Work from life or from photos?

[Marvin Mattelson]

Mike, I would never deny that a photo presents the opportunity for the taker to capture and connect with the sitter, and in the best case scenario quite profoundly. However, (there had to be a however of there wouldn't be a reason to post, would there?) as portrait artists we have already taken quite a beating from the likes of photography. Now photographers are making "virtual paintings", digital retouched images on canvases, which they claim to be as good as real portraits!

We have become easy prey to the argument "why spend my money on a painted portrait when a photo is just as good?" This I feel lies in part because we, as artists, rely far too much on just copying the photo for reference and therefore far far too many portraits, be they loose or tight, lack the depth of character of a portrait painted from life. Even on the forum we are superimposing photos over our paintings to arrive at the correct "drawing"!

I recently completed a portrait, done mostly from photos and two all too brief life sittings. I told my client her portrait was as finished as I could get it, save one last sitting from life. We arranged a three hour interlude in which she would view the painting and I would then paint the real her. She was quite taken with the portrait and couldn't understand why I would want to, or could hope to, take it any further. After the sitting and upon viewing the completed portrait, she was taken aback. The painting had, in that short period, come to life, although nothing looked tangibly different. Marvin the alchemist strikes again?

I want people to see my paintings in the real and be taken aback by how lifelike they are. I want people to say that my work lives and breathes and goes far beyond what a photo can do. I don't want to be as good as a photo. I don't want to play second fiddle to a mechanical or electronic device. I want my paintings to be remarkably better.

On that recent day I won my battle, at least in the eyes of my client. I think without this kind of attitude and goal, portraiture can never be reinstated to the lofty stature it once held.

I truly believe the more we work from life the more we can realize this. I don't want to be someone who is just as good as a camera. I am a portrait artist!

[Michele Rushworth]

Holly, you wrote:

I have been trying to speed up in working from photos (on my monitor) so that I will be able to paint from life.

I think working from life is the best way to get better and faster at painting well from life. Just go find an open studio session somewhere or round up a friend as a model and jump right in!

[Linda Brandon]

Originally Posted by Holly Snyder

Geez, what happened while I was away?

Sorry Holly! These photograph/life debates come up every couple of months on the Forum. I personally like to see them run for a while because I think they are very important discussions and in fact go to the heart of why we should bother painting the portrait or the figure in an age when incredibly beautiful photographs are available (and are much less expensive than hiring a painter, need I add!).

I've asked Ilaria to start another thread with her new life portrait.

I agree with Michele; the way to learn to work from life is just to do it. Even putting a pile of fabric on a table to work from is hugely beneficial toward training your eye to see.

[Mike McCarty]

My original complaint was this:

Mike wrote: What I find aggravating is that the argument always compares the best of the life painting experience with the very worst photo reference.

Marvin,
Once again you have described the best of the life painting experience while alluding to the worst photo experience.

Marvin wrote: I recently completed a portrait, done mostly from photos

You pick up at this point and describe how the benefit of those final hours helped make the painting come alive. I would just like to give a little respect to all that went before. It was your good judgment that brought the painting to that point. Your good judgment that took advantage of photography. I think that any reasonable person would conclude that your judgment was correct. Maybe your painting would have been better if painted totally from life. Maybe, maybe not, but for all the good and practical reasons, you chose not to.

Rarely a day goes by that someone on these boards doesn't slam the use of photographs.

[Jim Riley]

I have a great deal of difficulty with the anger and fear of photographic reference. I really don't care if others choose not to use it but find the world of digital info as a great aide to my portrait work. On rare occasions I have asked a subject to sit for some final touch up but otherwise shoot, compose, change heads, add backgrounds and show options to the client before the painting begins. Sitting is boring and it is sometimes difficult to not let it show.

I would not give up all the live training/study I have had and would not recommend learning to draw from photographs but find them very useful.

[Linda Brandon]

Originally Posted by Jim Riley

I have a great deal of difficulty with the anger and fear of photographic reference.

Everyone who has posted so far on this thread uses photos some/all/most of the time. The question (okay, my question) is whether it is "worth" the expense and incredibly time consuming "bother" of learning to paint from life. People who are teaching others how to do work from life (including me) have a strong interest in convincing others to answer "yes" to this question. But I'm open to hearing other sides to this issue.

Here's the side I want to hear speak: anyone who will say, "I can't work from life at all but I'm making a great living as a portrait artist and I think my work is excellent." Or how about some variation of: "I can't draw from life at all but my photographic references are so wonderful and I can use them so well that I feel it is not necessary for me to learn to work from life."

[Allan Rahbek]

Hi,
I believe that a photo reference can easily "lift" a painting to a certain level, just by tracing the lines and fill in some colors. But to create a really convincing image you have to know how the eye perceive the three dimentionally world.

If you focus on a person you won

[Marvin Mattelson]

The work I have done from life informs the decisions I make when painting from photos. The additions I made during the last sitting were to bolster the areas that I knew would have had better information than my photos could provide. Painting from life is far more challenging and therefore offers far greater opportunity for growth.

I'm not saying photography isn't useful. I have cultivated my photographic skills to make my reference as viable as possible. I don't begrudge or belittle it. It just can not, in any way, compete with the vision of the human eye. Can anyone seriously dispute this?

If I didn't think that life painting was the best way to master the art of painting I'd have my students sitting in the studio copying photos. Been there! Done that! No contest!

[Mike McCarty]

I enjoy this discussion, however, I'm not particularly proud of the way it got started. Marvin, I think you walked around the corner and for no fault of your own got sucker punched. I know you are capable of defending yourself but fair is fair. I should have looked around the corner to see if someone was coming, sorry. With that said, cheers and play ball.

[Allan Rahbek]

[QUOTE=Marvin Mattelson] It just can not, in any way, compete with the vision of the human eye.QUOTE]

As Cezanne said: "You paint as if you only got one eye"
So does the camera.

Most naturalistic painters paint that way, and that, of cause, is a personal choice based on personal taste. No problem with that.

If we look at the human vision, it is based on the two eyes, helping each other to define distance and volume of objects. I have often seen cats and birds take there heads from side to side to get a more three dimensional picture of the things they are focused on. You define distance and volume through the angles of the individual eyesight.

That meaning, if you want to focus on every detail in a painting ( as the one eyed camera can ) you must accept it as an unnatural way of perceiving. This is not the way we see things. It