Discovered something.....

Well here's a coincidence of sorts - I have been working on an oil from memory and a very inadequate sketch: I didn't realize how inadequate until I came to ask myself what on earth the colour would have been, how deep the shadow.... and I'm having a lot of trouble with it which I shall have to tackle with glazing: a pain if you're impatient, because every layer has to dry before the glazing layer can be laid on top. So yes: I think we can safely say - at least from my experience and that of your colleagues and yourself - that it helps to have something in front of you when painting figuratively: imagination is a fine thing when it's adequate, but few of us can carry it off successfully at first knockings. But then, there's Alan Bickley's paintings, some of which rely heavily on memory and still work - so like a lot of things in painting, you can't be dogmatic about it.

Still life's are a great way of observing and learning. Even ask one of your group to sit for 10 mins or so and draw them ,then return the favour. Do you have a dog or cat? wait until they are in a deep sleep and then sit and draw them, Look around the kitchen and draw what you see. Use different thicknesses of pencil e.g. H B ......through to 9B they are so lovely and rich in tonal values. Pick up a biro use that. a whole word of fun is there. If you have a apologised to your wife ask very nicely if she will model for you. If you must use photographs try to use ones you have taken yourself.

Just Google Perspective... Photographs are for the inspiration not the detail... Your art should be your two dimensional illusion that creates an impression in the mind of the viewer. It does not have to look real or right and least of all look like a copy of another artists' or photographers' work.

The former pedant that I once was, will try..."Creativity takes courage"...Henri Matisse. The only artists' that paint from memory are those court case caricatures that are so beloved by TV news bulletins... The rest of us just make art, If we can, When We can with whatever inspirational materials we have at our disposal at the time.

They are not rules. Copyright is law. The rest is opinion. Apart from the peculiarties of language, of course - outside of visual art "figurative" means metaphorical. Which sounds like abstract art. Which is the exact opposite of figurative art. What fun!

Figurative art is not synonymous with "art that represents the human figure," although human and animal figures are frequent subjects. Wilkipedia. Hockney has an interest in photo collages, some of which are in print and available from the RA as A1 posters, but as far as I know, never used them as reference for a complete painting, much preferring to paint on location which is not always possible for many of us.

Copyright is always going to be thorny - if you take someone else's photograph and just copy it, you're a twit: but I think we all know that. As it happens, I saw a photograph the other day of a scene very near to where I grew up (we'll assume for the sake of argument that I did actually grow up). It's difficult for me to get out there now, and I certainly couldn't paint it in situ, so I asked the person who took the photo if he'd mind if I made use of it, and he readily agreed. I will of course credit him when I get round to doing it - I wouldn't normally do this, but as I say, I know the area. People will often waive their copyright if you ask - leaving aside how we choose to make our pictures; so if you are attracted to a photograph, and you've the least connection with the person taking it, I would counsel just asking them. That takes care of the legal side of it, the rest is down to individual standards, preferences, practice. I got one painting in a rather characteristic way - I was looking at some of my old work, including preparatory sketches and works in progress, on the computer: took my glasses off to clean them, and a shape appeared shorn of all its complications (because I'm very myopic): made the new painting out of that shape, and it worked if anything rather better than the picture from which I'd taken it - how is this relevant? Well - not sure it is! But if you're as blind as a bat, it can be useful to gaze upon your old work, sketches and photographs to see what shapes might loom out of them: I can see some virtue in doing this from other people's photographs as well - you might find a shape within them which would have absolutely no recognizable reference to the image itself but still give you a shape for a building, tree, figure or whatever, or more abstract composition. There's still a 'but' there, though. OK, you can do this; and I did (with one of mine); and it worked out - the new painting is entirely divorced from the original from which I took the shape: you'd never recognize it.. But I didn't have to be sitting at the computer to find a shape - I could have turned the thing off, and just walked up the road, or in the garden, or gone to the shops..... there are millions of possible shapes on the way. On the whole, that's what I do - and if anyone asked, it's what I'd recommend. But no one did ask - and I'm no fonder of rules than the next unruly Herbert. One point, though - I don't know that we're regarded as authorities on anything by the many visitors who come to this site, but I know that some do look to us for advice now and then; we aren't just talking to ourselves, or anyway we may not be. It's right to warn others of the dangers of copying, more especially if they then seek to profit from the image they've copied - THAT wouldn't be pedantry: just looking out for others' interests.

A photo for me is only a starting point on which to base my interpretation of a scene etc - often I use old photos (which I have taken yet can't recall either doing so or the actual scene) and the finished work is quite different in all but concept - I have used my own palette, moved things round a bit, left bits out etc. In other words it's an artistic interpretation. I must add that i don't have much much truck with slavishly copied photos but that's a personal opinion. I was going to make some comments about the difference between a craftsman (someone who paints realism without artistic interpretation ?) and an artist (who interprets ?) but having read the heated comments above I won't mention it - so consider it unsaid. .