| Author | Message | ||
  Anonymous Painter Unregistered guest |
Nona said: "That FACT (that noone disputed my observation that it was a copied photo) supports my point more thn [sic] volumes of discussion." I am puzzled about why you said this, since Gknee said originally: "I just tried my first portrait. My son was sitting on the couch resting his head on the arm. I called his name and snapped a picture. I loved the PHOTO so much I decided this was the one to start with." (emphasis added) No one disputes it is a photo, in part, because we were told it was a photo! The main problems with photos used for portraits tend to be poor lighting (multiple sources of light, or too broad a light leaving no shadows to help discern form), too dark shadows or washed out highlights (because the camera can't 'see' the way our eyes can), and distortion (usually introduced by lenses). The huge advantages of photos for portraits include that a young boy like this doesn't have to "sit" for hours trying to hold a position (which, in this case, he would not be able to hold for more than a few minutes anyway!). I learned to draw the figure from life, a little, over the past couple of years. I loved it, but currently I can't get out. Recently I drew (w/c pencils) my first portrait of a child, from a wallet-sized photo offered by her father. I scanned the photo and displayed the larger image on my laptop's screen for reference. I had previously met the child; I did the best I could to render her. My preliminary drawing was not a copy of the photo (I tilted her head a bit more, and made her smile less 'say cheese'-y). But I could not have painted it without having the photo as reference. Her father, her mother, and the child herself all love the watercolor pencil version... although I only made it as a sketch, to be sure I knew the shape of her head and placement of her features before tackling a watercolor portrait. Since it came out so well, though, I traced it and transferred the sketched image to w/c paper for the "real" portrait. No one cares that it was based on a photo originally. No one will be able to match it to the photo I used, either. So it really makes no difference that I used a photo in this case! Good painting, btw, Gknee--be encouraged! | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 84 Registered: 2-2007 |
Yes it is from a photo. I have judged a couple of shows so let me tell you the process in the larger ones. It is juried by slides. The slides are placed in a carousel and put on the screen for about 5 seconds. It is judged in or out. It must have impact first, last and always. After sorting the slides into out, maybe and in they are once again put on the screen for about 5 seconds. This time it is in or out. The last time through looking at slides they may remain on the screen for 10 seconds. It is when they have been whittled down to the best 10 that they are really " looked" at. It is done differently in small shows. They are hung and judged individually. I would probably not give this one a first but would place it unless there was a plethora of great work. Even if it were not from a photo I would judge it down because of the refusal to lose the edge at the end of the fingers. As well as the color of the shoulder lower left is wrong to me. Having said all of this I still like it, admire the skill of the person who did it and would really really encourage her to do more focusing on working from life until photos become only a reference. | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
I've been very clear in earlier comments that using photos as reference materials is not at issue with me. My only focus is paintings that are simply transfers from photo to watercolor paper (or other art support), transfers that repeat more or less precisely the exact image of the photo. I am talking about paintings in which most of us, upon seeing, would say "Oh, that's a copy of a photo." Look at the painting in question. It is more than just a posed portrait. It is a portrait of someone looking into a camera and the artist transferred that image. I personally think the awarness of the fact that it is copied from aphoto gets in the way of my appreciation of it as art. I do not personally value copying ver batim--what more can I say. I 'll let some one who has a different aesthetic "disagree" with my aesthetic (absurd when you think about it) and they can have the last word. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 422 Registered: 8-2006 |
Nona, George is right is saying that quality is the determining factor in competitive art shows that encompass a wide genre, and even in those that do not. Determining "quality," of course, goes beyond mere technical skill to include choice and treatment of subject, creativity, orginality, skill in conveying a message or telling a story, etc. Both objective and subjective criteria are included. A judge's job, done well, is a difficult enterprise! I don't think you would want to as-sume that role. If I understand you correctly, you are simply expressing your individual taste and noting that it is likely we all agree that Gnee's photorealist painting (which you and the rest of us affirm is technically well done) probably used a photograph. We also, no doubt, would agree that you are entitled to your individual preferences. Although you don't like paintings that look like a photograph, most of us seem to agree that it is legitimate to make use of photographs (even when we are not trying to make "exact copies" or painting photorealistically). You probably would not object to a painter using photographs, as long as the painting is interpretive and imaginative and doesn't "look" like a photograph, would you? Is this a fair summary of where the discussion on this forum has led us? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Nona, wrote in her Oct, 4 post; “I just wish to make it clear that at least one person out there does not consider this to be art and resists all efforts to deem it so by the art judges etc. I rest my case.” Nona, You have every right to dislike paintings that scream copied from a photo. You have every right to believe that paintings that scream copied from a photo are not art. But, your suggestion that you believe art judges are somehow part of a conspiracy to force paintings that scream copied from a photo onto the public is just plain idiotic (I’ve decided to stop beating around the bush and just be blunt). In most local art shows almost all the paintings are copied from photos. Some of these paintings scream copied from a photo because that was the artist’s intent. Some artists intend for paintings to scream copied from a photo but don’t have the skills to pull it off. Some artists don’t intend paintings to scream copied from a photo and make changes in the colors and/or composition. Most of the time this last group of artists produce paintings that still look like they were copied from photos. Some artists copy from photos but try to force the photographic image into a copied style (in the style of Monet, Renoir, Dali, Henri and so on..) An art judge can’t interview the artists who enter the art show to determine intent, methods, or the degree of original effort. And, these things aren’t always clear from looking at the paintings, mostly because of the wide range of skill found in a local art show. The first thing an art show judge has to do is set aside all personal prejudice (as much as is possible). Established forms of art like photorealism, abstraction, and impressionism are found in art museums, galleries and major private collections. If the paintings in a local art show are photorealistic, abstractionist, and impressionist they need to be treated alike. Quality is, and should be, the only consideration in the selection of awards. I rest my case. | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
Joe-- I'm not sure you are accurately understanding my posts. I am as-serting that it takes skill. No question about that. I am wondering why no one has ever doubted my as-sumption that this is a copy of a photo? It is that obvious and that phenomenon--that it is obvious--is what bothers me about it. But I am merely sharing my reaction. Please don't think I am trying to persuade any one to see things my way. I am only sharing an opinion. I am honored that so many people value my opinion so much that they wish to change it, but actually, you as we all know--reaction to art is quite personal. | ||
Joe Intermediate Member Username: Joe Post Number: 83 Registered: 2-2007 |
It still takes a lot of skill to work from photos. You must understand how the camera "sees", how the curvature of the lens is apparent to the trained eye and the limited range of color it sees. I use photos as a reference. Rarely copy one per se. It is another tool we have the old masters wish they did have. Yes I know about the camera lucida and the camera obscura. If I thought standing on my head in slop would make me a better painter then you can darn well believe I would do it. Why all of the quibbling? It is a good job and a beautiful piece. What else do you need to know? | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
Thanks for a wonderful discussion-- Let me ask one thing-- Who among us thought I was making an unwarranted a-s-s-umption in declaring that the painting was an exact copy of a photo? What is it about the painting that makes it scream 'copied from a photo?' It is that effect--the effect that this painting is a copy of the photo and little else tht leaves me cold as a viewer. Rehka--I get your point--put up or shut up-- but really., I am speaking as an art viewer here, not as an art maker. | ||
Maryo New member Username: Maryo Post Number: 3 Registered: 9-2007 |
Gknee, First, I find your portrait to be warm and gentle and touching. I love it. Second, one point I think some may be missing in their "photo vs. live sitting" argument is a BIG one relative to this case: This is a picture of your son, someone with whom you have an intimate connection. I'm sure when you look at your reference photo you see more that a stranger would. Your life experience with your subject supercedes the limitations of a photo. Third, I'm also in my first year of portraiture, so my opinion on this matter will have different weight with different people. I say keep painting however works for you. I, for one, can feel the emotion in your portrait of your son. You deserve any award you get! | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 381 Registered: 8-2006 |
Griz, re; The cloud. Even when painting plein air, I find that nature is seldom right, and I believe that the painter has the right to improve if he can. Mother Nature has never studied composition. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 420 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, you and Eugene both mention the superior value of painting an actual subject in nature, such as clouds, as opposed to painting from a photograph in a studio. I thoroughly agree, as would John Constable!! However, as Eugene says, there comes a time when you can't get outdoors as much. In his case his long experience in painting plein air and his memory of such will help him "see beyond" the photographs in his studio all the way back to nature. Though I realize photorealists, like Richard Estes, will never be able to produce "exact" copies of nature, he comes close enough, and certainly close enough to reproducing an actual photograph of nature! His technical skill is amazing. To answer your question, I would think that the best way to get as close as possible to an exact copy of a subject would be to paint while actually viewing that subject, rather than from a photograph or a memory. At the same time, following the reality of his subject so closely does not give Estes "artistic" room for the creative interpretation of a subject (which, admittedly is not his objective) that interests me -- the freedom to introduce the subjective elements and feelings a subject elicts which are not seen by the eye, and to rearrange the scene into a creative composition that better tells the story or more effectively shares what has impressed the artist and caught his attention. Sometimes a good photographer (Ansel Adams) or a photographic painter can do this. Often they cannot. To answer your second question, sometimes an artist might need to paint a cloud in an "unrealistic" color in order to serve her "artistic" purpose because an "exact" copy just would not do. George, a lot of this discussion has to do with how we understand "artistic" painting and the importance of "creativity" and imagination to good art. It is a question of what we believe is the best use of craftsmanship and technical skill in serving the "artistic" purpose. Historically, art has encompassed both photorealism and surrealism, and much, much more. It will continue to do so. We are left with our own individual tastes, and I trust that, while expressing our own preferences and understandings of what to us is "true" or "good" art, that we will make room for the preferences of others, whether or not we agree with them. All of which is not to say, George, that you shouldn't be allowed your attempt to get inside another person's head to better understand his or her alternative point of view. It's always good to walk a mile in someone else's shoes before we "lock in" to our own egocentric view. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Photorealist artists omit any human emotion or narrative. They try to put an emphasis on the mundane. In this sense, they are interpretative artists. Jack. Your question about any value (or lack of value) of trying to paint an exact copy of a subject is a good one. To better understand your question it might be helpful to know what you mean by the term “exact copy.” No one can produce a painting that is an exact copy of a cloud because the cloud and the painting are made of different materials. Yes, I know you’re not talking about that kind of exact copy. Here’s the problem Jack, most photographs never capture a true image of a cloud because the cloud is surrounded by the major light source (the sky). As Eugene suggested, you have to go out and look at a real cloud. In spite of the fact that everyone has looked at many clouds, very few have ever seen what a cloud really looks like. If you don’t believe me then ask the next person you see to tell you what the colors are in a typical cloud. My question is, if a person wants to paint an “exact copy” of a cloud would he paint the image found in most photographs, or the image found in most people’s understanding of what a cloud looks like, or would he paint the image found in nature? I just thought of a second question; how would any of the above “exact copies” compare to an interpretative painting of a cloud? | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 419 Registered: 8-2006 |
Eugene and George, This is a refreshing segue from our discussion of the merits and demerits of the attempt to paint exact copies of what we see, whether in plein air or in a photo! However, before we leave our former discussion altogether, I'd like to ask Eugene how important he feels artistic interpretation of what we see is to good art, as opposed to trying to paint an exact copy of a subject. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Eugene wrote; “I think the ideal approach would be to do a quick plein air study and then bring it back to the studio, as a base for a finished piece that would have the freshness of a plein air but the control of studio work.” I agree with you 100% Eugene. Sadly, as you know, very few artists work in the way you describe. Hopefully, some young artists will read the thoughts you have posted here and be encouraged to try this approach to painting. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 380 Registered: 8-2006 |
A few thoughts on pein air and painting from photos--- I’ve been painting for about 60 years. or about the first 40 I painted exclusively plein air or from life or still life. When I tried to paint from photos, i got nothing but failures. When I could physically no longer do it I had to train myself to paint from photos. I believe to successfully use photos, you must have had the plein air experience. (unless you are a photo realist) Some Plein Air Plusses 1. You must work fast, because of changing light. This forces you to make quick decisions and capture the essence of the subject in a short time. 2. You see the colors in the shadow areas, rather than the black shadows in a photo. 3. You are forced to put down the the essentials, rather than the details because it’s almost impossible to nit pick when you are outdoors, with your painting in your lap, while you are juggling you brushes and other materials, and fighting the elements. 4. You are forced to use a looser, splashier style. Studio Plusses. 1. You have more time for everything. Time to-- make value sketches-- try different compositions -- make big controlled washes -- make color changes-- lift color and make correction-- 2. You can stop and start when you please 3. You can use masking. 4. You can do much more planning and thinking before you lift a brush. I think the ideal approach would be to do a quick plein air study and the bring it back to the studio, as a base for a finished piece that would have the freshness of a plein air but the control of studio work . | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 380 Registered: 8-2006 |
For all the criticism you are offering ad lib, Nona, let us see your paintings on this forum for people like Marie and Eugene to comment on who paint from live objects and people. It is very easy to be an armchair critic. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Jack, you’re correct that I would give the award to the photorealist who has mastered her craft. But, I’m not really sure if Nona would give the award to the amateurish photorealist who paints non-photographic looking paintings, or to the interpretational plein air artist with minimal skills. You are also correct that it’s a real dilemma. But, I didn’t post the hypothetical dilemma to disagree with Nona as you suggest. I really am interested in his/her views. These kinds of dilemmas (difficult decisions) have to be resolved by judges at small local art shows. If nothing else this discussion can serve as a view into the minds of those much misunderstood art show judges (and, yes I’ve been asked to judge local art shows). | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 418 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, you have posed a hypothetical dilemma -- is it okay to refuse the horns of the dilemma? Let's use Nona's frame of reference to say that you have two people trying to paint a photo copy of their subject, and Nona feels that is an unworthy and unacceptable goal for his kind of "artist." Therefore, in his mind, these two are already disqualified (or should be)for a truly "artistic" competition. You don't say what the third person was attempting (photorealism or interpretation), but, if it was a poorly done "interpretation," though he might be an artist in terms of objective (in Nona's opinion), he is a "poor" artist and does not deserve the ribbon. Nona no doubt concludes that the judge should keep the ribbon. On the other hand, you George (and many others) see photorealism as a creative (?) artistic endeavor and not merely craftsmanlike mastery of techinical skills. Therefore, obviously in your mind, the ribbon should be given to the photorealist who did a masterful job. You and Nona are operating in different worlds in terms of your concepts of what is "artistic" and your definition of an "artist." Make room for each other. There is room here to agree to disagree. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Nona, I’m not trying to alter your opinion (really!). I’m only trying to understand it. I know you think a painting that is copied ver batim from a photo is not art but rather craftsmanship. Here’s what I don’t understand; is it the intent, or is it the accomplishment? Allow me to give you an example. Two artists attempt to paint a picture. They both use the same photograph as their inspiration. They both attempt to make their painting a ver batim copy of the photographic source. One of these artists (I’ll call him artist A) is a skilled technician. His painting ends up looking exactly like the photo. The second artist (artist B) has very little technical skill. His painting ends up looking nothing like the photographic source. In fact the painting doesn’t even look like a photo was involved in the production. Each artist had intended to make their painting a ver batim copy of the photographic source without any personal interpretation at all. Artist A because he is a photorealist pulled it off. Artist B because he has little skill could not pull it off. But, artist B has a reasonably nice painting for someone with little experience. The two artists enter a small local art show. The show is so small only one other artist enters. Artist C is a plein air painter who has less technical skill than artist B has. The plein air painting exhibits poor composition, muddy colors and difficult to identify forms. Because only three paintings were entered the judge decides to only award one ribbon. Nona, please help me to understand the details of your theory of art and artistry. If you are the judge, who do you give the award to? Would it be artist A who entered a technically magnificent copy of a photograph, Or would you give the award to artist B who entered a highly amateurish attempt at a ver batim copy of the photograph but failed so badly it doesn’t even look like a photograph, Or would artist C get the award for the plein air painting that violates all known principles of good art? I really genuinely am confused. Help me to understand your position better. Who gets the award, and why? | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
One more thing-- A painting copied from a photo is still a painting copied from a photo and I choose to devalue the copier's accomplishment as a result. I fully acknowledge that your points are well taken, George. I also acknowledge that a painting that is a direct copy of a photo TO ME, IN MY OPINION does not rise to as high a level of accopmlishment because the painter created nothing but a copy of something that was already composed, colored, designed, and drawn for him. That is my opinion. | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
Grizrev, you understand me point, thanks. George--understand your point that many impressive paintings are made from copying photos (note I did not say 'great works of art' but 'impressive paintings'). I am NOT trying to persuade you to change your way of thinking. I am merely trying to express my opinion. A painting that is copied ver batim from a photo is in my opinion not art but a typr of craftsmanship. You obviously have a different opinion. Thanks for sharing yours. I understand why you hold that opinion and honor it but I in no way shape or form share your opinion nor am I persuaded by your points to alter my opinion one iota. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 417 Registered: 8-2006 |
George, not necessarily to defend Nona, but to try to discern what he (or she) is trying to say, I think Nona would concede that your photo-copyist, Riechard Estes, is a profoundly skilled craftsman and technician, but not an artist in the sense of someone who interprets the subject he or she paints in an "artistic" or "creative" way -- trying to pull some subjective, unseen but intuited elements from the subject into the painting. What Nona's "artist" produces is not an exact copy of the subject, something a skilled technician is able to produce, but an interpretation of the subject. The product or painting was never intended to be a precise copy, but rather an artistic interpretation. Whether you agree with Nona or not, I think that's what Nona is saying -- but, Nona, speak for yourself. It all depends, I suppose, on your definition of an "artist" and the artistic task. If you define an artist as simply an artisan or craftsman, then anyone who "makes" things by reshaping or copying the external world is an artist. Whether that person is a "good" artist or a "poor" artist is another matter entirely. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here are some paintings by two plein air artists; http://www.niagarafrontierpap.com/ Nona, If I understand you correctly you believe Coni Minneci (plein air artist at above link) is a real artist, but Richard Estes (photo copyist) is no artist at all. Is that correct? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Here are some paintings by a well known photorealist; http://www.artelibre.net/ARTELIBRE1/ESTES/pagestes.htm | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Correction: that should read, it’s not all semantics. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Nona, it’s not semantics. There are degrees of copying. Some artists project the photo onto the paper then look at the photo under a microscope to determine the exact mixture of paints needed to match the colors. Others copy by eye. Some mechanically copy the photo, but take the painting on location to put on the color. Others paint the entire painting on location, but touch it up back in the studio from photo references. Others paint the entire image only from life. And then there are artists that do the entire painting from only an image they find in their brain. Even this last artist is coping his memories, since all mental images are influenced my memory. These are all different levels or degrees of copying with very small differences between some of them. So Nona, where do you draw the line? I read a study that said 85% of artists use photos. A museum grade artist I talked to told me the number is closer to 95%. When I go to a local art show it looks to me like everyone has used a photo to some degree (except the abstract artists). Among all the degrees of variation you say you can tell when a copy is "ver batim". Here’s my question Nona! If its not art when it’s 100% ver batim, what about 99% ver batim, or 95% ver batim,or 80% ver batim, or 75% ver batim or 60% ver batim? If you plan to respond with - I know it when I see it - I should pre-warn you that some artists can paint entirely from life and make the painting look exactly like a photo (ver batim). So Nona, where do you draw the line? I’ll be patiently waiting for your response. | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
I beg to differ-- Garydoc--An artist is not a copier like a musician. That analogy works in cases such as when I paint paintings from watercolor instruction books--that's is more like reading a musical score. George--All artists copy if you want to change the meanin of "copy" from how I was using it (in the narrow sense--that's what I included "ver batim"). I copy from nature when I plein air paint. Reproducing a photo is a different sort of copying. If that's not clear to you then no amount of further discussion will make it so. I fear that, as in most such cases, this will degenerate into mere semantics. The direct copying of a photo (not using the photo merely as a reference for some ideas) can only be considered artistic accomplishment if the work artistic is diluted past all recognition. But we enter the realm of semantics. I'm sure everyone reading this has an opinion on this and I don't wish to change anyone's opinion. I just wish to make it clear that at least one person out there does not consider this to be art and resists all efforts to deem it so by the art judges etc. I rest my case. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Nona, all artists copy. The artist who works from photos copies photos. The artist who works from life copies life. It’s not copying that is the issue, the real issue is creativity. What does the artist use from the input data (photo, still life, landscape) to produce a creative output (painting)? I started the creativity thread to move this discussion off of Gknee’s thread. All Gknee asked for was an opinion about her painting. She got that. I thought I could pull you over to the creativity thread with my opening statement; “creative inspiration for many seems to come from an attachment to the surface appearance of a pretty picture (photograph)”. I think lots of people may like to discuss your issue. Why not leave Gknee out of it and start a new thread on this topic since it is clearly of interest to you. I want to add that I’m not trying to be bossy. There are no rules on this webpage. I’m just offering a suggestion. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 160 Registered: 8-2006 |
Nona, yes, But! When the London Symphony Orchestra performs Beethoven's 5th, they aren't trying to be composers. They are trying to get the score done perfectly and as close to the ideal that Beethoven envisioned. That is not any different from a cover band trying to get the Beatles down perfectly. They are artists, performance artists. And if they pull it off and make you feel as though you had just seen the Beatles, they are GREAT performance artists. Gary | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
I am not sure what you meant by the post below in terms of this discussion. But regardless of level of expertise, it is clear the painting in question is a copy of a photo. Are copies of photos art? They certainly are considered to be so by some some art show judges and some art magazines. I take a dissenting view and classify a ver batim copy of a phot as a display of skilled crafstmanship that is not actually art. perhaps the original photo was art but not a copy of it. If for instance a Beatles cover band performs "yesterday" so that it sounds just like the Beatles, I consider them great imitators, but not great composers. | ||
Joanna Intermediate Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 85 Registered: 10-2006 |
re the banality argument: There is a real backlash of "professional" reviewers against the "amateurs" as on Amazon.com. But I happen to be one of the top ten reviewers, have a wide and varied education from excellent schools and was taught to write by some very recognizable names. And I am an "amateur." This frosts some people's boots and I get written up all the time in magazines and papers about why should "amateurs" have influence but I'm widely read, if the email I get from readers and authors is any indication. Any clique wants to keep its power unto itself. I find the average reviewer on Amazon tends to make very astute comments, ditto for Epinions and if they aren't Oxford grads or so, it doesn't seem to affect their ability to form cogent arguments for or against something's merits. | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
Gknee-- Though it may seem a byproduct, I suppose, never intended to insult Gknee 's skill with a brush. Rather I used the painting to address an issue I find very crucial in current art circles--treating copies of photos on an equal level with bona fide artistic crreations. A copy of a phot is not the same as using a photo as a reference. Gknee is the former, albiet a good example of a copied photo. I note that not one person had any quibble that it in fact is a copied photo. It IS that obvious! Apparantly to everyone. That FACT (that noone disputed my observation that it was a copied photo) supports my point more thn volumes of discussion. Imagine a world in which "artists" merely copy photos. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 414 Registered: 8-2006 |
Phooey! Just go to the Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk) and scroll down and click on "Comment is free," then read scroll again until you find "A triumph of banality" and click on that link! | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 411 Registered: 8-2006 |
Sorry about the link. The Guardian somehow won't let me copy it without adding all that garbage in from of the http:// Try editing or entering the link for yourself. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 408 Registered: 8-2006 |
As we think about "criticism" or "critique," who should do it, and the value of it -- I found a very interesting article in the Manchester Guardian. It may not be available there for long, so take a look: 2181646%2C00.html,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2181646,00.html | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Marie, two comments; 1. I absolutely love your random brain dumps, 2. It sounds like your friend is jealous. Nona, did you say – “shoot me?” I think just about everyone here (if not everyone) agrees with your basic point that total dependence on photographs (no life drawing or plein air experience to enrich one’s artistic vision) is very limiting for an artist. And, you yourself said you understand the value of photos as reference material. That’s not much of a divide to come to arms over. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 413 Registered: 8-2006 |
Gknee, you did a fine painting and you should be proud of it. You'll find over time that some folks will like what you do and others won't. Keep painting, and don't let any criticism get to you. For whatever it's worth, I won an award in a show a couple of weeks ago, and a friend of mine - perhaps a former friend - called me up and told me the painting was a (... insert many red-dot words here). She said that she couldn't believe that with so many beautiful paintings in the show that mine could even be accepted, much less win an award. She went on for about half an hour about how horrible it was. So, roll with the punches. If there's something to learn from criticism, then great; otherwise, ignore it. | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 405 Registered: 8-2006 |
Nona, Your last post is a more objective and insightful appraisal of Gnee's painting. It gives credit where credit is due, yet distinguishes this genre of portraiture from others. It is indeed a skillful copy of a photograph, requiring mastery of technique and patience. It is not an artistitic interpretation that somehow captures the more subjective dimensions, including personality. Marie does that in a masterful way. Tastes vary. For myself, I do prefer Marie's approach. At the same time, hats off to Gnee for accomplishment with her genre. We can say both things honestly at the same time. | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
Thanks for the feedback on my comments, which were intended to be frank and pulling no punches on my personal opinion. When I look at Gknees painting I see a skillful copy of a photo rather than an artistic accomplishment. In my book they aren;t the same things. Shoot me. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 412 Registered: 8-2006 |
First of all, congratulations to Gknee! I delayed on responding to Nona because I wanted to organize my thoughts, but organization is not coming to me to today. Here is a random brain dump. 1) I agree with Nona that painting from life is a good thing, although my reasons differ. The eye can see much more than a camera can record, and so working from life gives you a much broader range of choices in design. The camera edits out far too much information. Also, working from life -- going from three dimensions to two --- makes you think more about form and structure. 2) I reject the notion, though, that painting from photographs is somehow less creative or less valid artistically as long as the artist works from his or her own photographs. For example, if I decide to crop a picture from a viewfinder in a camera or with a cardboard viewfinder held up to a live model is doesn't really have anything to do with the artistic validity of my work. 3) I think that the problem many people have with work done from photographs is not so much about the work being done with a photo per se as it is that many artists who work from photos don't know how to articulate form and wind up creating paintings with lots of details of equal importance. They dislike paintings done from photos because the design fails, not because the painting is done from a photo. 4) I sometimes cringe when people talk about art having to be "original" or "creative" or "heartfelt", not because there's anything wrong with art being original, creative, or heartfelt -- those are really good things -- but because "original, creative, and heartfelt" are often (at least in my experience) synonyms for obscenely bright color, flat space, and unforgivably poor drawing. (Don't get me started here -- this is real hot button for me.) 5) I can't comment the Gknee's award. It all depends on what else was in the show. 6) Yes, I do get sometimes get annoyed when judges give awards to certain paintings copied from photographs. Once again, it's not because the paintings are copied from photographs. It's because detail is equated with quality, as if the judge awards one point for each brushstroke and the the painting with the most brushstrokes wins. There's no problem with having lots of brushstrokes in a painting; it's a problem when that's the only criterion involved in judging a painting. In my experience, that only happens at the local level. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
A small correction; you didn’t say it leaves you “cold” but that it “gets a yawn”. | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 376 Registered: 8-2006 |
Nona, first congratulations for the hon. mention. Is winning awards the only criterion for judging the worth of a painting? I don't think so. Some time ago, in an art gallery a trained chimpanzee's painting was exhibited with all other well-known artists'. When a viewer was asked what they thought of the chimpanzee's painting (without divulging the author of the painting) the viewer said it must be Jackson Pollack. Eugene and Eric have said several times, if you love what you have done, you are the best judge of what you have done. | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Nona, I don’t think Gary was defending artists who copy verbatim, but rather was making a comment about your tone. As he said, Gknee’s talent is not something you “should poo-poo so offhandedly”. I agree with you that it is easier to trace an image and match the tones with paint than it is to paint from life. But, to do it as well as Gknee has done with only a year’s practice shows that she has God given talent. Isn’t it better to encourage her talent by advising Gknee to begin working from life so that she might progress to the next level rather than dismissively saying that her talent leaves you “cold”? Your question about, being bothered by the fact that someone with a year's painting experience and a copied photo is acknowledged over those who have spent decades drawing and creating their own designs is a good question. My answer is no! It doesn’t bother me. I’ve been to shows like this one. Most of the artists who enter paintings have copied photos verbatim. There are bad copyists, and there are good copyists. Gknee is a good copyist. The artists who have spent decades drawing and creating their own designs either have little talent (local art shows display a wide range of talents) or they are the artists who win the top awards. | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
And doesn't it bother you even a little down deep in your subcoinscious mind that, with the aid of a copied photo, someone with a year's painting experience is acknowledged over those who are actually drawing and creating their own designs from scratch and have been possibly working for decades to create original art? | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
Garydoc-- I am aware of what you are saying. Most professional artists "work" from photos. I have read that at times even Monet "worked" from photos. Great artists ususally don't copy them verbatim. If they do, in my humble opinions, they aren't artists any more than musicians who play from a score are composers. Let's be honest, even though works copied from photos win awards at shows, especially portraits, it is quite easy to trace an image and match the tones with paint. It is a couple of steps up from painting by numbers. Argue with this if you want, but if you are being honest with your deepest feelings and not trying to be sensitive to not creating "offense" you will probably agree with me. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 157 Registered: 8-2006 |
Gknee, congrats!!! Nona, most professional portraitists work from photos when it comes to kids animals and corporate executives. Kids and animals don't stay still, and executives are too busy for more than an couple of short sittings. Nailing a personality as well as a likeness is not something you should poo-poo so offhandedly. Gary | ||
Joanna Intermediate Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 82 Registered: 10-2006 |
Congratulations! Isn't that a great recognition and encouragement? | ||
George Unregistered guest |
Nona, I think you will enjoy reading this thread; http://community.cheapjoes.com/forum/messages/25/2530.html | ||
Gknee New member Username: Gknee Post Number: 3 Registered: 9-2007 |
I WON HONORABLE MENTION!!! My painting of my son did well at the Art Show. There were about 150 artists, most of them watercolor. It looked as if everyone entered at least 3 pieces. That's a lot of competition. I can't believe I got an honorable mention. I have only been painting a year, so I think that is pretty good. Here is a photo of me basking in my glory....Heehee  | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 377 Registered: 8-2006 |
Nona,I never copy photos directly, but use them as reference, as do many accomplished artists. I once painted only from life and plein air, but I'm no longer physically able. This training taught me how to interpret and use photography creatively. I don't beleive you could tell my plein air paintings from the ones I do from photos. If my paintings make you yawn--- Happy Dreams! | ||
Nona Unregistered guest |
As well done as this paiting is, it appears to be done from a photgraph and as such gets a yawn from me. Whatever happened to good old look at the model or scene and paint. Did that disappear with the camera? Most artists can spot a painting that reproduces a photo a mile away. I don't get it. I really don't get. Photos have a way of freezing and staging reality that paintings done directly from life do not. Am I the only one left alive who sees this? | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 374 Registered: 8-2006 |
I am moved quite honestly by the encouraging comments. Thank you very much | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 411 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, Eugene is right. Accuracy is the big thing you learn in figure drawing classes. It has been very interesting for me to watch students in figure drawing and painting classes. A couple of observations: * Most students have a tendency to draw what they know instead of what they see. This is especially true with heads. For example, people will draw a head in profile or 3/4 view and then draw the eyes, nose, and mouth straight on. It's as if you know that people have two eyes and so you draw two eyes even if you can only see one. * There is often a tendency to make things more straight up and down than they should be. Beware of any lines that are parallel to the side of the page or parallel to each other. * Pay attention to structure and anatomy; it will serve you well. Remember that that there are bones and muscles under the surface. * Keep away from concentrating on edges. Try to draw from the inside out. * Oh, and it takes some practice to get the hang of it. Don't be discouraged at first. I hope you enjoy the class. I *love* figure drawing/painting. It can be really addictive. | ||
Garydoc Advanced Member Username: Garydoc Post Number: 156 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha, try to position yourself relative to the model so that the lighting is dramatic. I have had to paint some pretty insipid lighting situations on models and don't care much for the outcomes. Gknee got it right the first time! gary | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 375 Registered: 8-2006 |
Rekha. My experience in life drawing- Most of all, it teaches you accuracy. You might be able to get away with sloppy drawing if you are doing a landscape, but you can’t in figure drawing. Your mistakes standout like a sore thumb. In my opinion , life drawing is the best drawing training you can get! | ||
Rekha Senior Member Username: Rekha Post Number: 373 Registered: 8-2006 |
I have enrolled this week for classes in Drawing/Painting watermedia and Life Drawing. I would like to know what I should expect from the life drawing classes and what I should look out for to question in life drawing | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 371 Registered: 8-2006 |
gknee, I agree with Marie. Don't touch this painting. My comments were meant for future portraits | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 387 Registered: 8-2006 |
Marie makes a good point. Sometimes in our attempts to correct and improve a watercolor we create other problems we hadn't foreseen and destroy what had been largely a good painting! It probably is better simply to observe the positives and negatives, then just move on, either to paint the subject again, something similar, or something entirely different that involves similar techniques and skills. | ||
Marie Senior Member Username: Marie Post Number: 408 Registered: 8-2006 |
Gknee, great job! Don't do anything to this painting. When I finish a piece, I usually try not to think about whether a piece is good or bad. Instead, I think first about what parts of the piece I was happy with, and then what I might want to explore or do differently in the my next painting. *Every* painting, I think, has something good and something that points to a new challenge for the next painting. In this piece, the rendering of the skin tones is especially good, the drawing of the head is quite accurate, and you have done a great job of capturing his expression. You should be proud of the piece. On the next painting, I might pay more attention to what is happening outside the the face. I'm a litle unsure of what is happening with his shoulders; I think his torso is receding, but it's a little unclear. You don't have to render it in lots of detail, but what you do render needs to be unambiguous. I would be curious to know the dimensions of the piece. | ||
Joanna Intermediate Member Username: Joanna Post Number: 77 Registered: 10-2006 |
I agree that either add lit shoulder on left or darken above hand to make a coherent shape. Otherwise, a delightful portrait, kind of Rembrandt lighting and beautiful skin tones. Well done! | ||
Grizrev Senior Member Username: Grizrev Post Number: 379 Registered: 8-2006 |
Gknee, You should put this under the "Portrait Painting" thread as well, so that others looking for examples of portraiture can find it. | ||
Eugene Senior Member Username: Eugene Post Number: 368 Registered: 8-2006 |
Gknee,This is certainly well rendered, with lovely soft skin tones, which, for me are very hard to do. The only thing that bothers me a little, is the left side. Seems to me that there should be some shoulder showing or at least some flesh tone rather than the black background. Another "picky" thing is the arm and hand. If I were doing it, I'd either show a little more of it or eliminate it. For me, it doesn't quite explain itself. But these are "picky" things. WELL DONE | ||
Gknee New member Username: Gknee Post Number: 1 Registered: 9-2007 |
I am looking for your opinion...I have been painting for about a year. I just tried my first portrait. My son was sitting on the couch resting his head on the arm. I called his name and snapped a picture. I loved the photo so much I decided this was the one to start with. Please take a look and let me know what you think. I am submitting it in a small local art show next week. Any suggestions before I frame it?  |
