Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Trying to make my mind up...
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
I have been super busy and haven't had a chance to paint this week... but I have been thinking about what I will paint and I have bought some A2 canvas boards to try something a bit bigger... the trouble is I cannot make up my mind what I should paint.
Options include Marilyn Monroe three quarter length or a seated Darcy Bussell, a shot of a killer whale under a fishing boat, a black and white of Sugar Ray Robinson in the street at marble arch in the 1950's or a New York city street shot. All these are photo's I found on google and I wonder about copying other people's photographs.
I did have an idea for taking a photo of Piccadilly Circus or somewhere both at night and during the day and doing vertical strips of an inch alternating between the two across the canvas but to go and get the photo's will be an effort (perhaps the effect would be interesting...or not...)
Any tips for larger compositions? Which should I try... I guess because I know an A2 will take me a while I want to make a good choice and I can't make up my mind.
Posted
I don't paint that size usually, but the difficulty of choosing a subject is probably well-known to all of us. There's advice on copyright tucked away in all sorts of places on the forum, by the way - have a look, while you're deciding.
What I'd paint at that scale would be landscape, with an accent on either trees or rolling downland - but then, that's what I tend to paint anyway, at any scale. The only advice I could really give you is to paint what you feel passionate about; there's little worse than embarking on a big painting and discovering, when it's a bit late to turn back, that you're getting bored with the subject you chose.
Posted
Well I started sketching Marilyn.... I will have time to snap my own photo's because I have have something in my minds eye for a cityscape... I want to paint her though and don't really care much if it is from a copyright image (I don't know one way or the other about that but it isn't commercial art) but as far as I am concerned her face is public domain.
As for fruit and flowers I really can't think of anything less interesting for me... at some stage I will have to do some still lifes simply for variation but people interest me, I have Churchill, Fred Astaire, Sugar Ray and yeah lots of ladies but each has very much their own character. The added size of A2 I should be doing some landscapes, maybe first I should try some small studies of water and suchlike though since I haven't painted water since I was about 5 years old, I remember vividly somehow I managed to fluke a very realistic seascape and then the person next to me knocked over the water that we had been cleaning our brushes in and it was ruined and I cried as you do when you are a nipper. Since then I never tried water again.
Edited
by Daveyboyz
Posted
I seem to be on solid ground... The heirs to Marilyn's estate saved themselves money by stating her residence was New York where the rules on image as trademark and the right to publicity are different to where her main residence was...anyway court cases have been lost by the family and it has been found they have no right to charge to use her image.
To quote:
In a footnote to its ruling, the court pointed out that Monroe once foresaw the battle over rights to her image and its outcome. "We observe that the lengthy dispute over the exploitation of Marilyn Monroe's persona has ended in exactly the way that Monroe herself predicted more that 50 years ago," reads the judgment. "'I knew I belonged to the public and to the world, not because I was talented or even beautiful but because I had never belonged to anything or anyone else.'"
Posted
I wouldn't step anywhere near my studio without that all important spark of inspiration, that's the reason I paint. Without it you are just going through the technical aspect of painting, which will certainly show in the finished piece. I myself, and I'm sure most of us on here, gather that inspiration from seeing things in our everyday life, cast shadows, dappled light, colours, thousands of things, I could go on indefinitely. Marjorie has made a similar valid point.
I don't believe that trawling aimlessly through Google will ever inspire an artist. Yes, it's a great tool for reference, I use it a lot for that sole purpose. As for drawing yet another Marilyn, I don't see the point, unless of course you have a completely different angle to offer. If you are doing it for practice, then work on a live model in your family circle, or better still a self portrait. Sylvia has touched on this earlier in the thread.
It's a good idea to work on a larger support, this allows you to express yourself more easily and confidently. Obviously it would be impossible for any of us on here to advise you of which subject to paint, only you can make that decision, but has already been said, go out and find your own subject matter rather than slavishly copying from photographs, it's so much more rewarding.
Posted
The problem is not lack of inspiration Alan, it is too much inspiration.
Given I want to paint EVERYTHING I have to make a selection... that some of these great images are not mine is a thorny issue (but I am unlikely to be able to take my own photographs of some of these legendary people who are already dead) then there are the practicalities of getting my own photographs (because I am not going to paint a day/night scene in the streets of Chelsea)
You may not see the point of another Marilyn portrait being in the world, and in terms of what it offers the world of art I agree... but as a complete novice (still in single digits for portraits painted) it is a technical exercise but not the reason I am doing it. I am doing it to look and know the subject better... to stare at someones face and paint it burns it into the minds eye and its almost like you feel the person in a way that most the time your never really do when you merely glance at them. Looking at Marilyn you might notice physical characteristics like she has a lazy eye but you can almost see so many elements of her character like her insecure soul and it is very endearing. To paint someone is to love them. Also what am I going to do with the paintings I produce? I am not selling them and would could conceivably look at a painting of her and I guess a great many people have pictures of famous people on their walls.
Of course you also see problems, I see her hair is going to require a lot of work... in the Sugar Ray photo I could see its black and white and even if I wanted to colourise it then it would still be black and white and a bit of blue sky (because the buildings there are all grey, the clothes are all black and grey suits, the cars are black limo's and the day overcast) so even though I would like the challenge and I like the subject maybe it would be a bit lifeless.
Anyway, decision has been made... some big chisel brushes ordered...
Posted
The copyright holder of an image is normally the person that created it, e.g.s the photographer, or the painter. However the creator may have sold the copyright to a magazine or film studio. If you copy someone else's image it does not matter if it is commercial or not. Claiming it as your own work is contravening the copyright owner's rights. There is an exclusion for educational purposes but the copy should not be published without crediting the copyright holder.
If you want to learn about portraiture, I wouldn't think that images of Marilyn are good examples as they are usually high contrast finer details bleached out. There is nothing better than working from a real life model. If you wish to emulate another's work, then the old masters are hard to beat. Copyright for old masters work, may be hard to source, but is usually the photographer of the image that you use, or the Museum/Gallery who commissioned it, but they are not likely to chase you for it. There is also a lot to be learned from looking at David Hockney's portraits too.
Hope this helps.
Linda Wilson
Posted
You have brought up a very good point there Linda, all very sanitized images across the board with any celebrity image. Marilyn's face has probably had more airbrushing and retouching than my Bentley!.
David Hockney is I agree one worth looking at, perhaps Lucian Freud also. They both used live models to work from of course, wonderful stuff.
Posted
Thanks...
It makes a HUGE difference whether a piece of art is commercial or not... if it is commercial it is clearly not for educational purposes however a painting I do for my home or in my sketchbook can easily be claimed to be educational since it was done to learn the process of painting the person depicted. If I post it for discussion it is fair use and educational, and the painting will have been done by myself even if the reference for it was copyrighted by a photographer... am I going to prison? I think the most that could occur is the copyright holder could ask for it to be taken down...if I used any kind of artistic interpretation like making it pop-art or cubist I think that would be dubious too, at what point are my brush strokes and choice of colours not my work? Given the large scale intellectual theft of entire movies, soundtracks and software that goes on at the moment I cannot see that I am likely to be prosecuted for simply painting a long dead celebrity from a 50 year old photograph. https://www.jacksonsart.com/blog/2015/02/03/painting-someone-elses-photograph-isnt-plagiarism/
High contrast = perfect. I don't want to paint every pore of somebodies face I want to see how the light falls across the contours.
As for live models, I am not sure I can afford to have one hanging around my very small abode for weeks at a time. If you have been watching portrait artist of the year you will realize that a great many artists merely photograph the sitter and then work from that anyway.
Posted
Sylvia and Marjorie, no I don't feel got at and I understand the spirit in which you make these comments. I can understand where you are coming from but I am in this camp of using technology at the moment. I am not a proffessional artist and I can get much better results with photoshop open. Firstly I can crop the image and plan the composition including things like in my boxing self portrait where I combined the elements of different photo's to produce a composition to begin with. I can make the contrast as extreme as I want or alter the pallette.... I can also put rulers up which basically guarantee that I am not going to be too far out of proportion when I sketch the skeleton of out.
Now I would prefer that I could stand back and paint perfectly like Valaquez who made no preparatory sketches but just slapped paint on a wall and created amazing textures with rudimentary brush strokes that nobody could understand but it takes years to develop such skill and even if some of you might turn your nose up or feel superior about your method I am still learning using photo's. I am learning how to mix colours, learning a great deal about how to blend, apply and work with paint.... looking hard at things like hair which I really only stand a chance of getting right because its there and I can zoom in and really contemplate what is going one, what tones are present and how is it clumping etc.
I have watched a documentary about super realist painters like Tjalf Sparnaay and was impressed with a few of his pieces, then I realise he uses a projector and I think back to when I would trace a cartoon as a kid and feel like this really is a step too far.
At the end of the day it is not for one to tell another how they should work, and the way we work develops with time and experience anyway... I might well do some figure drawing classes at some stage of the future with live models I think I only have one image I made like that which was of my art teacher at school, one must try to do what we find challenging in order to improve but at the moment I am trying to learn to paint better and though drawing is an element of that it is not the one I am concentrating on.
I drew this with a scalpel on black and white card and composed it that way, and it seems like I got the proportions pretty close but we used to have an hour lesson at a time. Now I have the patience to spend a long time on work and if I am picking something up and working on it on and off over the course of a week a live model just is no option.
I drew this with a scalpel on black and white card and composed it that way, and it seems like I got the proportions pretty close but we used to have an hour lesson at a time. Now I have the patience to spend a long time on work and if I am picking something up and working on it on and off over the course of a week a live model just is no option.