|
First it was your nice post Marvin that sucked me in to this thread to begin with I feel you are correct that a painting done from life is not better just because it was not painted from a photo. And it was not my intention to say it was.
I did not post to counter your point just to add a caution to those that might use photos as a shortcut. Never mind that they are missing out on one of the greatest experiences in art if you ask me. I Love the interaction between model (or portrait subject) and the artist it just adds something to the experience that painting from a photo will never have.
Now when I am working on details or backgrounds it is great to have a photo that never moves never complains about posing for too long. The lighting in a photo never changes with the weather or time of day. A fleeting expression can be frozen and the sun never sets in a photo. There are many advantages a photo can have over live subjects so if used in combination you are correct you can have the best of both worlds.
So can we agree the debate it is not photo vs life but a debate between; uninspired, poorly executed and poorly plained vs inspiration, a mastery of your tools and great plaining.
|