Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
When is art, art?
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
As a newbie to POL I am finding myself amazed at the incredible art being produced by all the members and it's causing me to reflect on what art is. I do not considered myself to be an artist and have never called myself an artist because, in my eyes, I do not create "art" .... I copy. Armed with a reference photo I do no more than copy the image in front of me.
Last weekend I was discussing/debating this matter with my daughter and she brought up some interesting analogies from the music world, like musicians only playing what a composer has created. This had me pondering over whether copying pictures is really art. Doesn't art involve creating something new? Is the 'art' involved in copying a photo really that of the photographer rather than the 'copier'? Is applying a little "artistic licence" to modify a scene sufficient to call the new work "art"?
I'd be really interested in what others think.
Posted
Interesting question John. I'm not sure how art is taught in fine art colleges. I do know that, I have made my own studies of artwork and used reference photos as a learning tool. I do create my own artwork also but this has only been enabled by all the practice and own studies. I'm sure those who are academically trained in fine arts, will be able to answer your question more in depth.
Posted
Well now - what, to start with, do you mean by copying? You may, for instance, draw or paint from photographs - for which there can be many reasons, from disability (not being able to get out of the house), to lack of confidence (not wishing to be seen in public trying out your drawing skills and fearing comment from "my four year old daughter/son/cocker spaniel could do that" types; I have a range of salty answers to such comments which I shall be delighted to share if required...
That is only copying if you're trying to reproduce the photograph in its every detail (an extremely difficult thing to do, because the tones and colours in photographs actually mislead a painter: a black and white, or sepia image is somewhat more helpful). There are many artists who make use of photos - the trick is not to just reproduce them, but to adapt them; and the best way I know to do that is to sketch from the photo; put the photo away; and work from your sketch.
Painting out in the open, or from an image you've gone out into the countryside or town to draw and then come home to paint, certainly isn't copying.
In either case - you're still an artist; what you're doing is still art. It may be good art, it may be bad - sometimes that's a subjective judgement; often it isn't - that is, you can see some pieces of work that are obviously from an inexperienced hand, or a very clumsy one which can't draw a straight line, or sphere, without a ruler or plastic template: clumsy in this case isn't a pejorative word; some of us have essential tremor, some have arthritis in their hands, some of us have MS or have had strokes; so can't help being awkward/clumsy. Still artists, though. A good definition of an artist is "one who practises one or more arts": nothing about good, bad or indifferent in that. We're all having a go, in the wider meaning of "practising": and those who do are, I submit, your Honour, artists.
Posted
I don't think copying a photo is a bad thing; I've just posted a picture of Melton Mowbray station in 1954, before I was born, so the only way to do it accurately is from a photo. The painting hasn't ended up looking exactly like the photo, I can't paint like that and I don't want to, but as a starting point it was essential. I still consider my painting to be a work of art. Others may disagree!!
Edited
by Peter Smith
Posted
I agree with Peter and Robert. Back in February I made a painting based on a view of Ebbw Vale steelworks in 1963. They have long gone so my painting is an impression of the view, sufficiently different from the original photograph to make it my own work. I think you should treat photographs as a source of reference and not slavishly try to copy it. Also mixing images from various sources gives you a chance to create an imaginary piece which you’d never see in reality, e.g. a bull in a china shop would be difficult to photograph, but you could create a painting using stock photos of bulls and shops.
Posted
Use reference photos however you like. I use them frequently, although I prefer to make things up. The problem with that is you fall into the trap of doing things the same way. So, sometimes I'll use a selfie. This is why I'm often drawing wrinkly oldies, because I have a model who works cheap. (And I find it more interesting drawing older faces.)
Here's a sketch I did for a proposed painting, I decided to use a selfie for it. I'm always pulling faces at my camera, and also sometimes my shaving mirror sat on my art desk. Am I copying? Yes. No. Doesn't bother me either way. I use what I want from the reference. In this case I've changed a lot, including the angle of the head.
Decided not to go ahead with the painting. It was going to be a fantasy pic in gouache...the sketch is with dip-pen. Nobody is going to confuse my photo with my drawing. (Except everybody now.)
Decided not to go ahead with the painting. It was going to be a fantasy pic in gouache...the sketch is with dip-pen. Nobody is going to confuse my photo with my drawing. (Except everybody now.)
Posted
Oh Lew you vain man you have given yourself hair and pointy ears ...your nose is a tad exaggerated.
I have recently been asked to do a drawing/ sketch of a friends grand children..they live in France so no way can I produce anything without a photograph.
My joy has always been to paint in situ to draw a model from life ,to set up my own still life....use my own photographs. My preference.
I have been quite enthralled by photographs on the internet especially a site re Scenery in Scotland. One I saw a few weeks ago of a wild sea I wanted to paint. So I asked the photographer and she was more than happy. I did not copy it exactly there is no point but have used it as an inspire .
We all need reference or how do I know the colour of a monkeys bum.
My eye probs are deteriorating so anything I " copy " has my own slant on it anyhow.
I think it's a courtesy to ask and acknowledge ..... sorry for the whinge....but it's taken me an age to read this thread. It will be interesting to see what I turn out with the grand children pic.
This is my take on The Wave....mmmm might add a bird ot a fish.
Posted
I really like this painting Sylvia, the colours are perfect. I can see things within the wave which I doubt you intended but maybe I am losing the plot! Anyway I think it’s great
What do I see? A man on right side and another at top center! He looks quite worried as you would be in that position!