Always Looking for a "Tell"

re: Always Looking for a "Tell"

witt1031 — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 19:01:03 GMT

The objective has nothing to do with detail or lack of detail, photographic aid or plein air painting.

It has to do with the artist's composition and conscious decisions about what will work and what will convey the intended message of the painting. It is a difficult process of selecting the components of the painting and rendering them in such a way that a statement is conveyed.

That said, I think that all artists should spend some time drawing realistically because it trains the eye, the hand, and the mind. Even if the artist's preferred work is non-representational, practice in drawing and seeing has an effect on one's ability to use the visual language of art.

re: Fictitious Portraits Blur Photographic Reality With Artistic Choice

Kisu — Wed, 19 May 2010 14:15:14 GMT

Blush, your confusion is absolutely understandable, since the double message seems to be that it is undesirable to draw or paint in too much too detail if you are employing photo references, but working from life is superior because then one can see all the real details and nuances that photography just can't capture! I agree with Dominique that what one is really after, regardless of means, is to get to the essentials of the subject. I always strive to convey what it feels like more than what it looks like.

re: Fictitious Portraits Blur Photographic Reality With Artistic Choice

Dominique8 — Wed, 19 May 2010 11:05:54 GMT

I think what it boils down to is that there are people out there who think they are artists, and others who genuinely are, and whether they use photographs or plein air, really isnt the issue. (this isnt to knock those new artists who are still learning)

What matters is what you are trying to convey and communicate as an artist. Merely copying from a photograph, or merely drawing the model in front of you is not art unless you are trying to capture the essence of what is in front of you. If you are using a photo, it is reference, and one has to be aware of its pitfalls. The photo is not the be all and end all, one has to incorporate feeling and emotion, otherwise yes, you may as well just take a photo and hand it over.

The same goes for plein air. Merely represting what is in front of you is not enough.

In this day and age where digital technology is so advanced, we as artists need to offer something more personal, more human and beyond what a lense could offer.

And that is not to say that all work must be abstract either, somewhere along the way real quality art seems to be lacking, and pantings seem to be slapped together. This has contributed to the 'lack' of interest from the general audience. People dont respect art as they used to, and I really feel that an artists forum such as this can start changing perceptions, and start building some incredible art!

Thanks for listening

Dom

re: Fictitious Portraits Blur Photographic Reality With Artistic Choice

Blush Pink — Wed, 19 May 2010 10:26:49 GMT

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused here...is it wrong to draw all of the details in a photo? I guess I'm a bit sensitve in this area. My hight school art teacher, Mr wright (yes, his real name) accused me of drawing pictures that "any photograph could give him". Isn't this the whole point?

re: Fictitious Portraits Blur Photographic Reality With Artistic Choice

Kisu — Tue, 18 May 2010 04:28:41 GMT

John, I would like to say that I do think that learning from life as a student is critical, and working from life situations at times is important even for more mature artists. I'm going out 'in the field' for some plein air drawing and painting next week and I look forward to it very much. I guess my real concern is that a lot of work done from life that I can plainly see is seriously flawed in a variety of ways is too often getting a blind pass just because it was done from life, whereas work involving photo references is becoming increasingly piled on. I'd just like to see work from life gone over with the same fine tooth comb used on work done involving photo references, but I don't know if there is anyone in a position to do that since there appears to be no real critical analysis of contemporary representational art being done as far as I can tell.

re: Fictitious Portraits Blur Photographic Reality With Artistic Choice

John Cogan — Tue, 18 May 2010 01:05:03 GMT

Very true. Good points.

re: Fictitious Portraits Blur Photographic Reality With Artistic Choice

Kisu — Fri, 14 May 2010 18:24:03 GMT

John, I'd say that is equally true of a lot of plein air work--plein air artists are slap dashing objects on to their canvasses and who knows if they know what they're painting, much less the viewer.

re: Fictitious Portraits Blur Photographic Reality With Artistic Choice

Kisu — Fri, 14 May 2010 18:21:23 GMT

I'd have to say I strongly disagree that photographic work is any more overly burdened with unnecessary details than a lot of the heavily finished and oppressively detailed representational work being done from life. A lot of that work could be easily confused with photography or airbrushed art. But I do agree that there are things to watch out for in working from photo references, just as there are excesses that afflict work done from life...except everyone blindly and unquestioningly accepts those flaws present in life work, whereas there is a lot of discussion of photos.

re: Fictitious Portraits Blur Photographic Reality With Artistic Choice

John Cogan — Fri, 14 May 2010 13:16:07 GMT

Photographs must be used carefully. Too many times I have looked at a student's painting and asked "what is that?" only to receive the answer, "I don't know, but it was in the photo, so I painted it."