Cheating: Blog post by Rick

Karyn wrote

on 12 Dec 2008 9:18 AM

Previously posted in the "Mastering Oils" group by Rick.

"I've read in other forums on other website the opinion that artists using overhead projectors, tracing or transfer paper, or other artificial means to do their initial sketches were guilty of cheating. Here is a little history on the use of artificial devices in art.

Camera Obscura

A camera obscura was used by many of the old masters including such notables as Dutch Master Johannes Vermeer are thought to use one and it's use was even written about by Da Vinci and Aristotle

The camera obscura (Lat. dark chamber) or pin hole camera, was an optical device used in drawing, and one of the ancestral threads leading to the invention of photography. In English, today's photographic devices are still known as "cameras".

The principle of the camera obscura can be demonstrated with a rudimentary type, just a box (which may be room-sized, or even hangar sized) with a hole in one side, (see pinhole camera for construction details). Light from only one part of a scene will pass through the hole and strike a specific part of the back wall. The projection is made on paper on which an artist can then copy the image. The advantage of this technique is that the perspective is accurate, thus greatly increasing the realism of the image (correct perspective in drawing can also be achieved by looking through a wire mesh and copying the view onto a canvas with a corresponding grid on it. The Old Master would project this image on canvas and trace the image.

A demonstration on how a

camera obscura works

A freestanding room-sized camera obscura at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

One of the pinholes can be seen in the panel to the left of the door.

The Camera Lucida
The Camera Lucida was and still is used by many famous artist for the last 200 yrs
The Camera Lucida is an optical device that allowed you to see what you want to paint or draw by reflecting it onto your canvas or paper. Camera Lucidas have been aiding artists for 200 years and today Camera Lucidas are still very practical art tool that just about every artist would love. From sketching cartoons to large oil paintings or even painting dishes, the Camera Lucida can do it all.

1830 engraving of camera lucida in use

So what do you think, Was Johannes Vermeer and others frauds or were they just producing good art?

Thanks in part to Wikipedia
There are many good articles on the internet on these subjects."

And, thank you Rick, for your blog.

Karyn wrote

on 12 Dec 2008 9:34 AM

Reply by Christopher Grimes:

"In my opinion, this is not cheating although I am sure there are purists who will argue with that.  There also are those who insist that pleine air paintings are done 100% on site.

The end result is what counts, not the means to get there.  If the Old Masters that we all admire so much did it why can't we?

Chris"

Reply by Rick:

"I couldn't agree more Chris. Many many portrait artist use an overhead projector with a photo of their subject. I think if I had an overhead projector and was doing a portrait, I would use it.

pleine air

I live on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Nevada, on the banks of a beautiful white water river. With such gorgeous country all around me I have unlimited opportunities for  pleine air painting. But I do my pleine air painting with a digital camera. Why, 3 reasons

1. I freeze the moment in time. As the sun moves the colors and shadows change.

2. I can take all the time I need at home to paint the images.

3. I get tired of picking the bugs out of the paint."

Reply by Jamie Malloy:

"i agree wholeheartedly that it inst cheating I think the only way anything in art can be considered cheating is when you (the artist) lies about how you did a work and the techniques involved."

Reply by Rick:

"I agree totally Comrade Vladimir"

Reply by J. Richard Secour:

"CHEATING----NO!  The end result is what matters-I fully agree!  We hear brush strokes, can identify an artist-HMMMMM brush strokes are important - ie: it is how the artist paints the subject that is of importance.

As for plein air painting, in my opinion that is a snob factor and I think we would all be surprised at how many so call plein air painters are really studio painters with a big ego.  To begin with, very few can paint as fast as the shadows move while pretending to be a plein air painter - I also think more plein-air paintings are finished "plein-studio" than we want to admit to.

Get the image onto the paper, canvas or whatever and then PAINT - make your brush strokes or style or color scheme be the art factor that sets you aside and into the fore-front of your world.  "

Reply by lou Marek:

"Cheating. I never thought of technique any technique as a form of cheating. The only cheating I'm familiar with is plagerism and illegal downloading. My best friend downloaded a large number of my paintings and had them framed and installed them in his companies office spaces. I went up to have lunch and walked through the large company to find at least one of my paintings in every office. I didn't know what to say and to salvage friendship and lunch laughed and said I was flattered.HMMMM!"

"Also look up Hockney's book on this subject of lenses, Camera Obscura and Lucida. Loved it."

Reply by Rick:

"I think any person that would steal (And that's what it is, stealing) an artists work without permission or recompense is a thief, no different than if you stole you friends company's product or service. When you steal an artists work, you are stealing his soul. No one but perhaps another artist knows how much heart you put into your art

Ti's a sad story Lou, I was sorry to hear it."

Reply by Lokelani:

"Hmmm...glad to hear that the majority of responders did not think it was cheating.  I've been doing portraiture using the grid system...wish I had a Camera Obscura or the like."

Reply by fc_upland:

"Certainly not cheating, except for example, when an artist represents his(her)  works as en plein air when  in fact they are done  "paint by the numbers" using a slide projector or other projector.  I see works produced using photographs a lot and its easy to tell,  the perspective is warped by a camera lens optics,  the shadows are much too dark,  the color is limited, and geologic features are too exact."

wrote

on 12 Dec 2008 1:46 PM

  I just knew this discussion was going to come to this forum sooner or later. I thought I could keep myself from the discussion. (I was wrong about that)

I certainly hope I may persuade some of you to see my point of view and not get  too upset with me.

If,  the end justifies the means, the person who is cheated is not the viewer of the artists work, but rather, the artist who performed the work instead.

If an artist choses to use suporting aids , camera obscura, lucia, tissue paper or projectors, then I can only feel that the artist is not achieving the skill, and or knowledge gained from the hard work and study necessary  to develop their natural talent.

I am not, and I repeat NOT casting aspersions upon any of you who may use those devises. I  accept the work that is done using the various methods mentioned. I feel as most of you do that the work is really nice and or should be debated as art, good or bad.

But, let me be clear, I don't think the use of any aid is going to help a person develop as an artist.

One must understand that learning and progressing in art comes from doing; painting, drawing, studying, and we get from it what we put into it.  There is no shortcut to experience.
 

Daniel_OB wrote

on 16 Dec 2008 3:34 AM

Using such projectors, photo-camera, or digital-camera in most cases IS cheating. Cheating who? Cheating themself. No one can cheat history. But well anyone that transfers paints from the paint-tube to the canvas calls himself artist. That is cheating themself too.

Using photo-camera or digital-camera, however can be very useful tool to artist, to make a drawing. That is a trap. It can be used ONLY as a good reminder on what the artist "saw". So the picture MUST be taken by the artist, and taking the picture must be considered just as one step in painting process, one step in creating the work of art, a step done with no less artistic-soul than the painting in the studio later on. But just to "download" (or like) is cheating.

wrote

on 16 Dec 2008 4:36 AM

Daniel_OB:

Using such projectors, photo-camera, or digital-camera in most cases IS cheating. Cheating who? Cheating themself. No one can cheat history. But well anyone that transfers paints from the paint-tube to the canvas calls himself artist. That is cheating themself too.

Using photo-camera or digital-camera, however can be very useful tool to artist, to make a drawing. That is a trap. It can be used ONLY as a good reminder on what the artist "saw". So the picture MUST be taken by the artist, and taking the picture must be considered just as one step in painting process, one step in creating the work of art, a step done with no less artistic-soul than the painting in the studio later on. But just to "download" (or like) is cheating.

Here, here! Bravo and well said,Daniel.

Karyn wrote

on 17 Dec 2008 7:09 AM

Have you all read Steve's blog of a similar nature?

http://www.artistdaily.com/blogs/steve/archive/2008/12/15/tell-us-what-you-think-about-working-from-photographs.aspx

Thought you might enjoy reading.

Daniel_OB wrote

on 17 Dec 2008 7:47 AM

Karyn

I think that Steve is a little confused here: You might think it is easy to resolve these issues, but what if a wildlife artist pays a photographer to use his or her photograph of a rare bird as one small part of a landscape painting? Or suppose a painter puts a direct copy of a Corot landscape in the background of a portrait and acknowledges the French artist in the title of the portrait? And what about a photorealist painter who paints a copy of his photograph with such precision that one can hardly tell the difference between the painting and the photograph?

A colour or B&W photograph, or a digital image, is taken for two reasons: to aid making the drawing on the canvas with "right proportions" and as a reminder how it all looks like at the moment. It MUST not be the only source for painting. Painter do not paint what he see but what he knows. Also making a drawing on the canvas tracing the photograph or dig. imake is aid only. The pencil can move away from the print artist copy, and usually does. IT IS AID. Also, as I said in my previous post, using photo-camera of digital camera is the only one step in producing work of art, and so that step cannot be mechanical like this: hm, looks nice let me snap it. Painting still can be made from such a snap but it has zero chance to be work of art. A painter have to seat in front of the scene, analyze the same, move at different points, come next day when the weather is what an artist think it should be,... And when he think it is he want to paint, take a camera and record it.

I would like also to underline here that using digital camera can fine but it is not so good. Why? Easy to reshoot again and again, thinking that any error can be fixed by computer, easy to press the button without much thinking, no cost if shoot and reshoot, lets shoot and will see on the screen is it I want and if not I will erase and reshoot,... This can be very missleading. Photo-camera is much better for that purpose, bet people today want all quick so no bothering,... with film. Using film one have to be really concentrated on what he see in the cameras finder, especially if it the last frame...

And about photrealistic painting. Painting do not need to be any different than a photograph. It is not requirement but possibility of painting media. But all said above must be incorporated into the painting

wrote

on 19 Dec 2008 10:46 AM

Well, I guess you guys haven't received the Feb. issue yet....

However, it isn't the camera or lucia ,etc I refer to. Using these items as a reference is a common pratice.

My consideration is for using the prints as direct to canvas application and not taking the time to draw them in yourself...

see the difference?

Otherwise, a photo is just a model.

Daniel J. Keys wrote

on 11 Feb 2009 11:17 AM

Kells L.:

One must understand that learning and progressing in art comes from doing; painting, drawing, studying, and we get from it what we put into it.  There is no shortcut to experience.

 I must say that I completely agree with Kells L. on this subject. My greatest endeavor when painting is to improve, and develop my skills as an artist. If I use shortcuts in the process, I harm only myself.

Joe888 wrote

on 2 Jul 2012 1:54 PM

Karyn,

  I agree 100% with you and yes I would be very happy to paint you nude using a camera lucida.

Rumjig wrote

on 4 Sep 2012 10:54 AM

Old thread I know, had to add my two cents. Using camera lucidas and projecting a photo to paint or draw over is definitely cheating. I learned from elementary school that tracing and calling it your own is cheating.

If some one does not have the artistic talent to draw a figure from observation, they should work at it to become better. Using a camera lucida or other "aid" and entering it into a competition or exhibition with artists who used a natural method to create their work is especially bad since it is obvious that the cheating artist will not label their art work as it really is.

This is a handicap, plain and simple, and any painting that was created using a camera lucida should not be looked at as appreciatively as you would a painting created from pure observation. They are on a different scale, because one required far greater skill to create than the other.

Sam Nathanale wrote

on 19 Sep 2012 6:46 PM

Old thread indeed but still important. If an artist is only tracing/copying, he will never ever learn the majority of skills that allow one to create complex original compositions. For the hobby artist, or the simple technician, or as a classroom exercise- fine. But, if an artist is shooting for Rubens, Velazquez, or Titian tracing/copying will never -ever- get them there. They will be stuck doing stiff portraits and boring still life work (aka sight-size tradition) forever. For details see-   http://www.trinkamarguasimon.com/page6.html

Unfortunately, tracing/copying will always render a good piece of art (if the source is good). So it is indeed appealing.Yes the old masters used copy and tracing techniques... key work is used, just as one would use red. Certainly no one would advocate only learning a copy technique - frightening thought.