Why Shouldn't Artists Paint from Photos?
Wednesday April 5, 2006
The thorny question of painting from photos has been raised again by
Art News Blog, which asks: "'Why should a painting based on a photograph be considered a less legitimate work of art than one painted from observation or one that is simply abstract?'" Everyone from Edgar Degas through to David Hockney does it, so why do artists sometimes hide the fact that they paint from photographs?" There's no definitive answer, but I like the analogy about it being "like replacing wine corks with screw caps [it's] just not as romantic." Read blog on painting from photos and Art News editorialSee Also:
• Artist's Reference Photos
• Tips on Painting from Reference Photos
Comments
A photograph is taken by a camera. There is no pencil in the camera lens and even if the photo is copied afterwards by a pencil it is still a copy of an already existing image. A drawing is made by a hand. There is no camera lens in a pencil and the resulting drawing is a one and only original.
to previous poster:
“there is no pencil in a camera”
“there is no camera in a pencil”
???
those are arguments?
and if you want your drawing to be the “only one” you can always destroy the photo. though, again, how is that an argument for anything?
the article’s one argument was “it’s not as romantic”. ok, fair enough. if that’s important to you.
another argument i can think of: it’s not as difficult if you start with a photo. probably a lot of people don’t mention this as an argument even though it is probably the real reason, but after you say it, you think it sounds fairly weak.
There is nothing wrong with painting from photos, although I suspect most of us would prefer to paint or draw from a live or concrete subject. Unfortunately we don’t always have the opportunity to do so. Most of us who paint or draw from an actual subject; referring to architecture, marble statues, still life or live models know that it takes thirty years or more to master the medium. We can’t always travel to Rome or Paris for the real, tangible subject. Criticizing someonw who paints from photography is absurd and impractical.
Why bother painting something that already exists as a photograph? You might as well get the tracing paper out!
If you paint from your imagination, or from real life, you are synthesizing objects through your brain and hands and actually creating art.
It forces you to learn more, and if you have to conquer every inch of that canvas, rather than producing a dull, insipid copy of a photo the end result will be far more satisfying.
I paint using photographs, however i paint using photos that I have taken and I use multiple photos to create the finished painting which is art and there is nothing wrong with that.
anyone who wants to learn to paint then painting from photos that already exist is a good place to start in my opinion.
David
There is nothing wrong with painting or drawing from a photograph. It’s a great way to learn, and some of my favorite pieces are drawings that I did when I was teaching myself to study faces, forms, and composition. It is physically impossible for them to look exactly the same, because you take artistic liberties whether you know it or not, and you do eventually get bored copying pictures. An artist will spread his or her wings in time!
Just returned from my first cruise – 7 days at sea and in 3 different ports – took 344 photos, and will paint from 22 of them. Physically impossible for me to paint Mayan ruins when I had to get back on the ship!
Taking reference photos is ideal when sketching isn’t an option because of time constraints; indeed even when it is. For me the issue is taking one snapshot and turning it into a painting (down to it being in the same proportions as the photo), rather than using a bunch of photos to create a composition and for information.
The main issue with painting from life vs. painting from photos is the overall quality of the results. The data available for you to convert into your own “artistic shorthand” is severely limited in a photo. You will basically need to invent and add to produce a quality painting from a photo. It can be done, if you have mucho experience painting from life. When you know: how to render 3D, the basic value of things under various lighting conditions, and can get accurate color, then you can use this to fill in what’s missing from the photos.
A photo is pigment on a piece of paper. It is not 3d, just somewhat of an illusion of 3d. It’s tough making something look 3d if you are not looking at the 3d object. You’re only reference is the photo (which is not 3d) and your imagination/experience.
I will use photos to back up my life painting sessions. If I cannot finish my painting from life, then I will finish it with my photo reference. I try painting exclusively from photos and I just get horribly stiff, boring paintings. It’s actually HARDER to paint from a photo than life. The standard to gauge how to paint is not the level of difficulty (for you martyrs out there) but which will produce the liveliest, freshest painting. (I believe we are mainly referring to representational painting/drawing).
Not only will a photo distort to varying degrees the drawing, but values and colors will not be accurate (good, but not the way the human eye sees). It will also create edges where none exist and mush things together so you can’t tell what’s in front of what.
Now if the photo is the only reference you have, then by all means go for it. But if you have access to experience the subject, even a piece of fruit, then I would choose looking at the real thing than a facsimile of it. I also think there is more pleasure in looking at an actual apple, than looking at a photo of it. This added pleasure will come thru in your art.
If you want to paint a child and it won’t sit still for you, just make a simple sphere for the head and record accurate colors of the head. Look at the darkest dark, try to match that color and value – just jot it down somewhere. Don’t even worry about drawing, just simple (but accurate shapes) and accurate color. Getting accurate colors and values from a study will be your most valuable asset when painting from photos.
Good luck painting,
Dean
Whether one paints from either a photo or from life, both need an artist’s interpretation. I paint from photos that I have taken and I also paint from real life. Art is not about duplicating an exact scene from a photo or for that matter from life. It is about the artist’s interpretation using light, color, contrast and composition.
One of the most enlightening experiences occurred for me in a workshop where the students were to pick a subject (from life), then set up their easel and turn their back to the subject. Every few minutes we would get a moment to look at the subject (no painting) and then turn our backs and paint. We then did the same subject again. However, this time we painted it by looking at it. After we were finished, we compared the two paintings to each other. In all of the cases, the one where the artist turned their back to the subject was better. So no matter what one uses, the artist is the master and the one who must decide ultimately what will be in the painting and what the artist is trying to accomplish.
After several years of working with ”alternative photographic” methods of making pictures I have finally come full circle back to where I started…….drawing and painting. But this time by using the two mediums to make representational pictures in paint and pastel rather than photographic images which look like paintings. This blog site is very inspirational reading what others are experiencing in this field of visual art. Its 2.00 am so I am going to sleep on the subject and come back with a few more comments, later.
DEAN,…you hit it on the head perfectly! Photos are distored in all 4 major areas of painting: Drawing, Color, Value, and Edge. If I get the chance to do even a 60 second quick sketch with some notes about the values and edges, I’m always stunned how accurate this drawing is compared to the photo. With the two together,…you’ve got something. If you know how to also include Memory painting, which is vastly under rated, you can even add more to the power of the work. I generally lighten the darks and darken the lights. But the main problem with photos is that the lens flattens the perspective of whatever form you’re painting. It’s not ” TRUE ” to the horizon. The lens, espeically a wide angle lens will flatten and stretch forms in bizarre and unnatural ways. If you can even do a 60 second or 2 minutes outline of the form to be photographed in pencil, or conte or charcoal, and then trace you’re drawing over on to your canvas, you’ll be 10 times happier with your painting even though you’re taking the values and edges from the camera. You’ll be able to see where the camera is wrong. But if the drawing and perspective in your painting is wrong because you took what the camera gave you, then you’ll be putting the paint in places that are as unnatural as the photograph. Backing up like 10 or 15 feet and zooming in with a telephoto lens can help a bit with distortion as it relates to drawing. But nothing better the the quick sketch to go along withs the photo.
If it’s a photograph or a painting and it means something to yourself or for whoever you produced the piece for, thats what should matter. There is beauty in both and beauty if combined properly
I think we are all getting a bit precious over this subject, lighten up, a painting is a painting no matter how it is achieved. Working from photographs is not a sin. After all one still needs expertise and skill to create the painting. I am sure we have all seen paintings “copied” from a photograph which lacks soul. No, photography is just another tool that we may or may not choose to use. Don’t forget that visual aids have been used by artists for centuries – the camera obscura for instance has been used by many artists in the past. Canaletto for example used it to create his exquisite vistas of Venice so let’s not quibble and get on with what we enjoy!
I think its pretty amazing to be able to recreate a photo into a painting. I dont think there is any difference than painting something in real life or looking at a picture and painting it. its the skill involved that counts.
“Why bother painting something that already exists as a photograph?”
Well, the scene in the photograph existed before the shot was taken. So, does this mean we shouldn’t paint scenes that our eyes see? No. There is nothing inherently wrong with painting from photographs.
Although, I do think painting with your mind’s eye is beneficial in its own right. Painting objects we see, in large part, does tie and limit the painter’s work.
Painting from photos lessen the creativeness of his mind to think. and shows that he does not master the figure, texture and color of his subject.
like drawing a circle without a compass,
the effort is more appreciative.
And more when it is drawn by foot or mouth.
and the circle added with shades turn into a sphere
added shadows on flooring,
added reflections on flooring,
added reflections or texture on sphere/object,
added effects on background,
etc. etc.
the more effort given, or the lesser people can do it
the more value a painting cost
or the more value the artist cost.
But as a starter, it is alright to copy.
How would the artist able to master a subject
when he does not draw it yet even by copying.
You try copy first a subject then add effects after.
You try copy the About.com logo,
then add shadows and reflections.
Then next redraw it without looking at the logo
nor looking at the draw you already made.
It is more inspiring when somebody sees you done it
without you looking at anything to copy.
And more inspiring when you see somebody
painting a lady with a golden hair,
with a soft glowing clothes,
with a white feather wings
floating near a wavy ocean
with a red sky, windy, and rocky shore background.
Which that painting composes of you to study
girl faces, girl movements, textile movements,
birds, lights, seas, rocks, winds, etc. etc.
Meaning one has able to copy number of girl faces,
and able to store in his mind the figure, texture and colors. and same to other elements in the painting.
=) av
PS. it is more inspiring when you see painting done without copying.