painting from photos
Karl Zipser
him, to paint from a photo "emphasizes the act of creation, bringing
life to something dead."
http://www.zipser.nl/2006/05/painting-from-death-bodner-on-creating.html
Robert Morpheal
only if it is valid to photograph paintings.
And, of course, that is true. It is valid to photograph paintings.
R.M.
May O. Naise
morp...@yahoo.com says...
>
>It is valid to paint from photographs,
>only if it is valid to photograph paintings.
>
>And, of course, that is true. It is valid to photograph paintings.
And whether or not either is valid, a "painting"
can be created with a computer without ever
having been painted - just print out whatever
was "created" on the computer monitor.
CB
"Robert Morpheal" <morp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147688730....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
reasonable assumption. Unfortunately, both of those conditions are violated,
so your statement is inane.
Please rewrite and try again.
CB
Robert Morpheal
methods and media
are right. They are not right.
Take digital and film photography as an example.
Some say digital is replacing film, and film photography is only to be
a historical
curiosity.
That is as foolish as it would be to say that oil painting replaces
watercolors and
watercolors are a thing of the ancient past, beginning with ochre on
cave walls. Oils
came later and surpassed aqueous pigments..
The fact is that digital is to film the way watercolors are to oils.
Different media.
The result is different. One cannot replace the other.
When you say painting using a computer the same problem occurs.
Digital "painting" is a different medium to drawing with other media.
I was amazed recently when a very famous print maker came all the way
from Scotland to Canada to..... guess what..... take a digital painted
image that had been digital printed and turn it into an image on
lithographic stone, to be printed using traditional methods. Madness.
It translates poorly from one medium into the other. It's peculiarities
are its one, inherent from its origins, its particular medium. To
attempt to replicate one medium into another, is a fool waste of
resources and time.
The whole thing of trying to make digital photographs that are exactly
the same as film photos is similarly a fool waste of time and also the
other way around, and yet some insist on trying to do it.
R.M.
CB
"Karl Zipser" <k...@zipser.nl> wrote in message
news:1147678401.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
More often than not, paintings done from photographs range aesthetically
somewhere between visual karaoke and jazz played with a drum machine
accompaniment. Occasionally a very good painter can pull it off (Renoir,
Lautrec, Richter all pulled it off in very different ways). Or maybe it's
more like sex with an inflatable doll, since one of the big missing factors
(which shows in the work you cite) is the sense of risk that arises from the
artist's confrontation with the world.
CB
Winston
"Dan Fox" <danfoxa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20060515121623.277$p...@newsreader.com...
> copy, and a photo has in reality very little visual information.
> experienced artists seem to use photos to advantage.
What about drawing/painting from paintings?
CB
"Winston" <winston...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:7Q8ag.200$0i4...@fe02.lga...
It's an excellent thing to do, as long you think about the decisions the
original artist made to reach their final result rather than simply trying
to copy the picture.It will give you insight into their work (and thereby
broaden yours) that you would never get sitting in a lecture, or reading
about it.
CB
Winston
"CB" <caldwell...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:699ag.8219$A26.2...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Photographers are artists too with intention and artistic purpose just like
painters are. And I think either source is a fine method of learning both
skill and intellectual depth. Although this method does have limits.
Winston
I think a lot of it has to do with how the artist in question deals with
photographic imagery. There is a difference btwn veiwing a gelatin silver
print as a photograph or an image.
Thur
> to be printed using traditional methods. Madness.
But how does this relate to your several references to
individuality and originality?
My feeling is that this attitude spawns the results.
How do we regard Monet's 40 odd pictures painted
of the same scene, Cezannes persistence in his single
hillock, Barnett Newman and his zips, Rothko and his
rectangles etc.?
How do we regard people who use paint, and who use
canvas, or those in general who use a flat image to make
art, or even those who persist in making art?
Where is the originality in this? Where will it all stop, and
where and how far do we get before someone admits that
it is a ridiculous notion that originality and individuality can
be self-conciously created?
--
Thur
CB
> Photographers are artists too with intention and artistic purpose just
like
> painters are. And I think either source is a fine method of learning both
> skill and intellectual depth. Although this method does have limits.
>
>
Sorry, I think from this and your other post that I wasn't being clear; I
meant no disrespect towards photography as art. I also think that a painter
or draughtsman can use photography as a source and a means for practice when
they understand they are drawing the photograph, not the subject matter of
the photograph, just as some one drawing from the sculpture of Venus de Milo
is usually drawing the sculpture, not the goddess.
Cheers;
CB
Bob C
> copy, and a photo has in reality very little visual information.
> experienced artists seem to use photos to advantage.
I think it can be very useful for a student to use photographs
(including photographs of drawings and paintings) as a way of focusing
on the development of technique and experimenting with different
approaches, but it certainly should not replace drawing from life. When
it comes to painting, some limited experience working from photographs
will help develop a basic familiarity with the materials which can make
working from life much more productive.
Every artist has different goals, motivations and ways of learning, but
I think most fine artists in the visual arts would be advised to develop
a strong background working from life before taking up the exclusive use
of photographs as source material. As you mention, however, once having
done so, many artists can and do use photographs to great advantage.
- Bob C.
May O. Naise
says...
>It's inadvisable for students to paint from photos
I couldn't disagree more! I taught myself to paint
using photos from various sources. Copying - whether
it be from photos, a master painting, or whatever is
just one way of learning, and a perfectly valid one.
In fact, it's only another form of copying when one
works from life - be that a still life, a model,
or a landscape. I agree that it's BETTER to work from
life because one sees the actual subject, but working
from photos is just as valid since the end product
is going to be flat and two-dimensional anyway.
Winston
>
> "Winston" <winston...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:awbag.497$0i4...@fe02.lga...
>> Photographers are artists too with intention and artistic purpose just
> like
>> painters are. And I think either source is a fine method of learning
>> both
>> skill and intellectual depth. Although this method does have limits.
>>
>>
>
> Sorry, I think from this and your other post that I wasn't being clear; I
> meant no disrespect towards photography as art.
None taken.
I also think that a painter
> or draughtsman can use photography as a source and a means for practice
> when
> they understand they are drawing the photograph, not the subject matter of
> the photograph, just as some one drawing from the sculpture of Venus de
> Milo
> is usually drawing the sculpture, not the goddess.
>
> Cheers;
> CB
>
>
That is really the point I was also trying to make. :)
Cheers
Winston
NightMist
wrote:
>
>More often than not, paintings done from photographs range aesthetically
>somewhere between visual karaoke and jazz played with a drum machine
>accompaniment. Occasionally a very good painter can pull it off (Renoir,
>Lautrec, Richter all pulled it off in very different ways). Or maybe it's
>more like sex with an inflatable doll, since one of the big missing factors
>(which shows in the work you cite) is the sense of risk that arises from the
>artist's confrontation with the world.
Heck with the philosophical stuff, I have seen otherwise good artists
screw up a painting majorly by not paying attention when working
between photos and life. Mind you I have done my share of this kind
of muck up, but I hope I caught the mistakes before sending the
paintings out!
For example, I recently saw a painting of a historical re-creation in
a magazine where the artist had photoed the site (indoors next to a
window), and then elsewhere a person dressed and posed appropriately.
She worked from life, sketches, and photos, and totaly blew the
lighting. She had the location light exactly as it was in the photo,
and the shadow on the figure exactly as it was in the other photo.
Oops!
Photographs can be an excellent resource. If you are doing a still
arrangement that is going to wilt or otherwise go to hell before you
finish they are invaluable. If you are doing a moment they stop time
for you. If you a painting a kid who is constantly in motion they are
a great help. If you are inventing figures they can help you keep
things in order. But you have to know enough in the first place to
make the painting live, because photos are almost always dead.
Barbara
--
The wolf that understands fire has much to eat.
drelyea
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/16/60minutes/main536814.shtml
Regards,
Don Relyea
http://www.donrelyea.com
CB
it. Certainly the use of lensed instruments affected the notion of truth in
art (especially in the Renaissance and Reformation, when there was a strong
belief that God's laws existed, were immutable, and that mankind could
discover them), but - as with the modern camera - it was never
overwhelmingly accepted. Nor will a lens make a good draughtsman out of a
poor one; check out Hockney's own drawings done using a camera obscura,
while a good draughtsman would probably just find it too much of a bother...
Cheers;
CB
"drelyea" <don.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147808410.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mani Deli
final image. If that attracts the viewer you have achieved your goal.
As to photos, those who can't draw won't get much help from photos.
no skill no art!
Mani Deli
>It's inadvisable for students to paint from photos because they tend to
>copy, and a photo has in reality very little visual information.
To anyone who schmiers like Fox.
Thur
and I am not going to try to further it.
In the interests of seemingly accepted data, I offer
this very short piece:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/art/vermeer_camera_01.shtml
A few artists were known for it.
p.s I read elsewhere that the Reynolds device was portable
enough to go into a suitcase.
Cheers,
--
Thur
CB
"Thur" <no-per...@z.com> wrote in message
news:dazag.205$UR3...@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
>
> There's no end to the Hockney suggestions debate,
> and I am not going to try to further it.
> In the interests of seemingly accepted data, I offer
> this very short piece:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/society_culture/art/vermeer_camera_01.shtml
> A few artists were known for it.
>
Definitely, & I don't have an issue with claims that Vermeer in particular
used one; after all, he was living in a time when Holland was lens-mad
almost the same way they were tulip-mad. But you'll also note that if you
compare Steadman's book on Vermeer with Hockney's book on the general use of
the camera obscura/lucida, the former is much more carefully considered
while Hockney's verges on fraud. That's not hyperbolic; if you take some of
his diagrams that purport to use the optical convergence of parallels to
provide a focal point, you'll see that his lines have been drawn to fit his
thesis rather than the other way round.
> p.s I read elsewhere that the Reynolds device was portable
> enough to go into a suitcase.
>
Probably, and there's always Durer's woodcut of an "Artist drawing a Seated
Man" (in the British Museum here's a link to a page with a tiny image of it:
http://www.npg.org.uk/live/perspectivedrawmac.asp), using a table top sized
device that could be easily made portable, and which would give the artist
even more freedom to manipulate the image in a mathematically consistent
manner. But again I think that unless one is deliberately aiming for that
sort of a reproduction, it's hardly worth the bother. Some of course
(Canaletto for example) acheived spectacular results, but I would argue that
in those cases the beauty of their work resulted more from their general
artistic capabilities than from the use of a optical devices.
Cheers;
CB
gonzadavid
develoupmment.
Mani Deli
>There's no end to the Hockney suggestions debate,
>and I am not going to try to further it.
The reason Hockney made such a big splash is because most modern
artists, students and public are stupendously ill informed. Anybody
who studied art with someone who really teaches is fully aware of all
the aids available. Most are available in any large art store and all
have been amply described in all sorts of old books.
Hockney's non-revelation leads many students who are exposed to
nothing but ignorant teachers to falsely conclude that the reason
great artists could draw so well was because they used optical aids.
This further leads to the destructive idea that they needn't learn to
draw and that if they really wanted to, they need only get the proper
aids. Believe me its BS.
ABOUT ALL ANY OF THESE AIDS CAN DO IS LITTLE MORE THAN ALLOW YOU TO
TRACE LINES. Even for that you have to know how to draw in order to
trace the right lines.It's a great time saver for getting placement
and
proportion. It will not help with filling in the rest of the picture
and is almost useless to someone who can't draw.
Bob C
>...
> Hockney's non-revelation leads many students who are exposed to
> nothing but ignorant teachers to falsely conclude that the reason
> great artists could draw so well was because they used optical aids.
> This further leads to the destructive idea that they needn't learn to
> draw and that if they really wanted to, they need only get the proper
> aids. Believe me its BS.
>
> ABOUT ALL ANY OF THESE AIDS CAN DO IS LITTLE MORE THAN ALLOW YOU TO
> TRACE LINES. Even for that you have to know how to draw in order to
> trace the right lines.It's a great time saver for getting placement
> and proportion.
This is the flip side of the equation. Many students and non-artists
have been led to believe that the ability to get proper placement and
proportion is the one and only measure of skill, and that using any aid
to help in achieving this is cheating. I've seen many students working
so hard to get correct placement and proportion that they never learn
anything about how to make their drawings beautiful. I've also seen
plenty of them waste a great deal of time finishing paintings whose
underlying drawing was flawed because they believed that they had to do
the drawing by hand and couldn't use any aid to fix it up and get the
basic placement and proportions correct.
So I think that many students can benefit from being made aware of the
extent to which artists have used such aids, but as with any type of
instruction, it's ultimately the responsibility of the student to use
the information in a productive manner (freeing themselves from the
burden of "not cheating") rather than a counterproductive one (using it
as an excuse not to learn how to draw).
- Bob C.