It has been claimed, disparagingly, that Vermeer utilised a Camera Obscura to facilitate his work. This may well have been the case but it doesn't alter the quality of the paintings themselves. Only certain 'purists' seem to be upset by such horrors.
I have known several 'easel painters' who use 'mechanical aids' in their work, whether it be photography, light boxes, slide projectors, or even a simple pantograph.
I knew one painter who couldn't draw for toffee, and this had a terribly debilitating effect on his work. He now works from photographs and a light box, and produces work that is good enough to make him a reasonable living.
Another painter I knew would take his half completed 'light boxed' paintings out to where he had taken the original photo, and have a snap taken of himself 'supposedly' painting al fresco in front of the subject matter. I imagine he felt very guilty about his methods, and thought this would convince any skeptics of his talent (it probably didn't).
Personally I don't use any 'aids' in my work, as it's the physical act of drawing or painting 'from life' that is the most important part. To use a 'mechanical aid' would (for me personally) seem like cheating.
However, I do think that people who use such things should not be secretive or ashamed about it. If the resulting work is of good quality, I doubt if it would make that much difference anyway.
What a coincidence. I was also thinking about art this morning. I remember sitting next to my grandmother while she was painting aoutside.
ReplyDeleteoutside. (why there is not spelling correction in the comments??)
ReplyDeleteNever worry about your spelling Yael. If I could write Hebrew as well as you write English; I'd be very proud of myself.
DeleteThe important thing is that people are producing art and to allow creativity to flow is a good thing in itself whatever methodology is used.
ReplyDeleteOf course. I expect more painters use 'aids' than one imagines.
DeleteI can't draw for toffee - I cheat and use a light box - it doesn't worry me - it is the painting bit to me that is important - the end result that counts.
ReplyDeleteThat's my attitude too.
DeleteIt's all art …. that's the way I look at it. I watched Portrait Artist of the Year and many of them used photographs …. they all produced wonderful pieces. XXXX
ReplyDeleteYears ago I saw a documnetary by David Hockney on this subject. It was very interesting . He demonstrated how the masters got perfect accuracy with all the intricate details of objects in perspective. I always wondered before that how they achieved it. Why should it matter? There is more to art than perfect perspective.
ReplyDeleteIt fits into the inexplicable category. Some work sings to you and embraces you. Most does not. I suppose it is a subjective experience. Chacun a son gout!
The last time I was in David's studio he was working on a painting of a couple sitting on a bench in the Luxembourg Gardens, with their backs to the viewer. Sellotaped to the canvas was a large photo of the subject. As usual he was working from photos.
DeleteIf its fulfilling a creative need, I don't think it matters too much.
ReplyDeleteBriony
x
I was a little shocked when I heard about Vermeer many years ago, but I forgave him as I love his work so much!
ReplyDeleteSome people still are. It was this that prompted my piece.
Delete"The end justifies the means."
ReplyDeleteIt's not cheating if you admit to it...it's a whole other art form then.
ReplyDeleteFunny you should mention this, I'm currently reading a book, The Apothecary's House and it's about a painting that might have been painted using a camera obscura and it mentions that Vermeer my have used one.
ReplyDeleteI think however you paint is fine.
Oh how I wish I knew how to use any of the above methods. Would love to try them. I can't even figure out how to use the calipers or whatever they are called. Just have to wing it with my style of art.
ReplyDeleteI like drawing from life best but I have friends who make wonderful paintings from photographs but I cant do it.
ReplyDelete