Comments on: Why paint outside instead of from a photo? http://artandperception.com/2007/08/why-paint-outside-instead-of-from-a-photo.html a multi-disciplinary dialog Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:24:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: T. Deregowski http://artandperception.com/2007/08/why-paint-outside-instead-of-from-a-photo.html#comment-44375 T. Deregowski Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:00:54 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/08/why-paint-outside-instead-of-from-a-photo.html#comment-44375 I often paint buildings. I work from the subejct. I`d say that this forces me to scrutinise and understand in much greater depth the buildings I paint, if simply because the process of recording them is that much more laborious than were I to use a camera. I know there are photographers who spent a similar amount of time studying their subjects, too, but I think this is fairly uncommon. I once heard an architecture lecturer state that the abandonment of drawing as a means of recording buildings of note by architeture students in favour of cameras had resulted in a loss of scrutiny on their part. I often paint buildings.

I work from the subejct. I`d say that this forces me to scrutinise and understand in much greater depth the buildings I paint, if simply because the process of recording them is that much more laborious than were I to use a camera.

I know there are photographers who spent a similar amount of time studying their subjects, too, but I think this is fairly uncommon.

I once heard an architecture lecturer state that the abandonment of drawing as a means of recording buildings of note by architeture students in favour of cameras had resulted in a loss of scrutiny on their part.

]]> By: Sunil Gangadharan http://artandperception.com/2007/08/why-paint-outside-instead-of-from-a-photo.html#comment-33700 Sunil Gangadharan Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:41:36 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/08/why-paint-outside-instead-of-from-a-photo.html#comment-33700 Karl, Photographs also accentuate the emotive power of its subjects - I think it just depends on the subject . You are right when you talk about your experience with nature - which is but one type of a subject. I plan to talk about this in my next post. Karl,
Photographs also accentuate the emotive power of its subjects - I think it just depends on the subject . You are right when you talk about your experience with nature - which is but one type of a subject.

I plan to talk about this in my next post.

]]> By: Steve Durbin http://artandperception.com/2007/08/why-paint-outside-instead-of-from-a-photo.html#comment-33532 Steve Durbin Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:00:51 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/08/why-paint-outside-instead-of-from-a-photo.html#comment-33532 Karl, Was that bait deliberate? Perhaps we should de-bate whether the photographer's tools for conveying feeling are nil or impoverished compared to a painter's. An old but undying debate. But at the moment, I have to agree with your rationale for working from nature, since I share it (plus photographers have no choice in the matter). But moving from the artist to the viewer, how do you think your felt experience is manifested in the painting? Or to put it in terms of an experiment: how could someone tell the difference between a painting you did outdoors and one you did from a photograph? Karl,

Was that bait deliberate? Perhaps we should de-bate whether the photographer’s tools for conveying feeling are nil or impoverished compared to a painter’s. An old but undying debate.

But at the moment, I have to agree with your rationale for working from nature, since I share it (plus photographers have no choice in the matter). But moving from the artist to the viewer, how do you think your felt experience is manifested in the painting? Or to put it in terms of an experiment: how could someone tell the difference between a painting you did outdoors and one you did from a photograph?

]]> By: David http://artandperception.com/2007/08/why-paint-outside-instead-of-from-a-photo.html#comment-33531 David Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:38:16 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2007/08/why-paint-outside-instead-of-from-a-photo.html#comment-33531 Karl, depending on your goals and preferred working methods, you could paint entirely from life, entirely from photos, or a combination of the two. If you're finishing each painting in one session, "from life" probably works great. If you are working on each piece over the course of days or weeks, there is the option of also taking reference photos and continuing what you started outdoors in the studio. Even before photography, landscape painters like Constable would do studies from life and then paint in the studio. I don't think painting finished works outdoors became common until the mid-19th century. Karl, depending on your goals and preferred working methods, you could paint entirely from life, entirely from photos, or a combination of the two.

If you’re finishing each painting in one session, “from life” probably works great. If you are working on each piece over the course of days or weeks, there is the option of also taking reference photos and continuing what you started outdoors in the studio.

Even before photography, landscape painters like Constable would do studies from life and then paint in the studio. I don’t think painting finished works outdoors became common until the mid-19th century.

]]>