NY Times: Paintings Too Perfect? The Great Optics Debate - Page 2

Cynthia Daniel · 12-09-2001, 04:22 PM

Dean,

I know it's a hot topic! Good reason for it to be in the Cafe!

I'm posting a painting by Gary Holland for those not familiar with his work. He was on SOG a few years ago, so hopefully he won't mind me posting this.

Michael Fournier · 12-10-2001, 01:25 AM

Even if you could why?

What would be the point of a painting that looked exactly like the photo it was copied from? Why not just frame the photo. It is not as if a photo can not be art in and of itself.

My opinion on this is, yes you can use a photo for reference but you should strive to create something beyond what a photo can deliver. I find that I can look at the best photo and it will always look like a flat image of what it was taken from.

On the other hand a great painting can fool the eye it has depth. Sure that depth is created and not real but I have never seen a photo that had that kind of depth to it.

Also as you paint from life your point of reference changes as you look at different areas of your subject. And that is reflected in your painting, hence if you compared the perspective to that in a photo it would be off from the photo which has a fixed reference of the position and focal length of the lens used.

But it is these slight differences (as well as the play of warm and cool colors) that help give the painting more depth for as your eye travels around the painting it seems as if your view changes slightly as it would if you to where looking at 3 dimensional objects. These differences are not even planed it just happens it is the very imperfections that make a painting look more real then a photo.

Also on tracing well I have never seen someone who can not draw who could trace and create a drawing from it with any style.

I have used photos and still do. How many people can you get to give you 2-4 hours during good painting light. Well Not many people I know in this busy world, so you get 1 maybe 2, 1 hour sessions. Well I do not know about rest of you but that is not enough time for me to finish a painting and my memory is not that great that I can finish with out the help of reference photos. In the end you can use all the photos you want but unless you can also draw and paint they will not help you create a good painting.

The truth is we do not use photos because it is easier in fact they can hurt the final result. Many times l liked the first rough likeness I get during the first 15min of a session then after hours of refining from a photo. (as those of you that commented on my post in the critique section have seen) I would prefer to paint only from life but it is impractical in this day and age to do so. For those lucky enough or who's style of painting (alla prima) allows them to finish a painting in 1-2 hours or can get the rich and famous to sit for hours then great.

Vermeer on the other hand took months to finish a painting so it is no wonder he looked for ways to help. But I hardly see how looking at a image projected on a piece of frosted glass could be considered the same as tracing a photo.

Vermeer's talent was not in the drawing but the finish (not that he could not draw) his paintings are more real then any photo and anyone that holds up photos as a representation of real life needs to stop and look around them more and see that photos do not capture what the human eye sees. Painters like Vermeer did they made images so life-like that they could not have been done from a photo (at least not photos alone).

Jim Riley · 12-11-2001, 02:46 PM

The ongoing debates regarding the use photo's or other mechanical devices will continue long after we have all gone to Portrait Artist's heaven. The beginner and the pro alike have good reason to use photography but the old advice remains true that the artist does not have command of his medium until he learns to transform what he sees through his eyes or recorded information into a convincing portrait. On the occasions when I have taught portraiture I have stressed the ongoing need to draw and like to show that drawing and likeness does not mean being a slave to proportions, values and colors but finding those elements that give form, personality, and composition to the finished work. I recently sent the enclosed images to several young students as a demonstration of kind of results that can be acheived by use of photography by an accomplished artist. The artist is one of my favorite, Nicolai Fechin. I have no reason to believe he used photography often but found this drawing with his photo reference and thought it a good example of drawing skill overcoming the shortcomings of the camera. He is among the very best draughtsmen ever and his impressionistic painting style does not hide the evidence that beneath the paint is flesh and bone as convincing as anyone might ever hope to achieve. Notice how he recreates the form, light and gesture (the arm/hand).

Jim

Timothy C. Tyler · 01-16-2002, 03:48 PM

Jim, I was scrolling down and scanning along and my heart rate increased when I saw the Fechins--one of my favorites too. I heard someone say he was the only artist that I know of that both really loose and really tight painters all like. He's drawings are awesome. His paintings are powerful swirls of rich pigment.

For myself I started using lots of photograghy and was slowly convinced by (living) artists that I admired that I should work from life. I studied Sargent and he too said the same. So I began my devotion to life. It rather became a habit.

One day I was just finshing a painting of a complex still life painted side by side the subject...painted life size (sight-size) I basically painted from 14 feet away the opt. viewing distance. This friend came over (a famous landscape painter) and said SLIDE! you used a SLIDE! and I thought hey why bother. So as I shot the painting and before I tore down the set-up I photo'd the set-up. I then projected (this slide) of the set-up onto the finished canvas about 40x30" piece, and the drawing was within 1/8". So again why bother. If you draw really well even artists accuse you of using slides.

I am now seeing such nice results from artists working from photos (this group included) I'm getting interested again in the camera and to tell the truth I'm having trouble going back. I will have to learn much to be satisfied but I'm intriqued. Maybe a hybrid method, I like reading edges, color and values from life.

Dean Lapinel · 01-16-2002, 04:23 PM

As a photographer, prior to entering the oil painting world, I see the photograph as useful but quite a handicap. I do not consider it to be "cheating" to paint from a photograph. Futher, I think it is very difficult to paint only from a photograph because of the loss of middle tones, detail, light, color.

Once you know how to paint from life and paint inventively from your mind then you are able to extrapolate additional information from a photograph to make it useful.

I still love my B&W photography but many of the photos that I create and love are not suitable for a canvas rendering. Those that are, I make significant modifications to make the painting more appealing.

Stanka Kordic · 01-16-2002, 06:33 PM

Hi Everyone,

Agree with you regarding the pros and cons of photography. I was trained working from life and like to think I'm able to bring that experience to my commissions that are purely from photos. That said, I WOULD LOVE to say "yes, I paint from life.." My question to you Tim, is HOW do you do it without feeling pressured to 'perform'?

For example, when I do have a model, I set them up, make them comfortable, chit-chat, etc. THEN, silence..I'm in the 'zone'...next thing you know, the sitter starts fidgeting, and I feel like I either have to hurry and be done with it or start entertaining them. In other words, I can't get comfortable, I don't feel the sitter is, and I wonder how successful the portrait really is! Yes, seeing how things work from life is absolutely invaluable, but the flip side (for me) is something of the moment is lost. Michelle Mitchell blows me away with her paintings..an extended arm, an old man with an incredible expression on his face!! Gosh. Sometimes I wish I had lived 100 years ago just so I can DO that.

Timothy C. Tyler · 01-16-2002, 08:58 PM

Here's my last best hope. I'd like to be able to use photos AND benefit from live sittings. I personally think it can be the best of both worlds. I use color sketches with photos to make large landscapes. My stills are all from life.I think portrait and figure work can be made using both. I'm told Boug. used both-good enough for me!

If I'm painting sunshine on white at 20 minutes before sundown I cannot quess the right color (value, temp. hue, intensity etc). I know most pro shooters are better than me and I need to get better. The digital stuff is of interest to me too. Honestly it's only because I'm seeing some very strong work done with the camera nowadays that I'm even thinking along these lines. I saw one of Karin's stills of watermelon and was sure it was done from life. That it was NOT turned my world upside-down...which is good for my world sometime.

Jim Riley · 06-17-2002, 08:42 AM

"Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?" An article by Micheal Kimmelman in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/ar...f77330d4a6080f

Cynthia Daniel · 06-17-2002, 10:51 AM

Administrator's Note: I don't know how long the New York Times keeps articles online, so below is a copy of the article in case it goes away. Article copyright the New York Times.

Does a Painter With a Camera Cheat?
By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN

LATELY, one thing after another

Timothy C. Tyler · 07-06-2002, 04:50 PM

Only a few artist celebrities could ever have even got this book published (maybe the guy with the backlit candy dishes done by his Italian employees), and then have such discussions happen by virtue of such silly statements.

It was a writer in the Washinton Post, I think that said, "Saying these artists before me were too good - they must have had a trick!, is like a 5' 1" white boy saying Michael Jordan must have tricks to be able to play basketball like he does."

A wimpy and boring basis for a book.