Do you value an artist less if you find out they create their works [say, paintings] from photographs vs. making up their art completely from their imagination?
by 
Wide Awake @ has closing date woo hoo
ANSWERS: 14
-
Yes, I value them less. Copying from photos is cheating.
-
Not at all, if they're the ones taking the pictures especially. Do people value still life paintings of fruit that people set on tables to paint less than ones that people paint from their heads? Many of the greatest artists had live models stand in for them to paint.. I'm sure many would have loved the ease of having a photograph that didn't move and could be a references.
-
Not at all. It does not count which technique an artist uses. The result is what counts. There can be great paintings that were made with the aid of photography, and there can be bad paintings made solely with the aid of the imagination - and vice versa. A technique per se has no quality.
-
As long as they are using their own photography, I do not see it as less. If they are copying from another's photo for learning technique, then that is fine, I would not consider that less. But if they are selling the work as their own work, it must come from them and their own photography.
-
Nope, photography is an art too. So unless they're using someone else's photos, I'm cool with it.
-
i know a bunch of dope artists who snap a shot of whatever they're painting and spend weeks working from that photo. personally, i think it takes more skill working from a photo vs making it up, because you're seeing a lot more detail that you have to work into the painting using a photo. super good answer dude +3 (wish i could give you more, but alas, i'm only a low ABer)
-
I dont see it as cheating but I cant see the point in reproducing something that is already there unless you are changing it and making it something that it part of yourself...in your own unique painterly style, your colours and baring in mind that a photograph is a flattened image, a camera has only one eye, you must compensate for this.
-
no, i think theyre all pretty good
-
to answer positively, I value originality that invites the viewer to see something that reflects the artists sensitivities.
-
No, I do not. It requires great skill to copy a photograph. It saves time and trouble as well. It is difficult to sit still for hours while an artist is painting your portrait. Copying a photograph is fine with me. I had a boyfriend who was an artist. He painted a picture of me on the back of a leather jacket. It took a month to complete this painting, and I would have been sitting still for hours daily all month is he had painted it from life. He made some sketches of me from life, but they did not require much time.
-
The key is that they have to put themselves into it or they might as well settle on photography. When I did portraiture many were of intriguing faces from all mediums, fine art, photography and occasionally live. What i discovered is my own style and nuance. (I do/did this for my own pleasure)
-
No. It just depends on what they're creating. Some people will pay millions of dollars for a painting of a Campbell's Soup can, just because of the dude who's name is on the bottom.
-
No, I don't. Photos remain still, but live models don't. I think a good artists can paint from both life and photos.
-
no
pearllederman 
Roaring 
Hardcore Conservative RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC