|
Sharon, absolutely!
However, for many of us (both professionally and logistically) photo reference continues to be a necessary deal with the devil. I feel how badly this "dependence" affects one's work is an inverse proportion to how much time one can put into workng from the life.
I was amused by a conversation I overheard the other day . . . a gent whose work isn't half-bad (in fairness, it's also not half-good) was enthusing over the prospect of buying (for around $5k) a new Canon digital camera, with the expectation of "seeing" what he is not currently able to see in photographs . . . I don't believe he'll ever "see" until he looks with his own eyes.
On another tack, I happened to catch a recent documentary on Chuck Close . . . he said what interested him in the thematic of the work he's been producing, is how a photograph is the sitter's image in a split-second of time . . . the usual artspeak bulls**t followed, philosophizing over that single point.
In contrast, it struck me that the very thing that interests me, that separates painting from the life from photography, is the continuum that reveals the sitter's being through a session, and multiple sessions. To me, the resulting "in flux" composite is what contributes (one hopes) to a wholeness of expression in the image that is the antithesis of instantaneous photography.
|