Life vs Photo

[Marvin Mattelson]

Vianna,

Sorry but the whole point of this thread is to underscore the idea that working from photos is a valuable tool that when used correctly and this intelligent use can actually enhance the end result. If someone feels that working from a photo is "soul sucking" for them, that's fine. However it's not a logical indictment of the process for one and all, nor does it make a compelling argument for it's avoidance.

It's my experience that using photos doesn't have to be the equivalent of selling out. There are numerous posts, on this forum, bashing the use of photo reference. I chose not to interact on those threads and spoil the party by presenting a dissenting view. So therefore, I'm presenting my alternative point of view here.

The point of this thread is to present a rational discussion about the intelligent use of photo reference, and in particular to point up that good painting is a function of making appropriate decisions and utilizing well thought out strategies. The reason I started this thread is to go beyond the idea that any one particular methodology is "The Way".

I'm sure that working from memory has it's uses too, but it all comes back to purpose. Henri may have used it to his satisfaction (and yours) but for me personally, I much prefer to embrace the work of Henri's teacher Bouguereau. Bouguereau employed working from life, plein air studies, and using photo reference when appropriate. The key here is "when" appropriate.

If we look back through history we can find numerous examples of artists using every and anything at their disposal to advance their paintings to a higher order. I do believe that the idea of being a purist is much more of a modern rationale.

[Julie Deane]

If I don't have that understanding of what I see and try to translate it into paint then I will have a painting that is poorly executed, no matter how faithfully I copy a photo.

I'm presently working from photos, and realizing once again the limitations. But without those photos, I would not be able to work at all, because the subject would never sit for me.

It's been an education, because I've been trying to analyze what I'm seeing from what I can best term a "sculptor" point of view. What part of the face/figure projects frontward most and now can I describe that information in terms of color intensity, edges, etc? From where is that light coming and on what portions of the face should the light be resting? What units of the face can I describe as belonging to the same area and what parts should I differentiate?

Marvin, much of what I am trying to do is a direct result of studying with you, so thank you. Thanks, too, to you SOG members, who faithfully give critiques to struggling artists. Sometimes I need to hear a message from multiple sources before I start seeing for myself.

I could work from life all day long, but without an understanding of what I'm seeing, I will not get far.

I could work from photos all day long, but without an understanding of what I'm seeing, I will not get far at all.

[Allan Rahbek]

Marvin,
I want to thank you for your serious, balanced post on this controversial subject.

I, my self, use both photo references and work from life and find that the shift from one to the other adds to the whole.

The only interesting difference is between good and less good, but that might be a real taboo, I guess.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Thanks Alan and Julie for your input. It amazes me how passionately some artists are in lashing out at photography. As I've stated before, I find it very useful to incorporate photos with direct observation.

I feel that if artists can truly master the camera they would be amazed at how useful it could be. I believe that painting is a process of editing out impertinent information. We need to do this whether we work from life or from photos. The problem arises when the photos we use are of poor quality and we are forced into a situation where the choices are therefore made for us.

Criticizing photography is like criticizing the use of chopsticks. Once mastered either can offer a unique dining perspective.

[Tom Edgerton]

Marvin's point is well made, but you REALLY have to hear what he's saying. The camera is just another tool. If you master it, it becomes as fluid a tool as your favorite brush, and the possibilities for creativity are no less than with any other approach. But you have to dedicate yourself to the same mastery of it as you seek with brushes and paint. The guiding principle is that you will only be as creative and visionary as your weakest link will allow.

Perfunctory work with a camera will result in a perfunctory painting. I've made this mistake often enough to know it's true. The camera won't tap you on the shoulder and tell you to look at something from a higher or lower angle, for instance. If you imbue the camera with a creative mind it doesn't have, you do indeed relinquish your responsibility and your soul as an artist.

I've seen truly stunning photographs that beat the artistic pants off of mediocre paintings. Tools are neutral, skills are not. And tools aren't skills--we shouldn't confuse the two. The heart isn't in the camera (or not), it's behind it.

[Chris Saper]

Beautifully stated, Tom.

[Michele Rushworth]

Well put, Tom!

(Chris, you and I must have been reading this post and typing the same thought at the same time. )