With the proliferation of cameras in cell phones, this may be easier than you may think. Better still is to work from an image they have composed and created. I believe that IF a student uses a photo reference it should have some personal meaning, interest, or expressive quality, otherwise it is less "artful" because it may lack personal expression, a key component of art. A broad art program should expose students to many techniques, media, and approaches.
The opposite is true as well, as grids and photo-references can become a crutch, and too much Philip Glass may make one go mad. Surely an art program can be successful without the use of photography and gridding, as would a music program without the mention of Philip Glass and the minimalism movement. Nor is it an insult to photography to do so. The notion that gridding, or the use of photo references is "less artful" is ignorant. is it art? Is it worthy of such a lofty title? I would defy anyone to say the work of Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, or Jerry Uelsmann is not "ART." If an artist receives a commission to create a portrait, is it somehow less desirable for them to use a photo, or, god forbid, trace a projected image? Is it more desirable to just force the subject to sit for weeks on end to labor through the process with the artist?Īnd what of photography. If one assumes that art that uses a photo reference is less worthy, then masters like Picasso, Degas, Muncha, Cezanne, Kahlo, and Eakins were purveyors of schlock for daring to use photo references with varying degrees of copying. But if so, what percentage is acceptable? 20% reference, 80% by eye? 50/50? Does this mean Chuck Close's early, more photo-realistic work, is less "worthy" of praise than his more modern pixelated approach? One can argue that a photo reference is but a tool, a point from which the artist departs to make their work, that outright copying is the bad thing.
So is using a photo cheating? Does using a photo for the basis of a drawing or painting in some way a backhanded insult to the art of photography, that's it's somehow "better" to draw/paint than photograph? And though some masters DEFINITELY used a camera, and some like Chuck Close do so overtly, does it make their work less "artful?"
0 kommentar(er)
