Painting From Photos

To paint from a photo or to not paint from a photo; that is the question- Let's see, did Shakespeare say that?? I'm sure he meant to! 

I've had both college and private teachers stand everywhere on the issue from "No real artist would paint from a photo!" to "Everyone remember to bring a photo to class next week." Why the debate?  What's the big deal, and who gets to be the art boss that says whether it's right or wrong?  And most of all, does it matter?

As I did this piece I was able to look at the reflections from more than one side as I moved around the arrangement so I knew exactly where the reflections were hitting the metal. A photo would have flattened the reflections out and I'd have missed the red bits on the side of the cup shape.  

Actually, it matters.  Of course this is my opinion and worth every cent you've paid for it.  I'll tell you why I say that and- since this is art and there is no art sheriff who gets to be the ultimate authority on what is true and what is not- you get to say what your take on it is for you.  Isn't that nice? To me, the worst part of the art world is hearing from those who think they should be able to dictate what art is and what it is not.

Painted from a photo I took years ago, this is flat and uninspiring because I just copied the photograph

First, my list. I love lists.

The cons of painting from photos:

• It's very hard to get the sense of space as I work if I'm just painting from a random photo like, say, a magazine picture  
• It's very easy to become a slave to getting every detail just right and worrying that my work doesn't look exactly like the photo
• I don't remember to interpret the scene instead of copying it- why am I painting it if I want it to look just like the photo?  I have a photo, who needs a painting of a photo when the real thing does the job so well? 

Although this was painted from life, by the time I got to the rose shapes, they had wilted.  Photograph to the rescue, although looking at it from a couple of years later, the roses are not as vibrant as they would have been painted in person. Maybe photo not to the rescue?

The pros of it:

• Sometimes it is very helpful to get details that a sketch done on the scene didn't pick up.  Example of this: when painting cacti I am not familiar with, I am glad to get a close up look because otherwise I'd have to make it up and my imagination isn't nearly as clever as nature
• I can attach a photo to a sketch to enhance my memory when I want to paint it
• Measuring angles on roof lines, ect. when the sketch is too, well, sketchy, is a dream on a photo
• Flowers wilt and fruit rots.  Getting a photo to accompany still life work can help me get the fresh look to my subjects after they flake out on me.  I can still get the look of the objects as I paint from life and the bloom on the rose at the same time.  Win/win

I made the mountains up, drew the train cars from a picture and then put it away, relying on my skill to get them painted the way I wanted them. 

To me, working from a photo is a great idea if it's used as a jumping off point.  Take the components I need and make the rest up.  I don't want to be a slave to the color, arrangement of the subject or even the size of the things in the photograph.  I get what I need from it and put it away and don't go back and look again.  This pushes me to use what I know about perspective, color temperature and composition, just to name 3 elements.  I have to use my painterly skill to pull it off.  Which makes me grow.  Which makes me, in my estimation, a better painter.  And isn't that whole point?  

This was painted from the back door of my studio and has a feeling to it that the one of the old churchyard above lacks.

Thanks for stopping by! Alice