A lot of great painters use photographs. Chuck close used photographs and projected them on a wall, Seville also uses photographs. Francis Bacon used photographs extensively. He wasn’t an amazing craftsman but his paintings are incredible. And I do believe it’s known Degas was so excited by the camera that he used photographs as well, later on in life but after he was taught to be a draftsman. I think you need to use the tools you want to use in a way that it makes sense. A lot of artists don’t have access to models, or can afford models, or have family that will sit for you for long periods of time. Photography can be an interpretative option. Remember Paul teaches a particular school of painting. I don’t believe he is informing us about all end all, be all, forms of painting and drawing.
Hopefully I have clarified that I am primarily talkng about the training of painters, the training of the eye. Pictures are made in many different ways and using many devices.
Do you feel there’s a difference in the quality of the photo? Would it be less bad to paint from well composed photos like those by Kertesz, or would it likely lead to the same quality of painting technique?
I like to create paintings from photographs using outlines and then noodling the form inside. I try to make the figures look as pasted on as possible in the vein of bouguereau. What do you think?
If the person who submitted the question, suggested the American artist Jeremy Mann that might be more appropriate to the photography aspect. Good talk.
Hmmm...I watched a documentary on Richter and, I swear, he dumps a bucket (or two) of paint into a six foot trough, takes a squeegee and soaks it in the paint, and then slathers the paint across a massive canvas. I’m sorry, I don’t get it, but, if you can get $20M for a painting like that...which he evidently does, I guess it’s a pretty efficient way to work.
Thanks Paul. A question- Who are some of the artists of today who you would consider to be the best examples of artists working in the Boston School method?
Hi Richard, When you speak of the Boston School method as you see in that group's starts, particularly Tarbell, Benson and DeCamp, I don't think I could tell you of any per se. Gary Hoffman may be the closest to them. However, I would love to hear from others who work along these lines. I must say that my earliest teaching that has produced numerous successful painters, I simply taught what Gammell taught me and then slowly incorporated more of the Boston School thinking as I evolved. Some of them are further developing along these lines now. Some of my fairly recent students are acquiring this thinking from the start and doing well with it. I have from time to time seen a couple Lack students who appear to have made a shift in that direction but never having seen a lay-in by them I couldn't truthfully say. So much of this 'method' is in the start itself.
I think the person who submitted the question meant that you comment on Richter's representational work, not his large abstract paintings (which is what you are discussing in this video). I can see how you wouldn't be interested in Richter's figurative/representational painting either, though, as its main visual aim is to emulate the photographic effect in its final look, which is very far removed from the expressive impressionist manner of working/seeing that you promote on this channel. A big aspect of Richter's representational work has to do with the denial of visual pleasure, which is pretty much antithetical to something like a Boston School painting or a Monet or Degas that is so focused on light-colour effects and markmaking. Richter always smears his paintings after he's done with them, as a last step, in order to remove all traces of the artist's hand. Personally I like both, but obviously for different reasons.
No doubt that 90% of both representational and abstract paintings are crap. This issue becomes those paintings in each respective camp which are selected as the 10% standouts of both genres. Even then, 95% of the best abstract paintings, are crap.
A lot of great painters use photographs. Chuck close used photographs and projected them on a wall, Seville also uses photographs. Francis Bacon used photographs extensively. He wasn’t an amazing craftsman but his paintings are incredible. And I do believe it’s known Degas was so excited by the camera that he used photographs as well, later on in life but after he was taught to be a draftsman.
I think you need to use the tools you want to use in a way that it makes sense. A lot of artists don’t have access to models, or can afford models, or have family that will sit for you for long periods of time. Photography can be an interpretative option.
Remember Paul teaches a particular school of painting. I don’t believe he is informing us about all end all, be all, forms of painting and drawing.
Hopefully I have clarified that I am primarily talkng about the training of painters, the training of the eye. Pictures are made in many different ways and using many devices.
Do you feel there’s a difference in the quality of the photo? Would it be less bad to paint from well composed photos like those by Kertesz, or would it likely lead to the same quality of painting technique?
Better compose well than not, for sure
I like to create paintings from photographs using outlines and then noodling the form inside. I try to make the figures look as pasted on as possible in the vein of bouguereau. What do you think?
If the person who submitted the question, suggested the American artist Jeremy Mann that might be more appropriate to the photography aspect. Good talk.
Hmmm...I watched a documentary on Richter and, I swear, he dumps a bucket (or two) of paint into a six foot trough, takes a squeegee and soaks it in the paint, and then slathers the paint across a massive canvas. I’m sorry, I don’t get it, but, if you can get $20M for a painting like that...which he evidently does, I guess it’s a pretty efficient way to work.
:)
Hes also done representational work earlier in his career.
Thanks Paul. A question- Who are some of the artists of today who you would consider to be the best examples of artists working in the Boston School method?
Hi Richard, When you speak of the Boston School method as you see in that group's starts, particularly Tarbell, Benson and DeCamp, I don't think I could tell you of any per se. Gary Hoffman may be the closest to them. However, I would love to hear from others who work along these lines. I must say that my earliest teaching that has produced numerous successful painters, I simply taught what Gammell taught me and then slowly incorporated more of the Boston School thinking as I evolved. Some of them are further developing along these lines now. Some of my fairly recent students are acquiring this thinking from the start and doing well with it. I have from time to time seen a couple Lack students who appear to have made a shift in that direction but never having seen a lay-in by them I couldn't truthfully say. So much of this 'method' is in the start itself.
I think the person who submitted the question meant that you comment on Richter's representational work, not his large abstract paintings (which is what you are discussing in this video). I can see how you wouldn't be interested in Richter's figurative/representational painting either, though, as its main visual aim is to emulate the photographic effect in its final look, which is very far removed from the expressive impressionist manner of working/seeing that you promote on this channel. A big aspect of Richter's representational work has to do with the denial of visual pleasure, which is pretty much antithetical to something like a Boston School painting or a Monet or Degas that is so focused on light-colour effects and markmaking. Richter always smears his paintings after he's done with them, as a last step, in order to remove all traces of the artist's hand. Personally I like both, but obviously for different reasons.
Thanks for that comment.
Have you not heard of Sturgeon's Law?
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
No doubt that 90% of both representational and abstract paintings are crap. This issue becomes those paintings in each respective camp which are selected as the 10% standouts of both genres. Even then, 95% of the best abstract paintings, are crap.
Appreciate hearing there's a name for it!