[Lunatique]

It's funny when I see people post comments like, "Wow, that looks like a photo! Incredible!" (Assuming it was obviouly painted from a photo.) Little do these people realize that THEY TOO can do it fairly easily. It's just they've never tried and think it's something really hard. Fact is, it couldn't be easier if you just have some decent rendering skills.

I'm sure some of you know this already, as I've been seeing a lot of people making comments like, "photo-realistic is boring." and, "What's the point of making a painting indistinguishable from a photograph?"

I've also heard people trying to defend that style, saying things like, "It's a challenge to make something resemble reality." or "I use reality as a reference point to make my own photo-realistic images."

I belong to the former group. There was a time when I was somewhat interested in the photo-realistic style, as I thought it was challenging. But soon after I made my first photorealistic drawing and painting at age 14, my interest soon dwindled. The truth is, any competent artist should be able to do a photorealistic drawing/painting without too much trouble. The rendering skills required to do such a piece is usually the minimum of what's required of a good artist.

Photorealism doesn't require the artist to make any real artistic/aesthetic choices, and there is no imagination involved at all. Big billboards on the freeway are painted by numbers(or they used to be. I don't know how they do it these days), and they are damn photorealistic, but are billboard painters "artists?" Hell no. Anyone with good eye/hand coordination and patience should be able to observe details and copy them exactly the same. When you slavishly copy photos or try to make photo-realistic art, you don't get to experience all the pleasures of designing, deciding on colors, composition, dynamics..etc. What's so fun about making paintings into a mathematical process? One of the major elements about great art is WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO LEAVE OUT of your images. These artistic decisions will make or break a piece of work. When you copy photos, you've already sealed the fate of that piece by giving up that artistic choice.

One aspect of photo-realistic art is the extremely polished look(invisible brush work). I used to think that's the sign of superior technique(and believe me, it's so hard to break out of that habit once you've formed it.) I would look at paintings by Boris or Bouguereau and freak out. Now that I'm older, I prefer guys like Sargent, Waterhouse, Schmid, Zorn..etc. Their work has CHARACTER. Each brushstroke is a statement in itself, and speaks far more than any polished surface. I still respect and am amazed by artists who paints realistically(but not photo-realism)with really polished brush work, since they don't just blantantly copy photos or try to reproduce images that could be mistaken for photos. Boris and Bouguereau both paint highly realistic images, but their work requires lots of aesthetic decision making, and are far more interesting than photo-realistic stuff. They paint what I call, "idealized reality." If you want to do realistic work, at least shoot for that instead of bland photo-look alike

Another thing I've noticed is that there are artists who appears go be great artists--when they copy from photos or use photo reference extensively. But, you take away their photographs, they end up with stuff that looks, quite frankly, pathetic.

So, what the point of this post? I dunno. I guess I just wanted to get it off my chest.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[Frost]

I very much disagree, but that's just my oppinion. "But soon after I made my first photorealistic drawing and painting at age 14, my interest soon dwindled." -- I find it hard to beleive you did so, or maybe your vision of "photorealism" is something that looks slightly more real than the Saturday morning Pokemon cartoons, but that's up to each individual's oppinion. I agree it's easier to draw photorealistic work with a photo reference and just copy, but it's another to draw photorealistic work from your mind without reference.

As much as I love and respect Craig Mullins' work for example, I must say a very very slight portion of his work could pass as actual photos, if any, and he is one of the world's best. Saying that photorealism is easy to acheive is probably the biggest foresight and limiting factor you could ever impose on yourself as an artist.

Now, I know that 'artwise', photorealism isn't very interesting, boring in fact. In the name of art, people usually 'beautify' and distort reality to enhance the visual experience to evoke more emotions, get a clearer picture of the mood, topic, setting, etc. I am not against that at all, I think it's a great way to learn how to 'saturate' feelings from art. However, they are two very different perspectives and goals. These artistic rules of "oversaturation" is there to make the job as an observer easier. Look around and see advertisements, packaging, etc... all full of color, over-saturated with feelings, brightness, etc... we've all been overly exposed to those oversatured things, that our vision of reality is now one of boredom and toneless gray interpretations. If you look at something that is not artistically manipulated, you might miss the point because you are so used to seeing only the obvious through manipulated overexposure of emotions and texture... ads, cinema, clothing, designs, etc... all crafted to make our minds just a little more numb and imperceptive.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

[balistic]

There are valid conceptual reasons to persue photorealism. In my case, I am interested in exploiting the common perception that photographs are true. People trust photos because they are obtained by an instrument instead of an artist . . . even though an impressionist painting is a far better representation of how a human actually sees the world, photographs are viewed as real, objective truth.

If an artist can take a subject from his imagination, and render it so that it looks photographic, the audience will, at least temporarily, accept that subject as a real one. Photorealism makes it possible to hurdle over that first obstacle of getting lay people to see past style.

When I showed my art teacher from highschool a print of "Alkali" and she asked where the photo was taken, it was a real thrill . . . not because I'd tricked her, but because I'd managed to take a salt flat that exists only in my head, and a storm that never happened, and depict them in such a way that she accepted them as actual.

I agree with you about artists who function as Xerox machine . . . I just wanted to point out that there are other kinds of photorealism. It can be a coating that makes an imaginary subject easier for a viewer to swallow.

[Lunatique]

Oops, perhaps I wasn't being clear enough. When I said photo-realism, I was pretty much talking about stuff that's pretty much just copies of photographs. I don't mean painting it out of your head or painting it from real life. I should've been more clear.

Other kinds of photo-realism(ones that don't just copy photographs)are much harder to achieve than just eyeballing a photo(s) and reproducing it. I might not agree with it aesthetically, but I have respect for it.

As far as me doing photo-realistic stuff at age 14, I was doing graphite/charcoal drawings of portraits(from photos)that were absolutely indistinguishable from photos(people would touch the surface too see if it was a drawing). I did them to proof that even a kid my age could pull it off. My art teacher was impressed, but then he said, "So, what are you going to do now, that you've proven you can copy photos perfectly?"

Boy, little did I know just how deep that question was.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[Socar MYLES]

Photorealism doesn't interest me personally--I will do it if I'm paid to do it, but otherwise I tend to avoid it. However, I think there are some instances in which it's a good thing. I love to see an unbelievable subject rendered with such manic realism that one almost has to believe it.

What DOES get up my nose is the way some people go around naming every remotely realistic piece of painting "photorealistic". The fact that a figure, for example, is represented in absolutely correct proportion with realistic colour and invisible brushstrokes does not make it a "photorealistic" work. Renaissance painting, for example, is highly rendered and very lifelike, but no-one would mistake it for a photograph. The faces are always stylized, the sizes and relative positions of the eyes and nose particularly altered to make the face more aesthetically pleasing, and so forth.

Photographs provide a very flat and literal view of reality. Realistic painting does not have to do so.

So, defining photorealism as art that seeks to mimic the style of a photograph, rather than art that is simply highly rendered and very lifelike, I would say that I am not fond of it. I am fond of realism, however, in varying degrees.

[eyewoo]

Well said, Socar...!

I guess I don't understand what motivates someone to write this type of message... its like a jockeying for position in the artworld...

At any rate, being pigeon-holed as a photo realist, I thought I'd like to point out some inaccuracies...

Lunatique says: "One aspect of photo-realistic art is the extremely polished look (invisible brush work)."

Me says... huh??? ... and I offer as evidence this picture...



It does look photo realistic and I suppose that's the category it would be placed in. It is made to look even more like a photo because it has been reduced to a tenth of its size for display over the Internet on a computer screen. My work of this kind has never been created for display on the web. It is meant to be seen as large prints. If that were the case with the above picture, you'd see the background like this...



...hmmmm... me thinks I see brush strokes there....

Lunatique says: "Photo realism doesn't require the artist to make any real artistic/ aesthetic choices, and there is no imagination involved at all."

Me says... huh??? ... Me thinks you must be a very young person to make such a harsh statement as that... I offer as evidence this photo reference...



... and the picture I digitally painted using the reference...



Lunatique... when people say, "WOW... that looks so much like a photograph," what exactly does that mean? Or perhaps, more to the point, what does it mean to you... Does it make you angry for some reason? Personally I find it a bit humorous when I hear people say that... like when they say, "oh you do computer generated artwork." It doesn't take long to explain that my work is not generated by a computer, it is created using a computer as the art medium of choice. And it doesn't take long to show people the large prints of my work so that they can see the brush strokes, the care, skill and love that goes into the creation process. Here's a picture that'll give you a better idea of the scale for my "photo realistic" work.



On a small computer screen, they look like photos, but not in the flesh. In the flesh you see the strokes and can appreciate the artistic and aesthetic choices made... not only in the final picture, but also in the choice of pose to photograph for the reference photo. These pictures are productions with a beginning process that starts with a relationship between artist and subject matter so that the initial photos can be taken, through to the final digital brush stroke laid to tablet...

(continued in the next message)

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[eyewoo]

(continued)

Lunatique... I think you'll find most artists who use photo references can also draw and do have imagination. ...all the way back through Thomas Eakins to (very possibly) Vermeer. Those guys, and many more great artists use photos or optical devices as part of the tools used to create their artwork.

You say, "Little do these people realize that THEY TOO can do it (create art from a photo reference) fairly easily. It's just they've never tried and think it's something really hard. Fact is, it couldn't be easier if you just have some decent rendering skills." Yeah... you really got a handle on that understanding. I'd like to see that photo realistic picture you did as a 14 year old... Just curious... I'm sure it's really good, even though you probably didn't put any imagination into it or make any artistic choices.

... oh, I just wanted to show you a few of my pictures for which I used no photo references... done with a digital tablet and pen.







...and finally this one that I did with a pencil on paper while a student at the Penna. Academy of Fine Arts in Phila. some time ago...



...and to tottally belabor the point, here's a link to about 36 images all done from out'a my head with no overall photo reference for any of them... They were done as backgrounds for a 2D computer game... One example is below...



See 'ya 'round the forums...

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[jabber]

really interesting comments on this thread so far.

For myself, I see photos as providing valuable information concerning lighting, anatomy and body actions. As well as a tone of other information that I'm probably not even aware of. I think its just another tool that I use to help me understand whats floating around in the old noggin. And sure, sometimes I have done those cheesy paintover, but mostly because thats what I wanted to do for that image.

In a book I'm reading right now, (which is ok so far) the writer says, "Slavish copying of the figure is not really drawing; "absolute resemblance CAN be uncreative and static. As a creator, the artist must seek out and emphasize those qualities which best spark alivness: rythem, balance and movement."

I'm finding that I agree with this statment more and more. However I also realize that Photography IS art in its own right. If it wasnt, I think everyone would be working for national geographic as a photographer. Great photographers obviously take a lot of time and energy into their photos, and it takes years of learning and experimenting to develope your own photographic style and such. Same with drawing.

OLE!

[turnip]

I have to back Lunatique up.
What I believe he is saying is those ppl who can ONLY copy from photographs. If no reference were provided they would be in trouble. I don't think he says ALL those who draw from photographs lack true artistc ability.

I think there is some miscommunications flowing about. I would be gladly to provide samples of artists' works that contrasts their "photorealistic" artworks with simple sketches or illustrations...but that would be just rude. The fact of the matter is that so many artists are COPYING photographs without knowing what they are drawing. Dot by dot, Strand by Strand. Sometimes you can see errors that you know they shouldn't have made if they knew they're anatomy correctly.

I'm more active in the anime/manga community, and I have found the anime form to be a very good "test". An artist might showcases his or her anime art and traditional/realistic art, and you find startling contrast in the 2 areas. The anime (and other genres of "comic" art) form is a very simplified form of anatomy but small flaws are easy to spot (since most ppl don't copy anime/comic pictures). It's easy then to see where their weaknesses lie.

To be able to paint realisticly is a GREAT skill. NO artist should leave home/school w/o it. But sadly, the reason why so many comic artists emerge more popular is because they can create something new and exciting. Something that takes imagination. There is this fantastic artist in a mall in our area. He renders great portraits of celebrities and commonfolk alike. The portraits himself have a great charcoal sketch quality to them yet containing all the characteristics of that particular person. He can produce the same results on the spot. But his business wasn't doing so well. People would "wooo" and "aaaah" and leave. While I goto chapters and kids seem more interested in poorly written/drawn "how to draw anime/comic hero" books.

[Lunatique]

fleabrain- my post was not directed at any individual. It was just a thought/feeling I had at that moment--accumulated over time from things I've seen on the internet and sometimes comments people make here. I'm familiar with your work, as I'm a regular here, and I'm well aware you do work outside of photo-realism. I could understand that you are offended, as I've chosen your style of choice to criticize. I apologize for not taking that into consideration.

I don't understand why it's so hard for people to believe someone at a young age could produce photo-realistic work. The first time I saw a pencil drawing done by an art school guy(son of my mom's friend), I was totally blown away( I was 14). I told my art teacher about it, and he just smirked and said, "You can do it too. It's not that big of deal." I didn't believe him, but I was curious(and headstrong), so I decided to prove to myself that I COULD do it.

So, I went through a pile of photographs and picked one with strong values(of a girl, of course), and began work. I first photocopied the photo, and then drew grid lines on it. Using the grid, I then plotted the same grid on a large drawing paper(about 18 x 24?)and proceeded to draw the contours exactly the same. Then, the crazy rendering part began. Prior to that drawing, all I did was anime/manga, so I had no real experience with photo-realistic stuff. But, I charged ahead, with a whole range of graphite pencils(from 4H to 6B), tissue paper(for blending)and a kneaded eraser.

It took me over a month(done during recess, after school, during lunch..etc), and when I was done, it was indistinguishable from a photograph. The entire school was amazed, except my art teacher. "I told you so. So, now that you've proven you could copy photos exactly, what are you going to do from now on?" was what he said, with a big smile(like a proud uncle or something).

That drawing is now in Alaska, kept by Kara Peterson, a high school buddy of mine. She asked for it when she moved away, and I said yes, but now I wish I had it so I could scan it in and post it to show(and encourage the younger members)that a younger person CAN produce photo-realistic art.

Anyways, I shouldn't have to prove anything, but since some of you asked, I'll post other examples from my youth. They are not photo-realistic, since I didn't see the point in making another photo-like piece. They are, however, in the realistic realm.

These were done between age 14~16.


Felt tip pen on crappy drawing paper. Done during safety education class.


Charcoal on paper. I was a fan of this band(TMN), so I drew them just for fun.


Never drew animals at that time, so I made myself sit down and draw one. Charcoal, conte, and pastel.

Even though none of these are "photo-realistic," I'm sure you can still tell that I had the rendering skills at that age to do the pencil drawing I talked about.

Anyways, I feel stupid to have to post these just to prove that younger people can render realistically. If 10 year old violinists or pianists can be child prodigies and amaze people, why can't 14 year olds do the same with art?

[Anthony]

I don't think it matters what a person does-if he makes a cool image then great. An image that's the same as a photo isn't very cool, but if he changes it up to be interesting then that's cool. All in all, great image = good. I prefer a rougher finish to paintings myself. And please people, for God's sake, don't group Bougey man with Boris, lord of the dance.

[MetalSoul]

Off topic: flebrain, you're 61 ?!?!?


Wow...I thought you were much, much, much, MUCH. Neat.

You prolly don't remember who I am though, that Valentine painting guy

[eyewoo]

Norm (metasoul)...

Yep... 61... Yikes!!! That's me..


hmmmm... trying to remember who you are... hey, I'm an old guy... gray matter's stiffnin' up... give me a hint...

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[Lunatique]

Anthony- God no! Boris isn't even fit to carry Bouguereau's brushes. I only mentioned those two because when I was 14, they were my two realism styled heroes.

fleabrain- You're like, the coolest elderly dude I know. You are now officially the hippest senior citizen in your county.

[[Shizo]]

HEhe you both old bums.
Anyways, to myself better art is more exciting either by saying something different and new/unique or by showing some amazing creativity.

[gekitsu]

i agree to you, lunatique when thinking of people that _only_ copy photos. i'd say painting photorealistically from mind is something different and requires as much skill as every other genre.
what i like is pictures that you dpo not realize that they are cartoonish in a very quiet way. first look: "hey, now that's damn realistic" second look: "oh no... someone with these ears would fly away with a bit of wind... and that nose would fit an elephant... and... and... oh, this is a caricature..."

nevertheless, i agree to you in the point that i like paintings more in which you can see the emotions of brush strokes and character.

[FroZen]

omg.. those drawings are awesome Lunatigue..
bitch!
lol
I wish i could draw like that.
and i don't reckon it's *easy* to draw pics like that, and you were only 14-16.. man how good would ur artwork be now if they were THAT good back then?
well i'm officially jealous at everyone on this board.. you are all too bloody good!

[eyewoo]

I understand your point Lunatique... but I certainly do not agree with it... or at least with the way you've addressed the issue.

...and when you write something like, "Photorealism doesn't require the artist to make any real artistic/aesthetic choices, and there is no imagination involved at all." I really think you are running way off-base. The process for many photo-realist painters does not begin at the painting stage. It begins at the planning and taking of a photograph. Understanding and planning for your subject matter. Understanding - creatively - how to use and work with light... and how to translate the reference into an image that stands on its own. Of course, anyone who slavishly copies a photo is really not doing much more than an exercise, but the good photo-realists don't do that... and I've never seen a good photo realist picture that I'd mistake for a photo...

I just think you made a really uninformed, shoot from the hip, not well thought-out statement.

And, BTW, you know the old cliche, a picture is worth a thousand words... so never be reticent to show your work...

[Lunatique]

gekitsu- Yep. Ever seen Tim Bradstreets's work? Looks realistic right? Well, my ex-roomate(Jason Felix-excellent artist)also illustrates artwork for White Wolf, and he told me Tim would basicaly be paralyzed without tracing photographs. He saw Tim trying to draw without photos, and he nearly fainted from the shock(it was REALLY bad). And before that, he worshipped Tim like an art God.

The really good artists can create the illusion of realism because they understand reality, but they also uderstand in order to create interesting work, they'd have to inject other elements into their work. I've seen those awesome caricture painters you are talking about. One of them is especialy famous(can't remember his name). He would do these completely f%cked up paintings of famous celebrities, and you can tell instantly who it is, yet he exaggerates the features almost beyond recognition(FULBAR ).

FroZen- believe me, having had an early start does not guarantee a brilliant future. Take a look at my website and you'll see that as an adult, my work is nothing to scream about. Maybe it's because I dropped using photo references heavily around the time I turned 18?

I posted these to encourage, not to discourage. I really think producing artwork like the three above is not that hard if you BELIEVE you could. It's more of a confidence test than an ability test. Having a photo in front of you and then drawing it exactly is just a mathematical process that takes some hand/eye coordination and close observation to complete. For those of you that don't think you can do it, TRY it. Just once, REALLY try it. Don't go crazy and try to do a whole piece. Just pick out a section of a photo and try to copy it. It's good for training your rendering technique/observation skills(but don't get hooked on it. It's a bad habit to render things to death).

Remeber, don't see things as what they are, but as lines, shapes, values, colors. Don't think, "I'm drawing an eye." but think, "this is a line that's about 30 degress slanted to the left, and here's a triangle shaped grey spot around 70% in value, and this 30% grey blends inot the 70% about 3/4 ways to the right...etc etc"

It's all mathematical problem solving when you copy photos. It's when you decide to ALTER the photo you are working from, things start to get interesting. . .. I started to realize that soon after I copied my first photo. The three pieces above are not 100% like the original photos. I've made alterations because I just felt the need to make some kind of aesthetic decision. That, eventually, lead to not working slavishly from photos altogether.

During my teenage years, I did countless tests like that(I drilled myself like an army sargeant). I'd pick an eye, a nose, or a mouth, and sometimes a whole picture, and then I'd use all kinds of mediums to challenge myself to reproduce it as closely to the photo as my ability would allow. I've done it with watercolor, oils, acrylics, pastels, colored pencils, graphite, charcoal..etc etc. I even made reproductions of painters I admired(Boris, Bouguereau), but of course, they were nowhere near the original. In those few years, I pretty much got my rendering skill down to the level of any adult professional illustrator, but my understanding of composition, colors, vlaue...etc was still at the level of a teenager.

I don't think my rendering ability has gotten better since then. There isn't much to improve, once you can render something to death, it's all over. After that, you'd have to learn EVERYTHING ELSE that's much harder, like what to LEAVE OUT of your piece, how to do things that's more interesting than just copying reality, understanding of edges, values, color tempeture, composition..etc etc.

[ February 10, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[ceenda]

Lunatique: I don't actually want to add anything to the topic, but those are really, really nice! Especially the Oriental girl.

[Lunatique]

fleabrain- I can be a hot head sometimes(and an @ss). No hard feelings, eh?

BTW, you appear to think I'm some young lad, but I just turned 29. BUT, that could still be quite young depending on personal perspective.

ceenda- that Asian girl is Noriko Sakai(singer/actress). I was a big fan of her's as a teenager. A real cutie.

[eyewoo]

Lunatique... 29... My oldest daughter (the one with the yellow autumn background above) just turned 30. I'm 61... so, yeah, 29 is young... LOL

No hard feelings here, either... we're both good, but we focus our work on different audiences. 'course I suspect there might be a lot of overlap... no problem with that, eh!

[Sedone]

I didn't know that about Tim Bradstreet. If that's true, then that sucks. I still like his style, though.

I remember when I learned that gridding method in middle school. I thought I was da bomb cause my drawing looked just like the photo I got from a magazine. Sure, I was happy I got it to look so realistic, but I felt like I was cheating the whole time.

Looking at photos for reference is fine by me. I do it all the damn time. I encourage other people to do it. But when I hear about people tracing photos it just pisses me off for some reason. Maybe it's just a knee-jerk reaction, I dunno.

[eyewoo]

Tracing photos is part of my process for doing a portrait and some other photo-realistic work. Once the tracing is done, I then eyeball the rest for painting... Why trace, when I can draw... because it saves an immense amount of time for a part of the process that will never be seen.

I love to draw - see my untraced drawings above - but drawing for a painting is a totally different thing for me... it makes no sense to spend hours setting up a drawing that will never be seen because it's gonna be covered with (digital) paint. The time saving is just too precious not to do it... and I don't have that sense of immortal time that I use to have as a youngster...

I really don't care much about how a person gets to their finished picture, image, whatever. If they want to do a total mathmatically correct representation of a photograph, then I'll still evaluate it on how well it was done, overall style, and the impact and meaning of the picture... If they want to take off from the photo and use it to launch a completely different image, then I'll evaluate it exactly the same way. If they bring the image completely out'a their own head, then I'll also evaluate it exactly the same way. If you are good, you're good. If you are just a little off... then you're not good.

Each of the three methods I used as examples in the above paragraph produce completely different artwork, but if the end product is excellent, then as far as I'm concerned, each is world class.

[edible snowman]

i didnt really read most of the stuff here, but i would assume that copying photographs is part of a process. you cant draw things well out of your head until you can do it with reference. anyway, the value you get out of copying depends on how you do it also. if you just sit there and copy shapes you aren't really learning much, if you're actually thinking about what you're doing you get a lot more out of it. it's difficult to gauge the value of something using a reference solely by the end result.

[Superbug]

My god flea brain...61! Your, 3.1 times older than me.

[BooMSticK]

fleabrain - yes, I see your point. Tracing can save tremendous amounts of time... I have done it occantionally if I had a job that needed to be out of the door almost before I put down the first strokes... But tracing IS bad! For quite a numerous reasons. Firstly, traced charcters will very often feel stiff and rigid. Especially in more actionlike poses (look at Boris). Another argument is the fact that tracing really doesn't develop your skill that much... I guess doing thousands of photocopys will improve your skills somewhat, but I believe drawing from the photorefence and NOT tracing will develop you skills better. Drawing from live models will be even better...

One should always remember to develop the drawing done from reference more than just the copyprocess. With this I mean to get better actionlines, exaggerate and simplify the drawing. And when doing portraits the painted character will be even more recoqnicable (sp?) when certain features are excaggreated just a bit...

another of 2 worthless cents...
,boom

[eyewoo]

BoomStick,

I have no arguement against your comment... I agree completely, except for the statement, "But tracing IS bad!" emphasis on the "IS". Look... it's all relative. Of course it can be bad... so can drinking too much scotch be bad. But if you know how to use it and don't abuse it, it's good.

Clinton said..."It's the economy, stupid." Replace "economy" with "picture," and you can quote me. If the picture flows... if its got a life of its own, if the client is happy ... then the process of getting there is valid.

Nuff said, for crying out loud... unless someone wants to chime in and indicate they understand my point of view...

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: fleabrain ]

[BooMSticK]

fleabrain - yes, relative... everything is relative as one great head once said... But to get a point through you can't be 'relative'. That was why I wrote 'is' in capitals...

>>>Clinton said..."It's the economy, stupid." Replace "economy" with "picture," and you can quote me. If the picture flows... if its got a life of its own, if the client is happy ... then the process of getting there is valid.<<<

uhm... I'm not getting this. Call me undereducated, call me anything... but please don't patronize me.
Yes, if the client is happy then everything is alright... or is it? How do YOU reeeeally feel about what you just did and how you approached the painting? Deep deep down - are you proud of what you just did? It is this unnerving feeling that keep you pushing on and makes you evolve into a better artist! Always strive to do better...

But as I said. I have traced myself occantionally to make a deadline or just to save time with a job I didnt really care for. But I was never proud of what I just did. It paid my bills, that's all.
,boom

[ceenda]

BooMSticK: I disagree, if it's for a client, then whatever pleases them is fine, no matter how it is done. Artists have plenty of opportunity to "strive to do better" via their own personal endeavours.