I understand what you're saying, and your points are well taken, but I think that if someone already is very familiar with a location then that would alleviate some of those difficulties.  I also think that someone who really understands form or structure can make intelligent use of photos, and someone who simply doesn't understand form or structure--and color for that matter--in *any* context won't be any more successful paining directly from life.   If someone has a well developed sense of color and color harmony, they aren't chained to the colors contained in a photograph anyway--or to those observed in person working from life.  It's really in the skill and brain of the artist, not the method used to gather visual information.   I see examples every day of poorly executed work done from life, but it gets an automatic 'pass' because it's claimed to be done from life or plein air.   Overpainted, overdrawn, too hard edged, no interpretation, no sense of toolmark or brushmark, no energy, no motion, and ironically, the results often look just like a photograph!  But because it's done from life it's somehow exempt from the very same criticisms that work using photo references is subject to.   Something's wrong with this double standard.  

I like what you've said, Lori. I wont try to make the point that one "has" to practice en plein air. I will say that continued exposure to nature will inform a person's ability to interpret a photograph.

It forces the artist to learn the correlation between sunlight and skylight. Of course, the most obvious problem is that lenses distort images. This is more pronounced in images of people or animals, but it occurs in landscape as often. Also, I dont think one can really get a grasp on the fractal geometrics inherent in the landscape apart from the plein air experience.

You make a key point that working on site helps you form a connection to the scene. Working only from photos will transfer visual and intellectual information onto the surface. When working within the environs, though, the immediate response of the artist to the scene is transferred, as well.

Kisu's observations are good, prefaced with the idea that one is already familiar with the location. I'd add that all of this relates to the experienced artist working in both situations. An immature artist will produce immature work in either case. As to whether inferior work is excused because it was done on site, I dont find that kind of work hanging in established, legitimate galleries.

Can a person learn and practice his art without working from life? Doubtless. Will working from life improve his work? Without question.

Don,  I generally agree with what you've written.  I've been looking at *a lot* of artwork over the past couple years, both in person and online.  I've looked at hundreds and hundreds of websites, visited artist studios, and of course gone through galleries and museums.  I guess my main beef is that there is growing criticism of work derived from photo references--criticism instigated and pushed by, shall we say, those with interests in promoting a certain agenda--while work done from life and plein air appears to be suffering from their own particular set of serious problems, but honest criticism appears to be lacking.  There are institutions and individuals advancing painting and drawing from life, and an honest appraisal of the results so far is that these interests are generating a lot of artists who are essentially functioning as human cameras or Xerox machines.  Is that really any improvement?  

This post was mentioned on Twitter by American_Artist: Why I Must Paint Plein Air Studies: I admit that I am not one who adores painting on location. If the truth be .. http://bit.ly/rboyA

Kisu- I didnt mean to necessarily disagree. My experience doesnt appear to be as extensive as yours and I simply havent observed this particular bias. I have friends who practice both on site and studion painting. Some work exclusively from photo reference, others only en plein air. While there is naturally some jibing back and forth, I dont think any of them have a true prejudice toward the other. Of course, if they'll accept that I only use knives, they're probably less rigid than most.

Kisu and Don,

I really appreciate your taking the time to discuss and present  your thoughts. I have no problem with artists who work from photos. I worked exclusively from them for years - my paintings were successful and sold well.

I can think of a couple of friends ...... maybe many who paint from photos, and  you'd never know it. My guess is these good artists understand where photos fall short and make the adjustments in their paintings.

The two paintings in this blog appear in the current issue of Watercolor - an article on how to paint landscapes from photos. The editors as American Artist asked me to write articles on this subject because so many artists out there are not aware of some of the problems inherent with photos and they paint exactly what they see in the photos without any interpretation of what's in the shadows or atmospheric perspective. I hope I shared useful information that is helpful to artists. I decided to share some of it here on the blog.

Thanks again. your comments make the artists' world an interesting place :-)

Lori

Lori and Don, I really appreciate your comments, and again, I generally agree with what you've written. Photos most certainly vary in quality and the artist should be fully aware of their limitations.  It was one of the things that I recall being discussed way back in my art school training, and yes, artists do need to made aware of these issues.