I am curious, how many painters, or other mediums of art, use a photograph of the subject matter, to work from.
So many painters, I have encountered, know that they cannot paint quickly enough to get all the work done, on their landscape etc, before the scene changes, light changes etc.
They realize their memory may not be perfect.
Therefore they take a photograph and paint while looking at the photo.
I have been told, this is a common practice. I know, not all are done that way. However a significant amount is.
If this is true, and so many fine art painters, sculptors etc, build from a foundation of photography, why do some painters have such disdain for the photographer and not consider photography Fine Art.
Replies
I have thought about another reason.
Just an idea.
Perhaps it has to do with the closeness to perfection.
Yes, there are different types of painting, styles, methods etc. however, many painters, at one time attempted "realism" or "illusionist realism". (forgive me if I am using the incorrect terminology - not my field).
Where as a painter can get, only so close to the exact image that was viewed, a photographer can get to a degree of accuracy the eye is likely, incapable of discerning.
Not that either is better. Just the concept that the photographer can achieve something the artist may not.
Does this invoke some sort of belief, the photographer is "cheating", has too much advantage?
Where as us photogs, realize the painter has a great advantage in their, readily available ability, to alter their subject with a degree of ease and possibility, we do not have.
It cannot be a measure of time to create, as NO show, NO museum, NO gallery, states works created have a mandatory minimum creation time of ______.
The aforementioned "perfection" is not to state exact likeness = perfection. Perfection in art is whatever the artist and beholder believes.
Speaking for myself, I've not had the disdain for my work from other artists as a photographer. I've been doing art fairs since 1988, long before digital cameras became affordable. Back then, there were far fewer photographers on the circuit, and a major proportion of them worked in B&W. With the digital revolution, photography had a resurgence of popularity even greater than the mid to late 70's when auto exposure cameras hit the market.
With the digital wave sweeping photography came larger numbers of people wanting to make money via photography. The wedding market crashed as a result from tons of weekend warriors and soccer moms cutting prices and devaluing work. To some extent, this is reflected in the art fair world where once there were few photographers at a show, there are now many. I hear a lot about how someone bought a camera a couple of years ago and is now on the circuit doing shows.
What devalues photography, and this is from photographers as well as other media, is the proliferation of sameness. Think about how many versions of Antelope Canyon, the Charleston Angel Tree, the Mormon Barn, Horseshoe Bend, Cinque Terra, boats tied up at the end of a pier, rusting auto graveyards, and so on that you see. These are visual cliches, but people buy them and photographers keep copying them. I've seen these from different photographers that differed only in the position of the tripod by a few feet. I heard one painter disparage these as "calendar art" and unfortunately I have to agree. One artist Facebook forum had one artist noticing four different versions of the Angel Tree with only minor variations.
Technical skills are less required with auto-focus and auto-exposure, and it is relatively easy to copy or emulate what one sees in the mass market photo magazines. Once photographers start doing more original work there will be more respect for the medium.
Good points Robert
I agree with most of them.
Although I don't tend to use auto focus nor auto exposure. When I shoot with my Leica M2 or many of my lens' that is not an option. As when I learned photography and darkroom work, auto focus and auto exposure were not an option. I did not even have a light meter in the camera. I loved the split image - range finder focusing system of Leica. I remember when Pentax came out with it's awesome Microprism focusing system.
I'm became very good at looking at the subject and doing my own guess as to what exposure to use with Panatomic-X (25 ASA). Switch to Tri-X (400 ASA)
You area photographer. Have you not found many, on this site, as well as elsewhere have expressed the idea of photographers being 'less fine art"?
Even the Rittenhouse Square show, which happens 4 times a year. Two of the events are "Fine Art shows" and do not allow photography. Two more events are "Arts and Crafts" and allow photography.
You echo my words and complaints about the lack of originality many photographers practice. Exact same words :-) It makes it so, as I travel, I don't even want to shoot in those locations.
I've even found photographers, at shows, will reveal to me, they apply for jurying with the more creative and different work. however when doing the show they display the "Antelope Canyon" type work because it sells.
If someone just got a camera and can do the show circuit in just a couple of months. That may be fine. Perhaps they are a prodigy. Although I realize that is not the individual you allude to.
Hi Larry - point of clarification "The Rittenhouse Square Show which happens 4 time a year" is not one show run by one organization. Two different organizations hold shows at that same location, which explains their different rules. Each has a spring show and each has a fall show. For the most part, there is 0 overlap between the two shows as far as mediums go. Photographers are not singled out. As an example, Oil painters can't do the PA Guild shows at Rittenhouse (although they can do other Guild Shows), Fiber artists can't do the Fine Arts shows.
Michael
I was aware they were run under different rules. However I thought they were both under the same organization. Thanks for correcting me.
I guess it was a poor example. I was eluding to the choice that the 2 called "Fine Art" excludes photography.
I did not know Oil painters were excluded. Do you think they do that as a rebuttal for the exclusion of photogs?
I don't know if it's the same for Art Fairs as it is in art galleries. I think it's very similar. I've been in the gallery side of things for some time. We have always been careful when bringing in photography because you suddenly realize there are ten or more, "photographers" for every painter and it is very easy to be inundated with other photographers once they realize you are willing to show photography as well as paintings as "fine art." It's a strange problem.
So, do you think it is a bit of the over-saturation of the photography field?
I've known many painters who do not do the art fairs or galleries due to their belief that they are not ready or worthy. Yet their work is fantastic. Not just my opinion but also that of an associate who is a curator as well as art art teacher for over 30 years.
It can be very humbling.
I have found many galleries that do not hang photography.
Over saturation? Probably.
Until one puts in the required time and effort like anything else, most think it's much easier than it is. The competition is fierce in any art form. On the POD (print on demand) sites like FAA there are so many photographers and such a quantity of images it is just impossible to see it all. Much of it is just poorly done in my opinion but it's all out there easy to see.
Many painters are very self critical and introverts to boot. It takes a big leap for those folks to put it all out there and take their hits like everyone else. Some just paint for their own pleasure. Nothing wrong with that. They don't care or want to sell the work or are happy to pay for supplies. You can decide you want to be a professional, an amateur or a hobbyist. There is no wrong choice as they say. There are upsides and down sides to each.
I never considered art fairs for most of my life. However I have had to re-asses. The whole art fair thing has changed and grown. There are many levels of quality now that didn't exist years ago I believe. The economy has changed things too. Many artists dread having to learn how to sell. You have to learn to sell, to listen, to talk, to negotiate. Some artists just can't seem to get there.
There are the Art Basel fairs (international) where galleries sell very high priced and high end work and all sorts of levels on down to the farmers markets.
Just a note on working from photo references.
At times I have used only one photo reference. More often, I use the sky from one photo, the background from another photo and possibly several other reference photos for the foreground. While many may be doing so, do not assume painters simply work from one photo. I have used six photos to compose a single painting.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next