Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Is copying creative?
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
On browsing through the latest May edition of The Artist Magazine I see that Sylvia has come in for a spot of criticism relating to her letter of the previous month regarding the often talked about common practice of copying from photo's.
One writer states that there are 'dozens of reasons' to copy from photo's whilst another says that 'painting from life is copying'. all very subjective arguments indeed. I'm not going to go into any more detail than that as you can go out and buy your copy if you don't already have one.
I suppose that I sit somewhere in the middle, photo's can be a great source of inspiration for many and they undoubtedly provide a useful source of reference, something which I make use of on a large scale. Generally speaking I have to agree with Sylvia on her point about its creativity credentials and I do recall that when I took up the role of Chair many years ago now at my local art club I had quite a task discouraging a great many of our older members from slavishly coping from say a 6 x 8in holiday postcard, NO, this isn't being creative, it's pointless and I did eventually get my point over and not only did their work improve but they also enjoyed the experience of painting from life for the first time.
Posted
Ooooer what have I started ? I haven't seen the May mag yet. It is each to their own and I was expressing my own opinion I promise I won't hold it against you A G, plus the work you do could be done in no other way. I think the paintings you do are splendid.
I stand by my own comments re copying from photos , its not what I do. Alans prising the members of his club from slavishly copying post cards is only to be commended....I would have set light to the lot.
This world is too full of wonderful views, objects, people all around us to need to copy from a photo. Plus in my book I find it easier to sit in front of something look at it and draw it.
Though there are definatley occasions when this is not possible e g the Scruff pic I posted on the doggy competition as he is now in a box on top of a cupboard waiting to be scattered I had to use a photo.
Though I used my own photo.
Please note, North Light is also dead and gone (though not in a box) Im here under my own moniker .
Posted
Sylvia, it was I that started it but I thought that it may reignite an interesting and usually controversial topic, and I love controversy as you will know by now.. I hope that you didn't mind but your article last month was particularly interesting and directed as I recall at a lady who was on our forum asking for photographs that she could copy, a strange request indeed and was certainly worthy of commenting on which many of us did.
Tony, your work is excellent and I totally understand your situation as to needing reference material, that is fine in my book.
Posted
Not to be controversial or mean offence to anyone, , but why must there be rules? It isn't as if there's anything to be gained or lost except practise (who can get too much of that?). You can't enter competitions or sell plaguerised work, so I repeat, why must there be rules? Paint/draw whatever you like. I'm 77 and not as mobile as I might be at 47 (I walk the dog twice a day and often get inspiration from things I see) but if I had to rely on painting from life alone I wouldn't produce much. I use my imagination quite a lot, but isn't that just a mental reference library? I have no limits on subject whatever and paint purely for pleasure as should anyone who believes practise makes perfect IMO. Neither one or the other is right or wrong as I see it, and the choice of either expands the pleasure of painting. It surely isn't a subject that needs rules..????
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
I too use photos, some I have taken myself others I take from gardening and seed mags. Now as you know I love to paint close up flowers, and find if painting from life, if I'm not quick enough the flower will droop, open up too much or whatever so I then lose the original concept. I don't see anything wrong in having a photo in front of me when I paint. I always state if I have copied from another person so I don't feel I'm doing anything wrong. Why oh why do people keep on about the right way is my way. Perhaps it's not and it makes me angry that some feel it is their duty to tell others what to do. I paint purely for pleasure, for myself and no one else so why should I be judged for doing it 'the wrong way'. One man's meat is another man's poison so I agree to differ.
Posted
Sometimes I use reference photos that I have taken. Sometimes I don't and paint or draw from life. There is nothing wrong with this at all.
The problem comes when people copy from other people's work, without permission and then the copyright laws comes into play. It does not matter whether you sell your work or not, if you claim work to be your own, then you cannot show your work if it is a copy of someone else's work, without written permission.
There are exceptions to this rule for educational purposes and if the artist or photographer has been dead for sufficient time.
Having said that, some artists do produce wonderful replicas of photos of famous people. I feel very tempted to praise them, but I think that I should resist, because they have probably broken the law.
Posted
I almost invariably use reference photos (only my own I hasten to add). Photos never contain the same detail or information as the real thing and, for me at least, this means that of necessity I find I have to interpret. In addition to this it is worth making the point that I only use the photo to sketch out the scene and then only refer to it on the odd occasion that I need to clarify something. Also I do not refer to the photo to copy the colours but rather interpret the scene in colours which I feel will best suit my own interpretation of the scene. Most of the time the photo is upside down and out of sight.
If I paint en plain air I find I am far more inclined to slavishly copy what is in front of me simply because it's there staring me in the face. In other words I totally disagree with the premise that using photos necessarily makes your work tighter and more photorealistic. It all depends on how you use photos and what works best for you the artist. We are all different.
Edited
by MichaelEdwards
Posted
I have to agree with most of what you have said here Michael, as I made quite clear in my opening text I also find the use of photographs a useful source of reference and will continue to use them. However, I do stick to my belief that sitting down with a photograph and copying every singe detail is far from being creative but I do accept that we all have different ways to achieve our end result.
For artists like Margaret and Carole to name just a couple of our members, both of whom produce some superb botanical work I can see every reason for working from a photo; both Sylvia and myself are simply expressing our own views which we are entitled to do.
On your comment relating to you adding more detail when working en-plein-air Michael, I am the complete opposite, I loosen up considerably and am very selective which is why that will always be my preferred choice as long as I remain mobile that is.
Posted
I copied for years, but often altered some thing or added - figures for instance. I give my grand daughter stuff to copy but now she chooses. It's excellent practice as far as I am concerned and I've done OK in my own little world.
Only last night I was talking about this sort of thing with friends (Yes I do have some) while on the way to Portsmouth to hear the BSO in concert. He is a superb photographer but she objects when he edits out telegraph poles and lines. I told her I included them, it what's there not what we imagine. Photos offer subjects and I use other artists subject, therefore I am using but not copying.
Posted
This has engendered quite a thread, hasn't it.....? Suggesting perhaps that many of us do use photographs. But it's the copying that's the issue, not the source of information - provided a photograph (preferably your own) is used just for reminding you of where things actually, as it were, go - it's not only useful but in many cases essential.
I'm having a bit of a problem with this at this very moment: I've been asked to paint a picture as a birthday present, of an area (on the Isle of Wight) which I've not visited for around 4 years, but of which I do have a few photographs. I'd much rather get out there and work from life, but it's just too remote - all sorts of practical difficulties arise when you can't drive and there's only pretty rotten public transport; and you can't walk far, and and and...... if I'd known a few months ago that I'd be asked to do this, I'd have got Derek Snowdon to drive me out there when he came to visit and sketch... But I didn't.
The practical problems are perhaps something you don't think about if you've no need to work from photos - to produce a recognizable painting of an area of landscape just from a photograph is actually very difficult, because while the camera picks up all sorts of things, the human eye doesn't, necessarily. With a photograph, everything gets the same degree of attention - your eye edits; so just looking at a photograph (and this will only make sense if you've tried it) gives you a rather poor idea of what you'd actually see if you were looking at the scene yourself; you don't know what you can just edit out, and what's essential to the identity of the landscape; you'd think it was just the big shapes, and certainly you've had it if you don't get those right, but it's also the way different elements work together that provide the identity. So buildings and clumps of trees have to be in more or less the right place if you include them at all; and you have to include some of them....
It is driving me just a little bit mad at the moment; and of course you can't, and shouldn't, rely on the colour of the photograph (memo to self: turn the photos into greyscale!).
Point is, while you'd think the island is a small place and it's easy to get to its various points of interest, without your own transport it's not so small after all - and if I don't use photographs, I'm never going to finish this painting in time. So it's a question of choice; and of consciously avoiding using the photographs to make a literal copy - I haven't got enough detail in the photos to do that anyway, and it would be a massive mistake if I could: it would look like a photograph with (perhaps) brush-strokes: and you might as well just buy one of those software applications which will turn your photos into the appearance of paintings (mind you, I think they look awful) and save everyone a lot of trouble. Unfortunately, the intended recipient would notice that, and not be at all pleased - so I continue to struggle, and hope I can turn something out which reminds him of the area in which he disported himself as a youth .... as you'll notice, I'm taking a rest from it at the moment!
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2