Consider the source

[John Zeissig]

Thanks for playing Beth. I don't think anybody should feel foolish. One of my unstated hypotheses is that the task is essentially impossible. I agree with Margaret that an accomplished artist could work in such a way that the method/sources are opaque to the viewer. My suspicion is that even a rookie can fool the experts most of the time if we stick to what's in the paintings themselves.

I certainly had no idea which of Linda's works were done from life based only on looking at them. I consider her to be an accomplished artist. I got lucky and guessed one right, but only because it was a self-portrait and I thought to myself: "No problem getting the subject to pose in that case." From what was in the self-portrait itself I was clueless!

[Michael Fournier]

Well, John, I have avoided this long enough to think about what to say. And I issue a warning: I am holding nothing back here so if you are easily offended I would stop reading here.

At first I thought that I would take a guess but to be honest all three of these paintings, to me, look like they were done by an artist that still has not learned enough to produce work that makes this discussion relevant.

I am not saying this to put you down or to make myself more important. Not at all. In fact I am the most critical of my own work.

The thing is if you are trying to make a point or to silence those of us that advocate the importance of painting from life, this is not the way. I can show you very good paintings done using photographic reference and I can show you bad paintings done from life.

Yes it is possible to see problems in a painting done from a photo that was caused by the limitations of photography but only if the painting is good enough to have reached those limitations. A very skilled artist who has observed life enough can create a painting from a photo that surpasses the reference.

It is possible to paint from life and still produce work that looks like work done from photos. If you paint flesh tones based on a formula of color "X" mixed with color "Y" is always halftone "A," then your work from life will look like you work from photos as far as the flesh tones are concerned.

If your image from life is not accurately drawn then any photographic distortion you might have gotten from a photo is irrelevant.

Since I have not seen your photos you may very well have surpassed your reference but I do not have to see them to know you have not approached reality with any of these. So even if one or all of these were done from life it does not matter. Any one could also have been done from a bad photo and still look like this.

Again I am not trying to put you down in any way. If you take an honest look at your work and compare it to the work of the best artists at SOG that paint from life (you can know who they are by looking at their procedures page) or even those that paint using a combination of photos and life or all photos you can see for yourself that your work hardly compares. (Most of my own work doesn't either so I am not taking a shot at you personally.)

The point I was trying to make with my posts about painting from life was that for the artist that is still training and learning, painting from life has no equal. The lessons learned from observations of nature and copying it with paint without any intermediate photographic reduction to 2D images is essential if your goal is to be able to capture life as the human eye sees it and not as the camera and Eastman Kodak capture it on film.

Once these lessons are learned one can then choose to use a tool like the camera or even the lucy or projectors along with photos to speed the creation of art and guarantee accuracy on a deadline without it becoming a crutch or being limited by your reference.

I hope I was not overly harsh but I really feel that to jump to the short cuts of the pros before having a strong foundation is like building a house of cards. I will freely admit to the use of every trick and gizmo available to me in my commercial art.

Photos are a tool but they are no substitute for learning to observe from life. The truth is many artists do not have the training or the skill to draw from life accurately enough to not use photos so they have no choice but to use them.

But those that have the skill most often prefer to paint from life. Others after training from life have chosen to work from photos because of the demands of clients and personal preference or as a guide when the subject is of a fleeting nature or is impractical to paint live. But they have made a choice, not been forced to because of a weakness of skill or lack of training to use a crutch.

In closing, if you cannot see the difference between the work of Nelson Shanks vs. the work of photo copiers then I guess nothing I say can convince you of the importance of learning from life and the results of a poll like this mean nothing.

You are free to "consider the source" of my comments and ignore them if you wish. I have no illusions about my own skill or level of training. I still have a long way to go and may never get there but I know that getting there by a short cut will only hurt myself and I choose to continue to work from life even if I fail. I still learned more than I would by producing a better painting from a photo.

[Lon Haverly]

I do not think it is possible to positively determine which were from photos. I would rather guess that #2 was from a photo, since it is back lit and appears to be an outdoor shot. 1 & 3 are similar, are poorly lit and, I might add, rather weakly shaded. It is possible that they were done from life, but they could also be from poor photos with low lighting.

[Steven Sweeney]

I can show you very good paintings done using photographic reference and I can show you bad paintings done from life

You're on to it here, Michael. The point isn't whether you can fool the viewer, but whether you can fool yourself -- and even if so, whether that's what you're looking for.

The most unfortunate element in overusing "aids" in drawing and painting is that finally mastering the skills is SO DARN MUCH FUN! Yeah, you can "play piano" by flipping three switches on the Casio keyboard and tapping out a one-note melody to go with the midi stock tracks, and you can, a la Britney Spears and her, um, accessories, squeal, "I wrote that!" But even though lots of people purchase it, no one is buying it. It's fun, we're goofing on ourselves when we lay the money down, but we know it doesn't matter.

Here, it matters. I've gone from being completely inept at drawing and painting to being, well, less inept. I have a couple of pieces in my portfolio that are based on photographic reference (a koi pond -- those fish just won't be still). They're good, but not my favorites, and I wouldn't ever show them as representative of skill.

Michael, you've touched on the salient point of these sorts of "tests", which involve questions about what the artist is working toward.

Whatever the outcome of this challenge, I hope fervently that anyone who is new to this vocation (or this Forum) will not imagine that there's no benefit to learning how to see, to draw and paint, instead of to merely copy, or log into a website or fire up software. I don't say "merely" with any pejorative intent. I occasionally copy, when it suits me or my schedule. But I've also spent hundreds of hours in front of a model. So I've done drawings and paintings from photos and from life.

Life Rules. Don't let anyone steal that Truth from you.

If any of you have backstage tickets to Britney's next local concert, I'll give you top dollar, with a very nice tip.

Steven

[Steven Sweeney]

BTW, I need four tickets for Taipei, or no deal.

[Catherine Muhly]

I'm with Michael Fournier. Just think of going to art exhibits and then looking at the catalogue where the photos of the paintings never, ever come close to accurately reproducing the real paintings. I had been going to night and weekend classes since 1989, so twice a week (three hours on Mondays and six hours on Saturdays) I got to paint from life.

I also benefited from being in the NYC metropolitan area where art clubs and informal studios for additional drawing and painting practice from life abound. But when my work schedule conflicted with the times when the clubs were operating, I hired my friends' teenage kids to pose. Teenagers are a wonderful resource: they can hold a pose like a statue, and they're very cooperative. At least that's my experience.

Only when I paint or draw from life am I able to tell where I'm having difficulty with my drawing and what I need to practice more on. Even if you live in the boonies, you and possibly other artist friends can pool the money to hire a teenager or an older person to sit for three or four hours a week while you get some practice from nature.

Clients commissioning portraits may be put out to pose for a painting done from life, so relying on photo references may be unavoidable. But the more practice you do from life, the greater is the likelihood that the painting will far surpass the reference.

[Minh Thong]

I vote for numbers One and Three as done from photos, and number Two done from life.

However, based on the poses, this is the obvious choice. So, if you used reverse psychology to intentionally lead the contestant in that direction, I have it exactly backwards. However, if you used double-reverse-super-secret psychology I may still have a chance.

Minh Thong

[John Zeissig]

Hello Minh,

Thanks for the response! Would I be that devious? Me?

[Anthony Emmolo]

I'm going with 1 and 3 from photos because of the poses. I'll catch you at the end of the week. Please don't leave us hanging.

[Marta Prime]

This is an interesting topic. I have to agree that Michael and Steven pretty much said what I was thinking, and then some. However, just for fun, I am going to play along.

I think #1 and #2 were done from photos, and #3 was done from life. My theory is that artists that have not yet mastered painting from life often paint with less accuracy and detail due to time restraints.