philosophy of drawing thread

[bonzelite]

In school we're often taught that photographic references are evil and should be avoided, they are cheating.

I want to begin with this premise and offer a counter-argument to bring into balance the reality of what comprises the creative process, and what is "allowed" and what is "hurtful."

Clearly if you begin your artistic path with reliance only on photographic references for everything, you miss out on what the actual subject looks like in three-dimensions.

However, most subjects to draw, particularly for commissions, are not available as live subjects. The artist cannot have anything at any time to draw in front of them.

Therefore the premise of photographic references as evil things is unfounded and clearly untrue. Most commercial illustrators must not only use them, but must push the quality of their images beyond the mere photograph itself.

Knowledge of light, texture, composition, form..... facilitates the creation of a proper three-dimensional facsimile. And this is gleaned only from observing live subject matter.

One need not have the actual object but instead the knowledge of the physical world in three-dimensions. With this knowledge the rendering of virtually anything is possible.

The synthesis of both life-experience and flat images balances out the creative repertoire of the artist.

[ChevyGuy81]

When I was in art school they told us to steer away from using photo references for drawing because it will end up looking flat. I do agree with this to a certain extent. That's why I believe people should hone their skills using live subject matter before moving on to photo references. This will allow the artist to factor in things such as shape, light, shadow, volume etc. that the photos just do not show.

[bonzelite]

Originally Posted by ChevyGuy81

When I was in art school they told us to steer away from using photo references for drawing because it will end up looking flat. I do agree with this to a certain extent. That's why I believe people should hone their skills using live subject matter before moving on to photo references. This will allow the artist to factor in things such as shape, light, shadow, volume etc. that the photos just do not show.

I premise that, however, in reality in practice, that doesn't ever happen. The honing occurs simultaneously while using photographs. There is no line in the sand whereby you are drawing live subjects, then one day --poof-- you are now using photographs. It happens in tandem from the beginning.

The key is to not rely on the photograph to teach you about life drawing because it cannot do this properly.

[ChevyGuy81]

Originally Posted by bonzelite

I premise that, however, in reality in practice, that doesn't ever happen. The honing occurs simultaneously while using photographs. There is no line in the sand whereby you are drawing live subjects, then one day --poof-- you are now using photographs. It happens in tandem from the beginning.

The key is to not rely on the photograph to teach you about life drawing because it cannot do this properly.

that's what I was trying to say, you just put it into better words

[bonzelite]

ok cool, I understand

[mycorollas]

Well im out of luck thats all i do is draw from references lol!!

[PDQ VW]

Photography not evil!

Check out the influence camera lenses have on peoples drawings---great curvilinear reference for one!
But it's all 'bout what YOU do with it!

[lemorris]

a wise man on these boards once wrote.

"If you can't draw, you can't trace well either."

I'm a firm believer in photo reference. I'm an illustrator not really an "artist" (that's a whole nuther discussion) I do what I have to do to get the job done.

Artists (notice the conflict?) have been using reference for centuries. From a certain perspective, drawing from life is using reference too.

ChevyGuy81 you Art Center of Tucson? If so we have a very common bond.

-Lemorris

[ChevyGuy81]

Originally Posted by lemorris

a wise man on these boards once wrote.

"If you can't draw, you can't trace well either."

I'm a firm believer in photo reference. I'm an illustrator not really an "artist" (that's a whole nuther discussion) I do what I have to do to get the job done.

Artists (notice the conflict?) have been using reference for centuries. From a certain perspective, drawing from life is using reference too.

ChevyGuy81 you Art Center of Tucson? If so we have a very common bond.

-Lemorris

Yeah I went there in 2003ish didn't finish tho

[GirlBear]

I dont care what anybody says. I mean I draw for me. Don't get me wrong Kudos are nice. But its an escape to my world. In my world im safe no one and nothing else matters. everything around me just shuts off. Refference or not who cares. If some one is gonna trash what i do because i used a pic ref, F'em!

[lemorris]

Philosophically F'em!



I really like you.

[gbritnell]

In my lifetime I don't know how many times I've commented on discussions of this type. Having had some art school training at a time when photography was a whole other medium the accepted theory was that as an "artist" you didn't work from photographs. Then as the years went by I saw what fine artists used for reference, pictures out of magazines, photos, personal sketches, anything that you could refer to to portray the subject accurately. I think the true feeling behind it is that if you copy a photograph shape for shape, color for color you never look beyond that to see what composition, light source, perspective etc. is all about. If you are an artist that specializes in drawing trees, you study trees. If you are an artist that specializes in cars, you study cars. You learn shapes, perspective, reflections, elipses etc and know how to apply them, but to do specific subject, a Ferrari, a Corvette, a Mustang or a VW how can you remember all the peculiarites about that subject, you can't so you use some type of reference material. Personally I take tons of photos for reference but when I get ready to compose my pictures I use bits and pieces from several photos to assemble my work. Sure I know what a cloud looks like in my mind but a reference helps make it look more believable when I do the finished picture. I don't worry about what other "artists" say about how to create a picture. If you know the basics and are happy with your work, or better yet if the customer is happy with your work that's all that matters.
gbritnell

[GirlBear]

Originally Posted by lemorris

Philosophically F'em!



I really like you.

I figured you'd like that. haha

[crzyhorse]

Having never had a traditional art class, I can maybe comment from the "casual sketch artist" point of view.

I've been known to use photos as a reference, after all how many "regular Joes" have access to a Lambo? Mostly though, I draw from memory. If one uses the "carved box" method taught in almost every how-to book, then you're sculpting the car. Same with using a maquette. To my mind, drawing is more like sculpture, than photography.

I challenge the trained illustrators to come up with a truly original automotive design. The same inate ability that allows the artist to design, light, and shade that, allows them to do the same from photographic reference.

If all designers relied on live models alone, we'd still be driving model T's.

Tell your instructors about this, if they make more blanket statements like that!

Art is a talent, not a skill. Anyone can draw, or sketch, but it takes an ARTIST to give them life. I'm no artist.