention was only to add another viewpoint without making any assertions that anyone else was wrong or that I had the only or better way.

Michael, as to your inquiry "How do we capture in a painting, that moment which exists outside of our studio?"

Well, photo reference is one way. Also sketches is another and a good memory combined with the other two is yet another. And in the end it is by combining all these with years of experience and many hours of drawing and painting and then, hopefully, we can create just such a painting as you describe.

I doubt that you would get that one single photo that captures exactly the composition, lighting and pose you want. And most certainly knowledge of portrait photography involving back and fill lighting, strobes, umbrella flash units and reflectors would be of little use in capturing reference that is fleeting. But most certainly good drawing skills, sketches and a thorough knowledge of anatomy and composition would be indispensable.

[Cynthia Daniel]

I believe this thread is primarly about the technical aspects of photography in relation to portrait painting. It's not about the philosophy of whether photos should be used or not. (And, by the way, I'm totally neutral on that). That should be started in a new topic if you want to discuss that please.

Administrator's Note: The above was relevant before this topic was split off from another topic.

[Michael Fournier]

Sorry, Cynthia, I did not mean that the topic was absurd or anyone else's view point was. I only meant that I felt that for portrait painters to try and also be expert photographers was asking a lot of oneself and that it was not necessary to get that perfect portrait photo with the exact pose, lighting and exposure and then copy that single image for a painting.

I never intended to offend anyone.

[Michael Georges]

Michael:

I agree with you. You get a better portrait every time if you paint it from life in natural light. However, even though all should, not all have the skills they should have if they want to really paint people professionally.

It is an evolving skill in many, and others don't even know they need it. Even though, IMO, there is nothing more important to a portrait artist than being able to draw and paint from life and do it well. If you can paint from life, then when you paint from photos, your paintings will be better for knowing what a well-lit actual human being really looks like. Take a picture, and you reduce life by 50% - there is a lot of work to bring the painting up to par with what you would get from a live subject sitting right there in front of you in beautiful light that models their form perfectly.

We don't paint things, but the light on things. If the light is artificial, then chances are, it is too bright and too warm, then we will paint it that way - unless we have seen and understand the differences between a live subject and a photograph of same.

Also, certain subjects don't lend themselves to being painted from life - children for example. Thereby, there is some merit in learning photography and doing it well in addition to learning to paint from life and doing it well.

You are correct, however, that the balance on this forum is greatly skewed towards photography and that needs to be reversed - again, IMO.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Being a representational artist requires mastery of a great many skills. Being able to draw and paint are certainly of vast importance and working from life is the best training to that end. My teaching is based on direct observation of the model coupled with the understanding of the principles of picture making.

This being said, the ability to paint from life is merely a part of becoming a superior artist. The advantage of working directly from the model is that you have an abundance of information with which to edit and decipher to create your picture.

Unfortunately, sometimes information is not readily available or convenient to your studio. A prime example of this is the work of Gerome, whose subject matter was thousands of miles from his studio so he was forced to incorporate photos into his process. The intricacy of his backgrounds would have made sketching extraordinarily time consuming and certainly not practical.

It is my belief that an artist acquires as many skills as necessary to develop the reference material needed to fulfill his artistic vision. In the case of Gerome it also meant developing his skills as a sculptor, as a colorist, as a costumer, as a perspectivist and as an anatomist in addition to learning photography. I don

[Mike McCarty]

It seems that people place the most value on that which they know most about. If my specialty is sauces then it is sauces that make the meal.

Who can argue that a person should never paint or draw from life? As your subject is carefully draped with light which steadily, gradually, predictably passes across the subject with hand to chin? I love these paintings! I would also concede that having a model sit could only improve your chances for success.

What of the rest of the world? What about light that gets reflected from five directions and from multiple color sources? What about the six year old boy on a swing? Am I to memorize that moment, that light, that expression? I confess that I am not that good. Should these moments, these paintings, be a mere subcategory to the studio portrait?

If my painting done from a photo reference is a bad painting then it will be judged bad. If my painting done from life is bad, then it is just as bad. There are no points given for method, no points deducted. It's either good or bad, my choices, my risks.

Take a picture, and you reduce life by 50%

In the photo which follows who can explain to me which half was left out? And if I were so skilled as to paint this scene exactly as it is witnessed in this photograph what a happy Irishman I would be. I hope this is not taken as a cheap shot, I'm merely trying to make my point as best I can.

Maybe it shows that I am passionate about this issue. I was fortunate that I was able to find within myself an angle into portraiture. If this angle proves to be false then so be it. It has yet to be proven to me. I'm ready to listen.

[Cynthia Daniel]

Michael,

If the orientation of this Forum tends to be more towards photography than not, I think it's simply because more artists use photography than don't. The Forum itself has no bias one way or the other.