"Life" drawing from photos

Jeff Fuchs · 08-15-2003, 03:47 PM

I don't think this subject has gotten much attention here, but it is one that interests me greatly.

I emailed Peggy about her sauce drawings and asked about her ability to work from photos to create images that look like they were done from life. (Am I making sense?)

My example was her sauce portrait of Paul (see her website). While some artists go through great pains to duplicate every detail of the reference photo, Peggy only uses it as a reference. Notice Paul's hands, how they're elongated and simplified. She made no attempt at rote copying.

Peggy responded to my email saying that she'd have to put off the discussion until she returns from abroad, but I'm curious about how the rest of you feel.

I realize I'm not a pro, and I'm not trying to put anyone's work down, but I've had the feeling that there should be more to art than copying the reference photo. Sometimes it seems that the creative process ends with the completion of the photo.

So what are your thoughts on breaking from xerography?

Michael Georges · 08-15-2003, 08:41 PM

Jeff:

I think that the intent of using photos as reference is to make the painting better than the photo - that at least is always my goal.

I don't think of it as xeroxing the photo, but making it better and closer to life. As Bill Whitaker told me once (paraphrase), a subject seen from life is a perfect 10, a great photo of the same subject is a semi-acceptable 5. Our goal is to get our painting to a perfect 8 to 9.5. It is not about just copying what you see, it is about approaching life with paint.

This is why working from life gives such immense advantages.

Stanka Kordic · 08-16-2003, 09:18 AM

Jeff,

I think it's important to be trained at some point to see from life. Keeping sketchbooks, doing self portraits, having family members pose, open studios, whatever. There has to be some of that experience in the brain storage in order to view a photograph and UNDERSTAND what it would have looked like in person. I don't believe one has to work exclusively from life.

I also am a firm believer in this: If I want to know how a painted hand will look like, I find a painted hand I like. I don't go to the photos. I briefly look at the real hand if its there, but I need to see a PAINTED hand to learn from.

Paintings that breathe life are all about selective decisions, not painstaking copying.

My humble opinions

Marvin Mattelson · 08-16-2003, 11:48 AM

Copying is a subject that has been assigned a pejorative connotation by those who generally don't possess (IMHO) the skills to do it. Everything has a purpose if utilized correctly.

In the Ateliers of the past, students were given drawings by their master to copy exactly, a technique to train their eyes to see. In order to learn how to paint one must first learn to see what's really there, no small task. It becomes painstaking only because one must fight their natural tendencies to see the specific at the sacrifice of the whole.

Once one had mastered the ability then the had to once again learn how to copy the cast in their drawings. Only when they had been able to master this, were they allowed to move on to learn how to interpret what they see and begin to create the illusion of three dimensional space on a flat surface.

A lot of academic work fails because drawing accurately is only half the equation. Looking at the majority of academic work it's obvious that achieving movement and action is clearly not being addressed.

Because someone chooses to work in a way that champions the full resolution of form, it doesn't necessarily mean that it was "merely" copied.

In fact, most people who copy photos produce flat and stiff works.

So the problem is not necessarily the act of copying, but the approach one takes towards resolving the form. This requires both tremendous knowledge and great skill and is almost impossible to achieve without the proper training.

The act of copying is merely the means to an end, an exercise to develop ones seeing skills. It is certainly not an end unto itself and to consider it as such creates a land mine that can only subvert the quest for success.

Jeff Fuchs · 08-16-2003, 02:55 PM

Marvin,

I don't think I made my point very well. I was not railing against copying as a means to discipline one's self. Lord knows that's about all I draw these days.

I was hoping for a discussion on how we can transcend the photographic image to make a more artistic creation than the camera is capable of.

After I started this thread, Cynthia posted a reminder in the Guidelines forum about painting from poor source materials. That's not even close to what I meant. I'm talking about taking great source materials, and not going beyond them.

Again, look at the drawing that I referenced. In my opinion, Peggy set a much higher standard than the camera did.

Marvin Mattelson · 08-16-2003, 08:00 PM

Jeff, the answer to your question cannot be arrived at in one sentence, one paragraph or nothing less than a lifetime of study. The ability to bring something to life is the essence of figurative art.

In the late 1980's while attending a show of Van Dyke's paintings in Washington, I realized that the paintings on the wall were more real than the people admiring them. This was a defining moment for me. I understood for the first time that merely copying something, be it from a photo or from life, was merely the starting point. It marked the beginning of my evolution as an artist.

It has nothing to do with either detail or brushstrokes. The awareness you bring to the canvas is what determines the end result.

I tell my students "what you see is what you get." In other words, you will find whatever it is you look for, but first you have to learned to truly see what lies before you.

Cynthia Daniel · 08-17-2003, 08:09 PM

Jeff,

That was a general reminder for everyone and not aimed at you.

Jeff Fuchs · 08-28-2003, 10:55 PM

This question still nags at me. For now, I'd be happy just to be able to copy a photo, much less move beyond, but I have a thought.

This applies to painting. I have been studying many paintings on the web and in books, and I've come to the conclusion that one pitfall of photo copying is a potential for a lack of color harmony. Holly's page on Marvin's workshop got me thinking about harmonious palettes.

If I slavishly copied a photo, it might take two dozen or more separate colors to match everything precisely. If, on the other hand, I mixed a palette of harmonious, but limited colors, even if they don't match the photo, I would pull the image together beyond what a camera is capable of.

This is not news to many of you. I'm just trying to flesh out the concepts that I think I'm learning.

I checked out Chris' book from the library, and I'm learning other concepts, like value clumping, that can be pitfalls of photographs.

If I ever get so far as to paint portraits on a regular basis, I'll almost certainly be working only from photos, so I want to prepare myself for the challenges.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Michael Georges · 08-29-2003, 12:01 AM

Jeff:

Good post. You most certainly will be working from photos a lot. The thing about it is, don't work only from photos. Get in some life drawing classes and try to paint from life too.

There are very distinct differences between painting from pics and painting from life. Painting from life will help to train your eye to see. Further it will help you understand the shortcomings of photos and help you work around them when you use them.

Also, there is a point in any work when the reference becomes secondary to the work of art you are creating - my opinion. I will actually put the reference away towards the end and focus on what makes the painting a better work of art. The painting transcends the reference - that is very important for me.

Tom Edgerton · 08-29-2003, 07:53 AM

Jeff-

If it makes you feel better, I once heard Richard Whitney remark that it takes a good number of years just to get to the point where "you can make it look like the thing," that is, achieve anywhere near a full realization of form, as Marvin said. THEN, you begin to selectively orchestrate what you've acquired, in other words, to begin to evolve a personal vision and stylistic approach. It takes a while, at best.

Miles Davis once overheard a musician criticising another player as being too derivative, too much a product of his influences. In an--uncharacteristically--generous moment, Davis replied: "It takes a long time to learn to play like yourself."

I try to keep that in mind when I'm in a funk about my work.

Nothing you're doing is wasted time. Just keep working and what you're after will evolve naturally.

Best--TE