Painting from photograph vs. live scene
James Choi
I have another question to professional painters out there.
Do you prefer to paint from a photograph or from a live scene? What are
the advantages of one or the other? It seems to me a photograph will be
more consistent and reliable source. But, what do I know.
James Choi
Jacob Mattison
Boy, am I so not a professional painter. But I'll take a crack at this, if
you're interested in an art student point of view.
I often paint from photographs, and they are, as you say, a consistent
source. They're a good way, for example, to paint people in a natural
setting without requiring your models to sit there with coffee cup halfway
to lip or whatever moment it is you're capturing. But there are problems
associated as well.
Take a look at the work of some of the photorealist painters, such as
Richard Estes, to see what I'm talking about. Photographs don't really look
like reality, they look like photographs. There's a tendency to flatten
forms, and other problems associated with the one-eyed non-moving
perspective of the camera. Now I'm not criticizing Richard Estes, by the
way, because this is really what his work is about. But if you're working
in a more "realist" vein, I find it useful to also draw sketches of the
scene as well as taking several slightly different photographs. And also
practice painting from reality so you get used to portraying forms in space
and so on. Then you'll be able to take the photograph and see back to the
reality. Otherwise you'll end up with paintings that look like photographs,
which, trust me, is probably not what you want.
Now, this is the first posting in a while on this board that talks about
more theoretical aspects of painting and I for one would be happy to see it
generate all sort of discussion. So what do you think?
Other questions:
Is it plagiarism to paint from a photograph taken by someone else? I never
do it, but I just prefer to take my own.
Do people who paint from photographs prefer to use color or black and
white? The colors in a color photograph are never quite right, and I
usually change them anyway, myself.
Another interesting question is the use of photographs for non-realist
painting. A friend of mine takes photographs and actually projects them
onto the canvas while he's painting, but he takes such weird, out-of-focus
photos, and fools with them so much, that the paintings are more abstract
than anything.
Well, I've gone on at length, which is typical for artists. I'll stop now.
Jacob
--
Jacob Mattison |There's a land that I see
jmat...@cc.swarthmore.edu |Where the children are free
ja...@cs.swarthmore.edu |And I say it ain't far
love me,love me,love me,I'm a liberal |To this land from where we are
LM...@psuvm.psu.edu
Currently I am a Computer Operator here at Penn State, but I do have an
extensive art background, receiving most of my training at Carnegie-Mellon.
So, let me take a stab at these questions.
In article <3TYJ...@cc.swarthmore.edu>, ja...@cs.swarthmore.edu (Jacob
Mattison) says:
>
>Other questions:
>Is it plagiarism to paint from a photograph taken by someone else? I never
>do it, but I just prefer to take my own.
>
No, as long as the resulting art work is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the
photograph. I will be the first to admit that this statement leads to alot
of broad interpretations. Personal, if I do a piece that references a
photograph, I am always sure to mention it. I believe in credit where credit
is due.
>Do people who paint from photographs prefer to use color or black and
>white? The colors in a color photograph are never quite right, and I
>usually change them anyway, myself.
>
Personally, I agree with what you said earlier in your posting. Photographs
should be used more as a reference for a piece of artwork. The art work
should NOT depend on one photo alone. It should be accompanied with
with sketches and such. The better you understand what you are looking at the
better the result of your work. Therefore, for me at least, it doesn't
really matter.
>Another interesting question is the use of photographs for non-realist
>painting. A friend of mine takes photographs and actually projects them
>onto the canvas while he's painting, but he takes such weird, out-of-focus
>photos, and fools with them so much, that the paintings are more abstract
>than anything.
>
Gee, it that definately sounds like his interpretation to me :-)
>Well, I've gone on at length, which is typical for artists. I'll stop now.
Ditto, just ask Ma Bell :-)
Laurie Salopek
LMS5 at PSUVM
Annick Ansselin
>Do you prefer to paint from a photograph or from a live scene? What are
>the advantages of one or the other? It seems to me a photograph will be
>more consistent and reliable source. But, what do I know.
My watercolour instructor (from last year) who is a professional artist
uses both. He does a preliminary sketch/painting on site, takes several
photographs (for light and placement etc.) then later uses both to do the
final painting.
He says he finds the on-hand is essential for him, to establish mood and
focus on a particular subject. The photographs are very useful for lighting
at that particular time.
Craig Marcus
|> Is it plagiarism to paint from a photograph taken by someone else? I never
|> do it, but I just prefer to take my own.
|> painting. A friend of mine takes photographs and actually projects them
|> onto the canvas while he's painting, but he takes such weird, out-of-focus
|> photos, and fools with them so much, that the paintings are more abstract
|> than anything.
You seem to be searching for what the rules of the game are.
There are none. For artwork, the ends totally justify the
means. If you have a magnificent finished product (whatever
that is), I don't care if you accomplished it by pasting
a photo to your canvas and traced, hired children or your
pet orangutan to dance on it w/ paint, or tied up 3 old ladies
and had them aim large paint-laden squirt guns at it.
When it is done, it will either stand on its own merits, ie
take on a life of its own, or (as is usually the case) will
instantly be seen as merely a silly concoction of the plastic
materials that went into its making.
Craig Marcus
Carnegie Mellon University.
Marc Kevin Fischer
>>Is it plagiarism to paint from a photograph taken by someone else? I never
>>do it, but I just prefer to take my own.
You better believe it's plagiarism and I'd recommend taking a good look
at some legal journals before even thinking about it. Not only do
paintings from photos often come out looking a bit on the flat side,
there is an extensive history of lawsuits filed by photographers who
feel their chosen form of expression has been severely violated by
painterly interpretation. Also should you contemplate working from
photographs you've taken yourself, note that processing firms,
particularly major ones like Kodak have been known to demand royalties
from any proceeds made through the sales of paintings derived from
photos they've developed and printed. Really I'd suggest either buying a
darkroom, or just painting from observation like the true masters (Bob
Ross) and save yourself the worry of legal hassels. Good luck - Marc
Melynda Reid
In article <1992May11.0...@news.acns.nwu.edu> (rec.arts.fine), pha...@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (James Choi) writes:
>
> I have another question to professional painters out there.
>
> the advantages of one or the other? It seems to me a photograph will be
> more consistent and reliable source. But, what do I know.
>
a photograph fixes the light. it also tends to flatten the planes in a work.
the depth perceived by the eye is greater than the the depth a camera can
capture. painting from life requires a painter to translate from three-dimensions
into two-dimensions. this act of translation trains the eye to see more clearly.
painting from a photograph can help a beginner to build confidence. it reduces
the problems of working in a two-dimensional medium. but the camera and the
eye do not capture reality the same. i happen to teach beginners by taking
them on field trips to gardens and parks or by setting up still lifes from
which they can paint.
i do not work from photographs unless a subject is either dead or extinct.
the depth cues in a photograph can be misleading. i draw from life. and i
recommend that beginners avoid using photographs exclusively as it interferes
with the ability to pay attention to light cues and colour patterns in real
life.
eyes. in photographs eyes often pick up the points of flashes or light sources
used to take the picture. in real life those same eyes might not show any
bright little spots. some animals and birds have eyes which show up only in
photos but are imperceptible to an observer in the field.
colour saturation. the colours in real life vastly exceed the colours available
to a photographer or painter. the colours in a photograph may not convey the
experience of the real life scene.
the most important thing to learn in art is how to continue to paint. if a
photograph helps you paint more paintings then use photographs---but try to
use photos you take yourself plus quick on site sketches and colour studies.
real life scenes can expose you to rain, sun, mosquitoes in your paints, wild
animals and so on. i have had a covey of quail walk on a wet water-colour
painting. i have had snakes slither into my lap while i was drawing a rare
wild flower. i have tripped over an alligator on my way to sketch a rare aster.
i have had butterflies drink from my brushes. it is more challenging to paint
on site. but rainy days do interfere somewhat with productivity.
a painting tends to presuppose some purpose or focal point in the work. i
have noticed that beginners will try to paint in great detail from a photograph
everywhere on a painting. in real life the eye will not pick up detail from
all parts of the picture at once. if you do use a photograph think of it as
an outline or shorthand version of a much different work, your painting. decide
what you want to convey or where you want the viewer to look. it is quite
alright to not know what you want to accomplish but such questions can help
you use a photograph to create a painting which really conveys the experience
of the live scene.
good luck with your painting. remember that even the best of painters started
out once as beginners. and some of the greatest painters regarded themselves
always as learners.
melynda claire reid
melynda reid who wears hats but does not type caps
eel: mel...@titipu.meta.com or nosc.mil!titipu.meta.com!melynda
snail: p o box 378 greensboro, florida 32330
marcie
Phooey...photos have been used since their invention. Degas painted from
photos, and so did Francis Bacon. So did Warhol...that's just the start.
Unless you plan on becoming a superstar :) I wouldn't worry about it. And
then, I wouldn't worry about it, either. Superstars don't get there by
mundane plagarism and if you are painting something for your bedroom or
your Aunt Edna...who gives a hoot? Paint what you like to paint. That's
good advice from a master: Picasso. BTW, Bob Ross is a hack. Ackkk!!!
Bob Ross hasn't painted from a true observation in years. He is a method
painter just like his teacher, Alexander. If you want to see true observation,
look at Charlie Burchfield. (w/c specific, here.)
The whole point of not painting from photographs is that the product tends to
be uninteresting if you don't know what you are doing. Paint something
interesting or make an interesting painting! That's the whole idea. Most
professional artists don't paint from photos because they consider the process
boring. Sort of like rewriting War and Peace verbatim... However, if you are
only after a likeness, like a portraitist who has to make a living, the photo
can be a useful tool, when combined with skill and experience.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
888*********88888********88888********88888********88888********88888******8888
Marcie email : mwa...@utkvx3.utk.edu
888*********88888********88888********88888********88888********88888******8888
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Kevin Fischer
- Obviously I was joking here. Surely zillions of people have produced
profound images that relied heavily on photographs. Francis Bacon is one
of the better examples. - Marc