Monday Motivator: Originality Isn't Painting from Photos
Monday March 10, 2008
"... if you copy from a photograph taken by somebody else, then you are using their concept.-- Artist Katherine Tyrrell, Originality in Concept, Design and Execution
- You haven't had the idea, the photographer did (unless they did it under your direction).
- It's not what you saw, it's what they saw.
- It's not your view of the world, it's their view of the world (unless they did it under your direction)
I've taken the concept of painting from life or the imagination for granted, that photos are only an aid, like a sketchbook, never the soul of a painting. But from comments and emails I've had, it seems some people think you must paint from a photo, that the idea of painting from real life doesn't occur as a possibility. And then it's one, perfect photo, not a bunch of photos you use as reference to compose and compile a painting. It's had me wondering whether observation skills are as neglected a part of art tuition as fundamental technique.Then there's the issue of painting from someone else's photos, whether it's a "nice photo" from a calendar or magazine, or one you found on a website. I think the quote from artist Katherine Tyrrell above conveys the originality aspect of using someone else's photos succinctly (there's also the copyright aspect). Sure you're translating the photo into paint, but painting style is only part of being original. If you see an idea you like, adapt it to make it your own. Don't limit yourself to being a mere copyist.
• Join in the Painting Forum Discussion on this issue...
Image: © Marion Boddy-Evans. Licensed to About.com, Inc
Comments
You have said it Katherine, thank you. I must have these words written up and printed.
very well said.
I wondered why I was getting a lot of visits!
Thanks Marion. I too have been surprised by the extent to which people think that drawing from somebody else’s photo is ‘normal’.
I’m being asked to do a bit more about this on my blog in future so will let you know when.
Thank you Jeff. I was rather pleased when I wrote the words – it did seem to me to sum things up quite neatly!
I’m definitely interesting in reading more of your thoughts on the issue Katherine!
I’ve put a few of mine down in a new “opinion piece” article: http://painting.about.com/od/artistreferencephotos/a/not_paint_photo.htm
I use photos as well but they are always my own. Time is too short to do as much “open air” work as I would like. But I hope to get back to more of that as well. Photos are only tools, though. Faithfully copying is never the goal. I use them as stepping stones and nothing more.
Wow. I have 4 bins full of pictures that I hope to use to paint something “similar”. After reading this article,
I may empty them. I mean, I’m NOT painting those.
I wonder how many other artists have clutter… consisting of “ideas” for future work?
I agree fully. It is one thing to use photo images as references to make sure you have the correct number of legs on an insect for example; and another thing entirely to copy it and call it your own. I have lots of reference material that I will not throw away. I will continue to use them as reference material not as concepts to copy. Thank you for wording this so nicely. I know artists that actual copy newpaper photos, enlarge them and trace them inch by inch with no changes at all. Making things worst they sell them as orginal art. So yes this subject is a sore one for many artists.
Thank you for saying it and getting this conversation started.
I have more trouble with students who want to cling to their photos like security blankets! They think you have to copy!
They get painting books and do the excercises, and then they are given photos, and such.
When I set up a still life and wanted them to paint from that, two people quit! They just could not get their minds around it. They, after painting for years mind you, had no idea where to start!
Back to the basics!
The answer is Yes. It can be original art when painted from a photo. All creative people get their cues and ideas from somewhere, something, some place. A painting most certainly can be original when inspired from a photograph if the artist is using it as a guide, a tool. The painting will take on an identify of its own. If the painter wanted to, she could give credit and note that the painting was inspired by a photograph; she could even list the photographer. But her painting is her own.
The point is this; if it is your work, and it is coming out of you, and it is being express by you, then it will be an original work, your original work By the way, I would be so flattered if someone painted my jewelry.
sorry, but I do not agree at all! Can you paint a reallistic portrait painting, withoout using a photograph! Sorry. but light keep on changes, therefor you have to use a photograph
Grace — If you MUST have a photo, how on earth did painters cope before the invention of the camera??!! You create a visual memory of the scene, you deal with the light source intellectually and scientifically, you acquire knowledge of how and what light does, that’s how an artistic person does it. Photos have made artists lazy and dependent on a tool.
What rubbish Grace. Most portraits are done in studio conditions where the lighting is controlled and constant. Photographs are for copyists not artists.
I always get a kick out of these discussions. It never seems to fail that someone will come along and rip any artist who uses photoraphs as “not being an artist.” I use them, as a tool. So, I guess I am not an artist according to certain posters here. Well, doing this ON LOCATION must have been a fluke: http://kliewerstudio.com/works/43229
Oops, my bad…I guess I should have used a photo and been kept in my place.
Brian, you put your finger on it when you say you use photos as a “tool”. The problem is when people use it as the beginning and end of everything, without interpretation, selection, adaption. Photos are very useful and using them is no more “cheating” than using a ruler to draw a straight line. But painting isn’t about reproducing photos, and questioning what you’re doing with photos is crucial to developing IMO. I’ve come across newbies who thought you HAD to paint from photos, who never thought about painting from actual objects, not even for a still life.
Marion, I agree. Anyone who strictly copies a photo will get a photo copy and not a work of art. It would make more sense to just use a photo copier instead.
But inevitably in these sorts of discussions, I see shots taken at any artist who uses photos no matter how they are used. That was my reason for returning to this subject. Even their being used as a “tool” has been targeted. Well, to that I would say, I would like to see an arist who paints with a brush that doesn’t use a tool!
One more point I wanted to make. I’ll see if I can do it without a typo this time…
As for the copyist vs artist argument… I did do my “Study for Down to The Sea” from life. http://kliewerstudio.com/works/43229 I sat right on the cliff and painted it. But I was “copying” what was in front of me. It was copied in much the same way I use photos…with interpretation added. I never slavishly copy anything.
I know about thoose who use photos slavishly. I am not defending that. Growth can never happen with that approach. I just don’t agree with those who would attack any use of photos by an artist. And there is some of that here.
I agree it’s daft to attack photography as a tool, as if it’s somehow cheating. But working from a photo is different to working from life in quite a few significant ways, in my opinion. Perhaps most significantly is that it’s already a cropped view, in standard dimensions; too few people question this fundamental aspect when working from a photo.
Then there’s the change/filtering/reduction in color through a camera, which never reproduces the subtleties in shadows e.g. And many digital cameras don’t deal well with contrasts between light skies and land, rendering the sky as white.
Then there’s the 2D-3D aspect, which is why so many paintings done from photos are so flat.
I would agree with you on all counts here, Marion. My main target in my responses here in the first place was attacks on other artists that use photography as a tool. I’ve seen that prejudice on different message boards, and it’s childish IMO. But then, so is slavishly copying a photo.
Painting from life is greatly different, yes. And I would suggest that anyone who wants to work from photos should get a heavy dose of working outdoors or with a subject directly first.
And for those who want to bash artists that use photos regardless, I would like to mention that some of us have disabilities and can do very little out of doors for certain parts of the year…myself included.
One last thought on the subject… One of my favorite artists is Robert Bateman. He is widely considered one of the great artists of our time. I have several of his books. It’s always interested me that in the bio section he is shown holding a camera or using one on a tripod.
People have been going on about the use of photos since photography was invented, and in our era of digital cameras, photo software and good home printers it’s not going to go away
Before that it was things like a camera obscura and camera lucida. None of these actually turn the paint you squeeze from a tube into the finished painting, so it’s just petty wingeing in my opinion, but people who think think art-making is sole about “creativity” and “artistic genuis” rather than it necessitating technique and technical skill as well.
I really ought to make a list, but I recall Degas being one who used photos.
These comments are all good and show the personalities of the various painters. I have just two things to add to the mix: 1)To copy and hopefully sell another’s photo you paint without prior written consent is infringement of copyright law and could lead to dire consequences. 2)I would challenge anyone at a given time to set up their plein air paint stand out in the Kansas wind! Forget it!! There are circumstances where carefully taken photos can be just what you want,and we must realize it is a different art form when done right. Don’t knock them out completely for all situations.
Ilove painting . But photo shots are not the way to go. Ilove to look at nature and paint what I see.Iam always amased at the world around me. the color ’s there are so many. Iam still trying to paint one that I am proud of. some times from memory. try it .
I am a self-taught artist for many years now.
Truthfully, I love to use my imagination and
paint it on my own without using photographs.
I do remember in my O.A.C class in Art,last year of high school. I was told with the rest of my classmates by my teacher to use a picture from a magazine or photograph. The difference was, I guess, she wanted to see what kind of brushstrokes we were capable to produce.
However, I personally do not like to copy from
photographs, because, it limits your very own
creativity.
Some photographs can look better than a brush and paint. But, the amount of effort and time
to create OUR paintings, means more and we get
more satisfaction, than a click on that darn
camera!
That’s only my opinion.
What I really want to know is the legal aspect of this issue. If you create a painting from “someone else’s photo”, is it legally your original artwork? I’ve heard that you have to take the photo yourself or legally it is not an original piece of artwork if you used someone else’s photo. Please confirm.
Voyager, It depends whether you’ve their permission to create a derivative or not. See the Artist’s Copyright FAQ: Can I Make a Painting of a Photograph?< ?a>