Are we painters or photographers?

[Steven Sweeney]

I keep waking up in the garage as a dang Mini Van. How do I get to be an SUV?

Practice.

[Lon Haverly]

Somehow I fear we are evolving into tech drones, who are more and more dependant on the TV and the motorcar. Our art is only a momentary escape from the reality of our world. We march forward in step like a great mass of robots powered and programmed by the demands of the modern world.

I'm in a bad mood. Sorry.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Cameras are tools. Any tool used by someone that really understands the limits and advantages of the tool gets far greater results. When someone uses a camera understanding the need for working from life along with it you get the likes of Morgan Weistling, Bill Whitaker and Anders Zorn.

Enlarge a photo w/o any knowledge of reality and you get Chucky Close, known in some art circles as UPCHUCK!

[Elizabeth Schott]

So Lon - are you telling us you woke up in the garage as a DeLorean today.

It is raining here today too.

[Michael Georges]

From Tim Tyler - Enlarge a photo w/o any knowledge of reality and you get Chucky Close, known in some art circles as UPCHUCK!

One's art should never be able to be outdone by a PhotoShop filter which, IMO, is what happened with Mr. Close.

[Anthony Emmolo]

Hello All,

Rembrandt had it, Leonardo Da Vinci had it as well. There is a depth to painting that in my opinion doesn't exist in todays artists. I believe industrial age paints and mediums are one reason for that. Another, is modern "conveniences." While writing about the face of President Lincoln, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the book with me, Walt Whitman wrote that there is a certain quality to the President's face that does not come through in the portraits done of Lincoln. It would take one of the portrait artists of the past to reproduce it. This comes from a passage entitled "Lincoln's Portrait." It can be found in "Specimen Days," or "Democratic Vistas." Both books often accompany the more well known, "Leaves of Grass."

[Tom Edgerton]

There is no horse deader than the photography vs. life discussion, but I feel the need to get my licks in.

To Tim's point, cameras are only tools. When no one's holding them, they make nice paperweights.

In the hands of a master, photography can be as transcendent as painting. In the hands of an amateur, the results are well...amateurish. If my painting betrays photographic origins, and a lot of it does, it's my fault for not applying myself to mastery of the tools and the thinking, not a fault inherent in the tool itself. I had a European colleague who taught with me several years ago in the local community college, and he complained about his students, observing "Americans are constantly mistaking tools for skills." His students thought if they made an image on the computer, it was inherently better than an image made by hand.

This discussion gets hyperbolic awfully fast, and wild statements castigating or defending the camera as a tool usually just reveal the particular prejudices of the speaker and how comfortable and accomplished they are with it. Anyone who insists that all work, regardless of the artist, that has some tie to photographic reference is automatically inferior hasn't seen enough of what's out there. And anyone who insists that they can categorically identify work with photographic origins, regardless of the artist, is blowing smoke.

And I can't buy the notion that the quality of one's art is somehow a function of slavishly adhering to centuries-old materials and methods, ignoring anything currently available. If Vermeer could have mail-ordered from Dick Blick (or Old Holland, maybe), he would have. Burt Silverman spoke to this in a demonstration at PSOA, saying, "Spend more time trying to make great art, and if it's good, someone will be there to take care of it."

One's ability as an artist is the sum total of years of practice in a variety of situations with an array of tools, and mastery or lack of it resides in the mind and the heart, not in the toolbox. I agree that there is no substitute for working from life, and that there are no shortcuts. But why try to convince the world that an inanimate tool is the diabolic invention of Satan? The only thing that speaks for or against us and our ability is the thing on the wall, not what was in our hands when we made it.

[Mike McCarty]

The only thing that speaks for or against us and our ability is the thing on the wall, not what was in our hands when we made it.

Photophobics, I call them.

[Michael Fournier]

Since I started this thread it has taken on a life of its own. I think it might have made me appear to be anti-photo and that is not the case.

I think what prompted me to start this was a discussion about elaborate photographic studio lighting and the question it brought out in me as to why the use of all this fancy photographic equipment was necessary to become a portrait artist. I just figured that if many of the best paintings ever done were done without the aid of any camera or artificial lighting why should we need it?

I am not against anyone using any of this stuff. If you have the inclination to buy a complete photo studio full of strobe units and fill lights and umbrella flash heads then, fine, if you know how to use these things and it helps you produce good work.

I just do not want to get into all that stuff. If I did I would have become a photographer and not bothered learning to paint at all. I would probably be making a better living if I had, though. If you look at publications, photographic images are used much more than illustration these days.

Hmmm, maybe that is it! I have some deep seated resentment against photography taking illustration work from illustrators. Maybe I should call my analyst about this. Maybe I have that Photophobia Mike referred to. Or maybe it is contagious. You can get it from over exposure to scanners and working in Photoshop all day.

[Tom Edgerton]

Absolutely right, Michael! Using or not using any particular tool is just one more free choice made by an individual in what is an infinite rainbow of choices made in a lifetime. And centuries of stunning work managed to take place without all that gear.

I just think that it's folly to insist that one's choice of tools automatically defines the quality of the result.

But I re-read some of your posts and they're pretty balanced on the whole, so not to worry.

Best to all!