Photo trap?

[Linda Brandon]

[QUOTE=Allan Rahbek]

What I had in mind was the "frozenness" of action and the accidental meetings of lines and forms. For instance a shadow taking the role of an independent figure. I see it all the time and believe it

[Linda Brandon]

And another thing. Life is wet and death (or, maybe in a broader sense, non-life) is dry. Life is fluid, in all senses of the word, both in terms of movement and actual wetness.

Photographs tend to dry out subjects and painters need to put it back in. In this respect we need not add electricity to provide animation; rather, it's a question of hydration.

Sincerely,
Dr. Frankenstein

[Sharon Knettell]

Originally Posted by Linda Brandon

And another thing. Life is wet and death (or, maybe in a broader sense, non-life) is dry. Life is fluid, in all senses of the word, both in terms of movement and actual wetness.

Photographs tend to dry out subjects and painters need to put it back in. In this respect we need not add electricity to provide animation; rather, it's a question of hydration.

Benson used photos, so did Degas.

I think it is a question of point of view. They used photos as springboard for their paintings, not as something to copy slavishy. "See Mom! Doesn't this look really real!"

As artists our fragile egos are sometimes so battered we need the affirmation of the public when they see just how close to an idea of reality we have come. "Oh you are so talented" ! What we hope for is not the dreaded phrase, " It's so real it looks just like a photograph"!

I find it extremely difficult to work from life. As I did not have any classical training my mistakes are time consuming, expensive and frustrating. I cannot always afford the luxury but I find the effort worth it as it informs some of the work I do from photos, both in color, light and especially style.

But in retrospect, I think we have to let go of the idea of mistakes, that does not mean reverting to carelessness or crudeness. After a while it can get boring and academic chasing the really really real, whatever that is.

I think a picture that has the most life bursting from it comes from an artist who is willing to be his or her most genuine, not reverting trickery or dishonesty just to beguile an audience.

Oh, to be able to accomplish that! We so want to be adored! At least I do!

Sincerely,
Dr. Frankenstein

[Allan Rahbek]

Dr. F.

The life arise between to contrasting points, as you may know Mr. Frankenstein, who gave life by lightning.

Animators too give life by connecting differing positions, or showing them in one scene.

When painting from live model the expression will be the sum of many impressions. In that way you allmost allways compromice and implantate some imposibilities. Like a sculpter that create tension by stretching the figure so that it holds to positions. I am thinking of Rodin

[Sharon Knettell]

[QUOTE=Allan Rahbek]Dr. F.

The life arise between to contrasting points, as you may know Mr. Frankenstein, who gave life by lightning.

Animators too give life by connecting differing positions, or showing them in one scene.

When painting from live model the expression will be the sum of many impressions. In that way you allmost allways compromice and implantate some imposibilities. Like a sculpter that create tension by stretching the figure so that it holds to positions. I am thinking of Rodin

[Linda Brandon]

Just so you know where I am in this life and/or photo reference debate, I have to say here that I have done very few commissioned oil portraits without using photos. Someday I hope to find the time and the clientele who will sit for me for the time it will take to develop an oil painting with the degree of finish and the level of likeness that will satisfy all parties. (Plus, I had better pick up more talent at doing this somewhere along the line.)

When I was talking about life and wetness, I was thinking that most photographs don't seem to pick up the subtle moisture and reflections of living surfaces, human skin in particular. I think this comes across better when observed in person. I'm looking at the Nelson Shanks portrait on the cover of the recent Artists magazine as I type this; I don't know whether he painted this woman from life or from photos but that skin just pulses with life.

Jeff, there's an old post of Peggy's in which she discusses movement in her portraits. I think it's a portrait of a little boy standing up. If I have time tomorrow I'll search around for it, it's an interesting discussion.


Allan and Sharon, you've given me a lot to think about, and thank you. I like the idea of tension between two points.

Sharon, you can be Dr. Frankenstein, but can I then be Igor? Or was he the goof-off who came back with the wrong brain?

[Linda Brandon]

Originally Posted by Linda Brandon

Jeff, there's an old post of Peggy's in which she discusses movement in her portraits. I think it's a portrait of a little boy standing up. If I have time tomorrow I'll search around for it, it's an interesting discussion.

I found it this morning. Peggy discusses movement and "the potential for movement" in her lovely portrait of Jackson, linked below:

http://forum.portraitartist.com/showthread.php?t=474

[Sharon Knettell]

Linda,

It is a dilemma. How to get a client to sit. Mostly you can't, unless your reputation is so huge patrons are banging down the doors. My doors are completely intact.

I decided several years ago that I did want my clients to sit. On my last commissioned piece I told them that even though I was taking photos I wanted some sittings.

After the photos were taken the clients said that they would not sit after all. As this was for myself and my portrait rep a huge commission and as I had hired at great expense a photographer ,I was, to wit, a rat trapped. I finished the paintings to their great delight, not to mention my reps. However something had died for me after that experience. I have not and could not do another paid portrait like that again. My requirements are that they sit, as I want them, period. My calender is empty.

But that is my nature, my decision.

I would never to presume or judge the quality of another's work as to whither it was done from photos or from life. Some work interpreted from photos can be exquisite, see Marvin Mattleson's latest oeuvre, and some done from life, horrendous.

The reason I perhaps press for more work done from life is that I see so much work that is so obviously copied from photos. They are just renderings, "See Ma, I am a portrait artist"! There has to be some attempt at studying the human form in a classical manner, before you get to work from photos. So much is missed and so much of the work today looks alike.

Need I mention I have an 18 year old car and a cranky tapped husband. When I met him I was making big bucks as an illustrator. Imagine his surprise now!

My point of view is not , kiddies, a formula for success!

I think Igor would do, by the way your self portrait is gorgeous!

Sincerely,

[Allan Rahbek]

Linda,

Looking at Nelson Shanks

[Linda Brandon]

Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell

I think Igor would do, by the way your self portrait is gorgeous!

Thank you, Sharon, for this kind comment. Your good opinion means a lot to me.

Are you familiar with Sargent's "Dr. Pozzi At Home"? It's one of my favorite paintings and I was trying to get similar reds in the background of my self portrait.