Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
From life versus from photos
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
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
Hi everyone,
Thought I'd ask everyone's opinion on the 'from life versus from photos' business. There seems to be such taboo about it, and I get the impression its generally considered the right thing if one paints from life, but surely all those massive paintings produced by contemporary artists are not done outside in a field?
Is it possible that there is an element of 'white lie' about some people's practices?
Just wondering......I don't always manage to get out - so sometimes do have to work from photos and sketches to support.
Posted
It's a case of horses for courses. Some prefer en plein air whereas I prefer to work from a photo. When I work from a photo I only use it for basic information - I then put 5the photo to one side and allow artistic licence to interpret the scene as I want to interpret it. When working with the subject directly in front of me I find I am influenced by it to the extent that I become a slave to accuracy both in detail and colours.
Posted
I'm with Michael inthe "horses for course" angle. I think both instill ideas rather than a desire to make photographic likenesses. Turner strapped himself to the top of a ship's mast in a storm. He didn't do it to try a plein air seascape , and cameras up there, even if they were available, well.. He went home ands painted what he'd seen. It's all a form of mental copying, because nothing is original and unique. It's all been done before. All that makes it different is the artsist. There's also, time, changing light and how much you want to paint of what you see. A friend sent me some photographs, I saved then to "My Pictures" then used the edit feature to lop, crop, resize the parts of interest (three quarters of a picture of almost identical scenery, reeds, trees etc, had no interest and I wanted not. I do this with anything that interests to study ideas and features. Do what interests YOU....😆
Posted
Just been doing a bit of research and can find no evidence that Michelangelo resorted to en plein air when painting the Sistine Chapel - in fact it appears he completed it entirely indoors. Similarly there is no evidence that he resorted to photographs.
Perhaps both sides of the argument have it wrong.
Posted
I haven't painted the landscape from life for years now - if by 'from life' you mean going out into the field - or swamp - or up on the downs - or in the middle of a wood - with the palette and easel. I do try to work mostly from my own photographs, and sometimes sketches, more often a bit of both, though. This is due to physical limitations, and the fact that I hate being interrupted at work - I don't really want to growl at people. But I would, if someone peeped over my shoulder.
In the past, en plein air was an extremely unusual way to paint - artists just didn't do it: for one thing, the pochade box, and the smaller sizes it imposes, wasn't available. The old masters generally speaking worked in their own studios with easels the size and weight of snooker tables .... you wouldn't have caught Rembrandt or Rubens lugging those outside. But of course they didn't have cameras either: they relied on sketches, and memory. Which is why I regard painting and drawing as something you do every time you go out, if you paint landscape - it's not that you take all the clobber with you, but that you drink in what you see, form visual memories: and photographs and sketches help with that.
What's more, I think an awful lot of painters DO work from photos - and I don't know why more of them who do don't just admit to it; if you're one who doesn't and never would, well that's absolutely fine and I admire your commitment. You're following the Impressionists' example, and I see the attraction; but I just don't want to do it - or if I did want to, I'd have to face the fact that I can't do it any more. Perhaps if I had a car - well, certainly if I had a car - it would be a lot easier. But I don't (wouldn't help if I did, since I don't drive) - and there it is.
If you find that working from photos works for you, then do it, and feel no shame because you're far from alone. There are things you'll have to consider - light source being one, the quality of that light being another, the need for tonal contrast (which can be forgotten if you're working from a photograph in which there is no obvious light source). Turner's tying himself to a mast in a snow storm has been mentioned - but while he was outside (very much so) he wasn't actually painting, presumably: he was refreshing his visual memory - he might, just, have managed to sketch something. But I don't believe he'd have been able to manage a palette of watercolours or oils - I mean: you try it! Sooner you than me, certainly....
And finally, there's nothing wrong with just (shhhhhh!) making something up. One of my favourite paintings was done that way - the basic idea came from a dream I'd had, and I painted the dream. In short, you'll judge yourself ultimately on the result you achieve, irrespective of the method by which you achieved it: and the customers, if you have any, won't know one way or the other and probably wouldn't care if they did. Let us not get too hung-up over these things, I say.
Posted
Its great to hear everyones ideas and opinions on it, all very interesting. I will obviously continue to do what I do (someone has invited me to go and paint a section of their river tomorrow, so I will be out there with my brushes and easel), but the following day I will likely be in the studio working from a snapshot that appealed to me but I wasn't able to get down in any artistic form at the time I took it.
The question is if anyone would be able to tell the difference between plein air work and work from photos/sketches...it would be interesting to see if there is a difference to the viewer, and if it really does matter at all. Thanks for getting involved in the discussion everyone,
have a great night
Georgina
Posted
I don't think it's a case of being able to tell the difference between en plein air work and work from photos. I suspect that will be an impossible task to undertake with any degree of certitude. . The difference lies not in the two methods but in the skills of the individual artist - some are masters of one method - some are masters of the other. As I said above it's all a case of horses for courses.
Posted
I think the development of tubes for paint in the mid 19th century was the key to the impressionists taking up plein air painting so enthusiastically and I believe they influenced a lot of people following, including myself. However I agree with Michael's 'horses for courses' comment and no one method suits everyone, or even suits an individual all the time. I sometimes work in the studio from photos and sketches but once the basics are covered the references are used less and less. The best approach is simply to adopt the method(s) that you most enjoy.
Posted
Photographs are here, have been for years, they WILL be used for reference. I don't see the point in beating yourself up over it. Toulouse Lautrec said he preferred using photos, they didn't fidget, ask for breaks, or tell you about their horrible landlord. I'm quite sure the old masters would have used them, given the chance. I use them a lot. A flat out copy of a photo is the least interesting, but at least it easier to judge how you're doing. I think the best use is simply looking at them for a bit of info...i.e...you need a sporran in your picture, have a look at a photo but don't copy every stitch and hair. I also think that the more you copy things the more info gets stored in the old brain box, and that must help when you are working solely from imagination. I can knock out a fairly good copy of a photo, but that gives me less satisfaction than a flawed image I've just made up. As with most things, moderation is everything.
Posted
I work from photo's, either taking them myself or from a copyright free site. I love painting flowers and find that working from a photo helps to see the tiny details needed as I can make them much larger on my tablet and they don't fade and die before I finish the painting. At the moment I'm teaching myself to draw animals and again photo's are by far the best way to achieve these, i.e. which way the hair grows etc., and of course, the animal keeps still!!
I don't care if people think I'm wrong and I will continue to do as I please and will not be told what is or isn't correct as long as I am pleased with the result is all that matters.
I'll shut up now!
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2