Thank you for such a thoughtful and gracious response!
Quote:
|
Because I've done the boot camp of drawing and painting, I can perhaps make the most of a photo. The real hazard is in slavishly copying one, or gridding up from or tracing one, without having been inquisitive and disciplined enough to know what things and people look like behind the lens as well as processed through one.
|
I think this is the crux of it for me too. I've seen work that was created by a person who obviously hadn't been through the "boot camp". They traced, the portrait is dead-on accurate, but it's just
missing something.
If I see a painting that sings, is gorgeous, and has personality and life to it, it doesn't matter so much if it was traced or not. Obviously the artist has "paid their dues", and it shows in their work.
I think the thing that seems "wrong" is when the artist doesn't really comprehend it all yet, but are able to get quick and easy results (by using "shortcuts" like tracing). I saw it a lot in some of the illustration classes I attended. Such artists may do well for a while, but sooner or later, that lack of foundation ends up being something they regret not having. Or - even if they don't regret not putting in the time to develop the foundation, it becomes obvious to others that they are missing something.
That's the way I see it, anyway. I can't imagine not being able to draw from life, or not being able to invent sketches from my imagination, without needing to use a model or photograph. Such drawings are often the ones I love the most. I cannot fathom why some people would choose to not learn how to do that, but if they don't, they don't. (Sorry, I obviously don't get why people trace!)
Nathaniel Miller: I was able to quickly do a Google search and find the painting you were discussing in your post. Yeah, it seemed a little sterile to me too. I prefer the examples of artwork I've seen on this site as well.