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 2 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
I don't see anything wrong with working from photos, I don't understand why anyone would think there is! Everyone has a different way of working, whether from photos or from life (or a combination), abstract, photo-realist and everything in between. I work from photos but never exactly; before I print them I crop out what I don't need and desaturate the colour, sometimes completely, so I'm not colour matching. I use the photo as a reference, not something to copy exactly (I have the photo itself, why do I need a copy?), I move things around, bring things in from other sources if I need to. It's the same if I'm sketching outdoors - if I like the look of something but it won't fit on the page, I'll move it. It's all about being creative and using a bit of imagination, it's much more fun than simply copying (all in my opinion).
Kay M
Posted
I think a good example of what is referred to as "copying", being a useful excercise would be if all the painters on this site were asked to submit their impression of a set item, painting, portrait, photograph etc. The end product would inevitably be some almost identical results from those who try for accurate photographic results and the few hundred "rest" who just produce an honest effort that is their own version of what they see, sometimes bearing little resemblance to the original. That's the definition of art being about the artist, not the subject, and probably the result of why Picasso, Van Gogh and the rest produced what they did instead of clones of some past-times lingerie model, Hay Waines or portraits of the Duke of Wellington with his favourite greyhound. Just a view as ever. 😆
Posted
The same would be true from life though Wanderer. If everyone was asked to paint the same object at the same moment in time from the same perspective they would all be pretty similar too. What makes from life appear so different is that once the object is painted it is put away and nobody see's it in exactly the same place, same light and from the same direction again. So if we took a photo ourselves, copied it and then destroyed the photo the finished art would be just as unique and valid.
Even when copying a photograph, we make choices about medium, colour, style, how loose or tight, the brush strokes, how much detail included, how blended or blocky, how to frame the composition and what gets the focus of attention. I have copied the same photograph multiple times and ended up with significantly different results.
As I said previous, this topic depends on objective... if it is to improve your skill as an artist I would say that painting from life is the way to go but if you merely want to recreate an accurate portrayal I would say a photograph has the advantage.
Posted
I don't think we have different views at all really, Davey. My view is saying that I don't think it matters one way or the other, ie free choice. What is the difference between copying and copyright anyway except money? Art has some geniuses, many skilled practitioners, a fair proportion of talentless charlatans who profess genius by smoke and mirror tactics and a multitude of folk who just like to paint pictures and create things. I fall quite happily into the latter class.
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
I’m rather fond of cans of worms. Especially when they’ve been opened.
Not sure which contemporary artists Georgina has in mind but I’ve seen a couple of TV progs about Hockney painting outdoors, including the massive Bigger Trees at Warter on multiple canvases.
I’ve just seen another thread about the Hong Kong ‘photo-realistic’ artist and as I commented there, a painting of a photograph that is very clearly just that, does nothing for me at all.
Putting aside the practical matters of how able one is to get out and about, It seems to me that the photo or no photo debate perhaps revolves around—
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">• the degree of realism one is striving for (or trying to avoid). Are you towards the Constable or the Turner in this? I’m much more towards the Turner and although I have and do use photograph reference for some large drawings (all that needs to be said about this has been said I think), I also like to be outside, but don’t want to lug a lot of gear about. My ‘compromise’ is to fill my sketchbook with pastel and graphite sketches which I then use in the studio.
• The degree to which one is devoted to technique. At one end might be the …can’t use that brush because it’s not the ‘right’ type of brush and at the other, the anything that can make a mark approach; finger painting? why not if it gets you where you want to go.
• Product or process; the where you want to go, in the sense that you have a clear idea of the end product or are much more concerned with and interested in the process. (As a clarifying illustration on this, I’ve started a painting from one of my sketches of a specific location and in the process ‘discovered’ that it’s much more like another location and changed my thinking about the work accordingly).
• The degree to which one ‘knows’ the location of the scenes one paints. I work in a specific agricultural area. I’ve come to know it well. I—and my car incidentally—are known by most of the farmers. That is useful; they know I’m not up to no good; I can park in gateways and they'll stop and see what I'm up to today. Or, as Charlie said to me one time last year, "Can you stay here all day because you're doing a good job of keeping them crows off that barley". They let me go down the roads and tracks marked Private Road because they know if they see the car, I won’t be far away.</blockquote>
Posted
Ref the above John, apart from odd occasions when I know I'm going to be bored in doctors/hospital waiting rooms etc, I almost always paint at home and rarely in el aire libre, or "the fresh air" . I do walk a lot with the dog and observe many things/ideas I use at times. As for brushes, despite owning as many as Van Gogh, a lot of my sketches are done with a tuppence-halfpenny brush from a cheap tin of paints. As you say, if it gets you whatever/wherever you want to go, problem solved. Professional artists will obviously have different views thatn happy slappers like me, but que-sera..😆
Showing page 2 of 2
- 1
- 2