Photography and Painting

A Brief History:

Before impressionists, paintings were largely done in the studio without a model present. With the advent of the impressionists paintings were more commonly done from life where artists were observing the actual scene, objects, and models. In my eyes this set the work of Levitan, Monet, Sorolla, Sargent, and many others apart from the past.

Photography in Painting:

Now that the digital camera has become widespread many painters are sticking to photography and foregoing a live model or scene. It provides a cheap convenient means to paint a picture. It is my belief that with using photography you have to understand its limitations, and have spent a significant amount of time painting and drawing from life.  Allowing the painter to impose the experience of painting from life into painting from photos. Downfalls of photography I am familiar with:

• Pictures are already flattened images. This makes it harder to capture the 3 dimensionality that exists when viewed from life.
• Photographs often don't capture accurate value relationships and commonly exaggerate the contrast.
• Color is closely tied to value and suffers significantly in the photo.
• Personally, I find it far less enjoyable and engaging when compared to painting from life.

Painting by Shawn Barber c.2005

Why did this come up? I was looking at one of the modern painters I enjoy, Shawn Barber, and noticed that one small painting stood out from all of his other work. It was done from life, where most of the others were not.

http://www.sdbarber.com/pages/tattoo_icon_pg.html#

http://stapletonkearns.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-received-this-query-today-i-think-i.html

-charles