On Not Painting - or Drawing - from Photographs
"And as every kid from the third grade on knows, a photograph is a poor substitute for the actual real-life, visual experience. If you want to develop your vision and if you want to grow, paint from nature – at least for a good 20 years."I can't argue with that at all. However, when he concludes:
And from the Broken Record Department, I would do a thousand still lives before I would commit artistic suicide with a photograph. Or paint the feet of someone next to you – unless you are able to enjoy your next dinner engagement from a two dimensional image. No smells, no cacophony of chatter, no banter, no annoyance, no space in which to express or assert. No moments in which to soar and fail, no life. The problem, of course, is not so much that we went wrong – with the practice of working from photographs, that is. Or that we are not asking the question, “Where did we go wrong?” The problem is that we, as visual artists, are not actively destroying the situation that requires this dead make-believe and, as authentic human beings, not knowing the delight of such sedition.... I felt a little rankle of unease. Jerry is certainly passionate about his beliefs. My understanding of his article is that he believes that paint on canvas can, if executed from life, convey the experience of life in a way that no photograph can. And that the camera lens automatically divorces the artist from any experience of life, and makes their image barren and worthless. And indeed, that the artist - his last line suggests - should actively destroy any ethos that suggests that to paint from a photograph is valid.
I'd be pretty keen to see what art photographers have to say about this statement. I could write paragraphs on the subject of the photograph as an artistic medium in its own right, but I doubt it is necessary. As for drawing from photographs? Yes, of course it is problematic. You can't see the depth of field, hear the birds, feel the breeze. You are locked into the photographer's point of view through a single eye. But that is where your imagination comes in. You know how a face looks in three dimensions. You've heard your subject laugh and you know how their mouth curls a little more at the corners. You've seen that bird take flight, sensed the energy as they are about to launch. You've smelt the new-mown grass. To imagine that the artist is a dull automaton, robotically copying the image and bringing no life or experience to it, deeply underestimates the power of the creative impluse.
I think drawing and painting from a photograph is akin to playing a written piece of music. I might never know what inspired Schubert, to hear the sounds in his head as he heard them. All I have are dots on a stave, the occasional marking suggesting soft or loud. But as I play the notes, I get a sense of the spirit they need, and give them the emotion and color that is absent on the printed page. Creativity indeed comes from the heart, not the eyes. But that two-dimensional page, be it a sketch, a photograph, or a sheet of music, might be the only way I have to share my vision.
Comments
I find working from good photographs is helpful in a few ways: Practice, technique and reference. I have found that it has helped me to notice and identify similar textures, colours and shapes in nature. It has also helped me in seeing tone values. The main thing is to develop observation skills for the real thing.
l draw from photographs, can not aford a
model to pose for me and do not have the time to walk a round, all though in the near future this will change, l think Pete is right for practice etc it helps, plus it comes down to preference.
I draw from photos a lot, for all the reasons that the previous commenters have given, though I draw from life as well and appreciate that you get so much from that that you can’t from a 2-d image. I like your comparison to sheet music, because I’ve often thought of drawing from a photo as being like singing a song by someone else. It’s not the same as writing an original piece of music, but it’s absurd to say that Frank Sinatra or Pavarotti committed artistic suicide by singing other people’s compositions. Any time someone expresses himself as dogmatically as Fresia does here, I pretty much automatically dismiss the validity of what he has to say, because life is rarely that black-and-white. Personally, I think that Fresia’s rigid, moralistic thinking here is more inimical to the spirit of art than mere copying will ever be.
I doubt I have 20 years. he he he
Lyn
I’m one of those who use photographs — my own. I don’t feel that I’ve crippled myself in any way, nor have I sacrificed artistic integrity. As others have stated, I haven’t the cash to spend on a model, and I am disabled as well, so it’s difficult for me to get out.
It sounds to me as though Jerry takes himself a little too seriously
The evidence is pretty solid that Vermeer used photographs in completing his paintings. I’d say that pretty much ends the discussion on whether photographs should be used in creating paintings.
There is an artist called Istvan Sandorfi who works exlusivly from photos. He stages very elaborate set-ups with models, mostly nude females, then photographs them, then projects them on a blank wall, really big (probably larger than life size), sets his canvas up and paints. If you’ve never seen his paintings, check them out, they are simply ASTONISHING
I also agree with the comments. Many successfull artist use photographs. What about the photorealists from the late 1960’s and 70’s. Artists such as Chuck Close and Robert Bechtle create amazing works full of life. They work with slides projected onto their canvas. In my opinion there many ways to create art and each artist has to find out what works for him or her.
I think if artists do as much from life as possible (like sketching in a food court or while waiting at the doctor’s) it’s so immediate and helpful. However, photographs help jog the memory, and really come in handy for those of us who are “night owls” and can’t draw in the dark!
“jog the memory”, exactly!
Especially if you took the photo or where there, as a visual person, one would certainly have a strong memory of what the reality was like.
I understand where Mr. Fresia is coming from, so I agree from life may be better. However, I think if one has a deep understanding of things s/he is drawing it will make up for other things that may not be present unless the model/scene is live.
My current subject of interest for sketching is pet rats…photos are pretty much mandatory
Linda
I agree. Photos can be very helpful in drawing or painting subjects. I have a huge collection of ref. photos that I have taken myself.
Also, let me note, that copying someone else’s photo exactly for your art is copyright infringment. But, as an artist, you should never copy anything. That’s why you have an imagination.
Alina
Bravo, Helen,
I totally agree with your comments about imagination coming in to assist if one must (or wants to) draw/paint from photo’s or partially from photos.
I thought you punched a hole in a “windbag” in a gentle diplomatic way. I am not so tactful I know and am really tired of “artistic” snobs who think their way is the only way!
I agree, using your own photographs is definitely the way to go, if you are going to use them. So much composition happens in the camera lens. Alina, even coping ‘in-exactly’ is copyright infringement if the image is not public domain (see my article on the topic of copyright).
Thank you for the kudos, Myrt! I like to think Mr Fresia wasn’t being a snob, I’m sure he’s just very passionate about people creating powerful, emotional art. Which is fine. But it concerns me if it discourages beginners from using a helpful tool or makes them think there are ‘rights and wrongs’ that they should worry about.
As Chris and Pat mentioned, there are many artists who use photographs as an integral part of their process.
I also think that painting and drawing can function in different ways and be about different things – it -can- be about that isolated snapshot view, the purely visual. It can be intellectual and cool, and it might explore the way we do so often experience life through a lens. Just for starters!
I have seen photographs used badly in drawings; it can be a real problem when young artists haven’t learned to observe the three dimensional world, and their drawings from photographs tend to be very flat. At the same time, drawing from photographs often teaches people to observe light and shade, and detail, that is difficult to do from life, when so much visual information can swamp you.
Howcome folks get so riled up and defensive about working using photographs but never about working from a pile of apples on a table top?
I work from photographs for my outdoor scenes and subjects, as they are underwater! I love to illustrate ocean scenes and creatures, but it sure is tough to get the pencil & paper to work well deep in the ocean. I would be lost without photo references for this type of work!
Lol Josh, I’ve wondered that myself a time or two!
Photographs (esp. black & white) have long been a source of beauty and mystery to me. Now that I am drawing and painting as a creative outlet, they are also a source of inspiration (and memory!). The problem is not that I can see and feel the life in them, but that mr. Fresia cannot. It’s OK for me that he does not use photographs for his art; however, I have no tolerence for his dogmatic opinion that my art, and that of countless others is less meaningfull because we do use them.
No problems from photos
If anyone’s not seen the recent issue of the Smithsonian Magazine (April), there is a terrific piece on the great realist portrait painter, Thomas S. Buechner (b. New York, 1926). The author of the piece is Buechner’s cousin, who agrees to sit for a portrait. Upon arriving for the first day of sitting, the first thing Buechner says is, “The first step is to take some photograhs of you.” Great piece; check it out..
Cheers;
Chris
THE END RESULT IS THE ANSWER;IT IS OR IS NOT,OR THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING.
Note to Sean; it’s not “mere” copying. It’s copying, it’s what little children (and some big children) do when they wish they could draw the world. They find a picture that already exists and they copy it. A copy of an image that is taken with a camera is not the same thing as a drawing that is made from an Artist’s eye and hand.
I agree, the proof is indeed in the pudding. I wish I’d seen that Smithsonian magazine – I wonder if our library has a subscription.
I agree with Carol Cox.
Draw and paint from photographs, first of all is easier than from natural. I mean that you can have the “object” there for as long time as you want. In drawing from natural, you have not this luxurious factor. You have to convert 3 dimensions into 2, not, just, to tranfer a 2D image to… 2D ! Drawing and painting from natural is much more complicated.
About Istvan Sandorfi and other painters of his method, actually, they continue the recent tradition of Hyperrealism (also called Photorealism) which parts from the years of Contraculture and had more conceptual than technical objectives; the “easy made”…
That movement had NEVER doubted about the superiority of drawing and painting from natural in the practice.
From the other hand, there had been various artists, like Renoir or Degas (and many other great ones) who used photos to work. The problem, is that they used photos to capt something that they needed for their work, not, just, for practice and to show “how good they are”. Actually, they used to practice (even Degas who assisted for very few weeks to a school of fine arts)directly from natural, because is, the best way for somebody to measure “how good is he” even if results are never so… “photographic” like from photos.