Consider the source

[John Zeissig]

Hello All,

I

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Thank you for going through all that trouble to make a very valid point. I feel there is not just black or white, but many shades of gray.

We do go around in circles based on the convictions we tend to represent, rather than looking for the merits in that which differs from the norm. Seldom does scientific study put a question to rest by offering concrete evidence. Even then the topic gets resurrected through new inventions and theories that disprove the original findings.

[Marta Prime]

John,
You can sell the camera and send me the money so I can sign up for the William Whittaker workshop.

Kidding.

My logic would have been totally different if one of the SOG artists had done this little test. As it is, I think painting from life is the ultimate test of one's abilities. I do see artists that paint pretty well from photos, because the photo doesn't move and gives you plenty of time to get it right. However, painting from life separates the "men" from the "boys". It takes a lot of time and practice and knowledge to nail it. It is the ultimate accomplishment.

[John Zeissig]

This is the photo used in painting #2.

[Steven Sweeney]

Results based on a seven-subject, uncontrolled sample of respondents who happened to play along could not, of course, lead to even the most minimally significant statistical conclusions. But aside from that, the results of this experiment were foregone from the outset and flawed for more fundamental reasons

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Steven, based on John

[Michael Georges]

I did not participate in this experiment because I think it misses the point and further encourages people into a photo vs. life mentality - it's really not about that.

As artists, our ultimate goal should be to produce the best art we can and to constantly push our boundaries and enhance our skills.

So, to me, being an artist means being able to do great work from photos, and doing great work from life. Why? Because I firmly believe that it will help me make better pictures and enhance my ability to "see".

Look around you at the artists who you view as the current crop of "world-class" painters. I will bet that all of them have had extensive experience working from life and that even if they work from photo reference, they will extoll the virtues of learning to draw and paint from life as an essential part of how they learned to make art and how they "see" today.

That is certainly true for all of the most successful portrait painters today.

So it is not about either or, it is about using both photos and life to push your skills to a higher level.

The realities of portraiture today mean very few artists get to do very many portraits totally from life - people are too busy to sit. So photos are an essential part of making portraits, but it is important to know that working from photo reference is part of the beginning, but not the end of making good figurative and portrait work.

You can work from photos and make wonderful art - but if you stop there and never explore working from life then, in my opinion, you are cheating yourself as an artist.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Michael, you are absolutely right. The way I formulated my last sentence didn't come out right.

I meant regardless of which was used, life model vs. photo reference, the skill and knowledge of the artist will in the end be the deciding factor of the quality of the work. If the artist can make us wonder and ponder how a work was created, they ultimately have overcome any challenge which might have been present during the creation.

[Steven Sweeney]

I truly believe that if an artist has skill and follows certain guidelines, this person can paint a life-like portrait regardless of a bad photo or a fidgety life model.

No question about it, Enzie, if the skill is there. That's the absolute essence of my point. However, the cautionary note about believing too strongly everything you see in a photograph isn't directed at the skillful, but at those who have yet to develop an understanding of the human form, as you correctly pointed out, and the way it "behaves" in light and space. With that understanding, you're all set to go.

Fidgety models are a slightly different matter, because there you're getting good information -- but it keeps moving around on you. I was every bit as guilty as every other beginner when I protested that the moving model made it impossible to do an accurate drawing. (Thankfully, I was never allowed to get away with it.)

After a few hundred hours of dealing with the problem, you solve it, and just as with solving the "problems" with photographs, once you've done it, you're in good shape to handle anything that comes along and to make the absolute most of any resource or reference you're working with.

[Lon Haverly]

When it comes to drawing, I do not encourage drawing from photos or from life for beginners. I think it is a mistake to thrust someone into drawing until you show them the basic use of the line. Line technique is almost non-existent in most artist's work these days. In my view, the art is in the line.

When I was starting out (at the wee age of seven) we were only allowed to copy drawings which were of the classic sanded point method, or we copied the demonstration drawings of our teacher. We were drilled relentlessly in the line techniques before we ventured off into working from life settings or photos. By then we had a useful quiver of line techniques to apply to the drawing, regardless of the source.

Rather a narrow way to learn, I'll grant you. There are many ways to draw and paint, but there are fewer good ways to learn.

Perhaps I am stuck in the mode of the beginnings and fundamentals. This conversation perhaps deals more with advanced work from photos and life. But when you discuss the merits of working from photos and from life, for the beginner, neither is advisable.