You're absolutely right. They didn't use them because it didn't exist yet. But it's not about photos per se. It's about reference. They worked from models and draped them apropriately. And if it was feasible we all would prefer it that way. But then again the human form isn't always capable of doing what we want it to. So I may mix and match diff pix to get my desired ref. It's not cheating.
Absolutely, and the more time they spent on location the better they would understand color, lineal perspective and aerial perspective. Who can cook a great meal or drive a car in the beginning?
I think you meant the chambre claire like Bouguereau used. This instrument, by means of prisms, allowed the tracing of a subject's outlines, as observed by the artist, directly onto a drawing board. Used as an artist might use a photograph today, the chambre claire permitted the artist to readily and quickly reproduce certain details of nature which could be used later in the studio as details in a painting. Geez it's difficult to get a point across in 500 characters or less.
cont. The so called Claude Glass, was named to honor the landscape artist, Claude Lorraine. He did not invent it though. Gainsborough also was associated with this device also. It was a compact-looking fold up mirror, that was slightly convex. Either hand tinted or with a black backing. The overall effect for the artist's purpose was to allow the subtlety of the middle values to emerge, while suppressing the overwhelming highlights. The darks were still preserved with detail.
"Klimt is not what I call a finished fine artist as I said before. He never learned the basics." klimt won a scholarship to the vienna school of arts and crafts and studied there from 1876 - 1883. In 1888, Klimt received the Golden order of Merit from Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria for his contributions to murals painted in the Burgtheater in Vienna. - from wikipedia
Needs more Italians though? You betcha, it's a very small list, I might even have missed some of my favorites. Today we have the most advanced color pigments in history but the drawing and painting skills are lacking thanks to a steady amount of wars since the Spanish-American War.
For 20 years Moscow (1000 miles away) had been painting with 4 point perspective. This is new page link to this painting. Vasiliy Polenov. Granny's Orchard. 1878. Oil on canvas. The Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia.
I bought this video through the download, it's pretty good, a pity about the quality though. Part one is alright but Part two is clearly pixelly, even at the automatic small viewing size.
Artist painting devices Gauze, stretched on a frame and drawn on, shows fore shortening and accurate layouts. Retical, a string grid on a movable frame held in one spot to relate size proportions. Mirror, to see in reverse, placed to see the model and picture simultaneously. Black mirror, to check faults in tonality. Reducing glass, sees the whole picture without standing back. Colored glass, cyan will show the strength of warm colors, yellow will expose contrasts.
Part 1 As long as you don't confuse fine art with illustration I don't see a problem. For me, fine art takes time on location, period. Architecture takes twice as long as landscape work. I charge by my time on location. If I only had 3 days it would be a smaller painting then if I had two weeks to do it. All my work is finished on location. Could I do an illustration from a series of photos, of course. Could an illustrator do a job on location, not so much.
1894 KK or Court Theater built. Using1900 to be the date of this mural and other murals with one point perspective. If you go here and click on the thumbnails you will see what I mean about lacking the basics. (I sent all the links from my inbox)
Photo reference didn't exist because photographs didn't exist. Instead they hired models and made charcoal drawings of them in the pose they wanted, they based their paintings off of those drawings. They did use reference, just in a slightly different way. The outcome is the same, however.
I tried to give the links that show the lack of basic knowledge in ariel and lineal perspective, while his resume is impressive I don't think his paintings are. I tried 2 more times to post links to the paintings I'm talking about even encrypting them with spaces but they won't post. If you would like to go to a forum where we can post the paintings we are talking about I would like that.
Mucha, while I like his decorative and cartoon wood-cut styled work and no one can fault his use of color or design. He is so capable his work could be considered great but it is still in the realm of commercial. Could he paint realistically? I searched his work and have to say yes he could. Could he paint on location, yes he could if he wanted to. As a total group of work he is a fine artist so I was wrong, I don't think he used any references but life. Klimt next.
admittedly, his architecture is mainly 1 point but that is true for the vast majority of artists at the time; its just a stylistic choice. as far as aerial perspective, klimt's knowledge is evident in his taormina. i admit his later works are primitive.
i agree w most of ur list. needs more italians though. even the more realistic artists of the baroque/rococco period like caravaggio, velazquez and hals did far more than just replicate what they saw. once we get post 1850 and the camera becomes available, there is a definate break however. u dont really see the same level of fluency in the draftsmanship. the value and color is more accurate (and so is the draftsmaship if ur talking about mechanical accuracy). but something has been lost.
My comment on Klimt didn't post, I'll have to do it again. continued. Plummet, a weighted string to check against vertical. Pantograph, enlarges images mechanically. Measuring stick, size relationships measured from an arm's length. Camera obscura A pinhole in a dark room will show an image upside down on a parallel wall. A better image was projected with a convex lens. The later addition of a mirror to reflect the image down onto a viewing surface. Giovanni Battista Della Porta 1558.
"the drawing and painting skills are lacking thanks to a steady amount of wars since the Spanish-American War. " possibly a contributing factor but i think the real culprit is the camera. once it wasavailable, it was too tempting to pass up. people no longer wanted to devote years of study to their craft - the camera allowed even a novice to have perfect drawing. and once everyone could do it, it ceased to matter.
Anyone being paid to produce commercial art work needs references for accuracy. I don't think of that as fine art although it may be fine commercial work. I don't understand your point, Klimt and Mucha I would put in the commercial category even if they didn't use photo mechanical means. Sargent, Carravagio and Rembrandt studied the figure long enough to paint what they saw. Setting up displays or mirrors to paint from is perfectly acceptable. The end result is an accurate to life painting.
mucha basically did trace photos - this is well known. look at taschen's symbolism book and it shows a comparison of photo ref to final work klimt early in his career sold portraits based on photo ref and also drew in a highly refined (but dull) academic style. in the middle of his career (my favorite part by far) he drew in a more imaginative but still highly skilled manner. ( look at the now sadly destroyed medicine and philosophy). only later on did he became more abstract. klimt > mucha
Camera obscura would not provide a still image to use for a reference, I pity the person (noob?) calling themselves an artist that had or has to rely on one. I'm talking about artists working with figures all the time like Elizabeth Vigee-LeBrun, 1775-1842, Courbet, 1819-1877 and Bouguereau, 1825-1905. You know, real artists that didn't need a still image to copy from. It takes time, it takes practice with live figures.
don have u actually looked at the burgtheater paintings? they are highly refined academic works - reminiscent of alma-tadema. klimt won plenty of academic competitions and was highly thought of by the establishment early in his career. now u may not like klimt or tadema, but to say he hasnt mastered the basics is a bizarre claim. this guy wasn't picasso.
Yea, I know, and Piccaso is a great artist. I have my own taste and it not influenced by the likes of others. I doubt if Emperor Franz Josef or his advisers really knew anything about art.
We have a shirt pocket digital projector for $300 today that will make the copying shortcut even easier for you who don't have the time to practice but still like to call yourselves artists. The word has been downgraded to include cooks and dancers, why not you too.
I disagree with mittROMMEY666, being a great artist is being able to paint anything in front of you. I include that artist and the one able to remember what they learned and paint a story, like Masaccio, Caravaggio, Van Dyck, Raphael, Rubens, Rembrandt, Velasquez, Frans Hals, Vermeer, Murillo, Lebrun, Mignard, Delacroix, Bellows, Shishkin, Goya, Vigee-LeBrun, Levitan, Pukirev, Polenov, Courbet, Bouguereau, Repin and Homer. I may have left out some but you know what I mean.
I didn't see mittROMNEY666's last post, I was writing mine. Mitt is right and wrong. First you train with models before you then you paint stories with what you have learned.
u seem to be holding klimt to unreasonable standards here. which of the old masters or 19th cent artists ever used 4 point perspective? i can think of the mirror in the arnolfini portait, a sp by parmigianino, carel fabritus' view of a delft street. but there were not many. there is a very clear 3 point in klimt's medicine. whenever u draw a figure it pretty much has to be at least 2 point.
haha no the outcome is different. they didn't copy models like artists do nowadays. they constructed them mainly using their imagination, the model was only a guide if they even had one at all.
"Could an illustrator do a job on location, not so much." Why not? Wouldn't them being on location provide a better source and, by your deduction, a better end product?
"there is a very clear 3 point in klimt's medicine. whenever u draw a figure it pretty much has to be at least 2 point." Now you can send me links from my Inbox. Klimt never used 3 or 4 point perspective, he didn't know they existed. His figures did not size correctly in distances. Foreshortening is the only perspective in figures and I already stated how badly he did there. I'm sorry, but this guy will not make the list no matter how much he is promoted.
I don't think Bouguereau used the chambre claire in any of his final work, I think it was more of a gadget he toyed with. I played with one a long time ago and know how limiting it actually is. It doesn't take long to out grow it. To me Bouguereau is a fine artist who worked in his studio with live models. Klimt is not what I call a finished fine artist as I said before. He never learned the basics. Van Gogh played with a Retical but left it behind as unnecessary.
depends which "master" ur talking about ... artists like michelangelo and rubens didnt need models - they had studied enough so that they could draw from imagination. i dont think ur a master unless u can do this.
I downloaded 40160204~Vienna-Burgtheatre-Court-Theatre-Posters.jpg. He is not what you say. He is limited to 1 point perspective and would never even dream of 4 point perspective. Her right raised arm is as bad as the MGM logo girl. I overlaid his perspective lines on my image if you would like proof I'll email it to you.
5th try.. Klimt, he's not a commercial illustrator or a fine artist. He didn't understand aerial perspective or lineal perspective so his landscapes were childish. link removed.. search his name and landscapes. His human proportions and foreshortening were below college graduate work. Link removed, just look at his life child drawings or portraits. What category would you put Chagall in? Some call him great, I don't. Neither one of them could paint what was in front of them even with a photo.
"Are you going to sit for several days and study cathedral's ornamentations so you can draw them from head few hours before deadline?" well, you should if u wanted to do a good job. but being a pro illustrator is all about being a hack just to meet deadline. thats fine for paying the bills. but its not art.
"Any professional artist will tell you that using photo reference is very important. " and im sure a-rod, bonds, and mcgwire would all agree that steroid use is very important for hitting home runs. artists who use photo ref are cheats, plain and simple.
yes i heard of it. so what? its obvious looking at da vincis work that he didnt need it, it was probably just a scientific curiosity for him. durer recommended a similar device as an aid for figure drawing, but only for artists of limited ability. real artists shouldnt need that. noob.
just cause ur pro doesnt mean shit. but go on congragulating urself ... ur obviously very proud of ur copied photos. but maybe u should give credit to the real artist - monsieur le camera
if u use ref ur a hack, end of story. and as far as im concerned, that includes models too, unless u make significant changes that suggest a deeper understanding of the subject. the sight-size method currently experiencing a resurgence in popularity is complete bullshit. might as well just trace. replicating what is before u is not art.
You're absolutely right. They didn't use them because it didn't exist yet. But it's not about photos per se. It's about reference. They worked from models and draped them apropriately. And if it was feasible we all would prefer it that way. But then again the human form isn't always capable of doing what we want it to. So I may mix and match diff pix to get my desired ref. It's not cheating.
I wish this were longer and more in depth. I really love his style.
Of course you can also get that info live.
You learn the figure from painting the figure many times. That's when you don't need a model. That's when your a good artist.
Absolutely, and the more time they spent on location the better they would understand color, lineal perspective and aerial perspective. Who can cook a great meal or drive a car in the beginning?
I think you meant the chambre claire like Bouguereau used. This instrument, by means of prisms, allowed the tracing of a subject's outlines, as observed by the artist, directly onto a drawing board. Used as an artist might use a photograph today, the chambre claire permitted the artist to readily and quickly reproduce certain details of nature which could be used later in the studio as details in a painting. Geez it's difficult to get a point across in 500 characters or less.
I would love to get into pastels on day. looks like a nice medium to work with
cont.
The so called Claude Glass, was named to honor the landscape artist, Claude Lorraine. He did not invent it though. Gainsborough also was associated with this device also.
It was a compact-looking fold up mirror, that was slightly convex. Either hand tinted or with a black backing. The overall effect for the artist's purpose was to allow the subtlety of the middle values to emerge, while suppressing the overwhelming highlights. The darks were still preserved with detail.
"Klimt is not what I call a finished fine artist as I said before. He never learned the basics."
klimt won a scholarship to the vienna school of arts and crafts and studied there from 1876 - 1883. In 1888, Klimt received the Golden order of Merit from Emperor Franz Josef I of Austria for his contributions to murals painted in the Burgtheater in Vienna. - from wikipedia
very beautiful art!!! Compliments!!!
I think you are wrong on all 3 points. So what do we do now, agree to disagree or go over each point?
Needs more Italians though? You betcha, it's a very small list, I might even have missed some of my favorites.
Today we have the most advanced color pigments in history but the drawing and painting skills are lacking thanks to a steady amount of wars since the Spanish-American War.
How to see Raymon demo?
For 20 years Moscow (1000 miles away) had been painting with 4 point perspective.
This is new page link to this painting. Vasiliy Polenov. Granny's Orchard. 1878.
Oil on canvas. The Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia.
I bought this video through the download, it's pretty good, a pity about the quality though. Part one is alright but Part two is clearly pixelly, even at the automatic small viewing size.
Hi mwinahaha. Any chance you still have the video
Artist painting devices
Gauze, stretched on a frame and drawn on, shows fore shortening and accurate layouts.
Retical, a string grid on a movable frame held in one spot to relate size proportions.
Mirror, to see in reverse, placed to see the model and picture simultaneously.
Black mirror, to check faults in tonality.
Reducing glass, sees the whole picture without standing back.
Colored glass, cyan will show the strength of warm colors, yellow will expose contrasts.
Part 1
As long as you don't confuse fine art with illustration I don't see a problem. For me, fine art takes time on location, period. Architecture takes twice as long as landscape work. I charge by my time on location. If I only had 3 days it would be a smaller painting then if I had two weeks to do it. All my work is finished on location. Could I do an illustration from a series of photos, of course. Could an illustrator do a job on location, not so much.
1894 KK or Court Theater built.
Using1900 to be the date of this mural and other murals with one point perspective.
If you go here and click on the thumbnails you will see what I mean about lacking the basics.
(I sent all the links from my inbox)
Photo reference didn't exist because photographs didn't exist. Instead they hired models and made charcoal drawings of them in the pose they wanted, they based their paintings off of those drawings. They did use reference, just in a slightly different way. The outcome is the same, however.
I tried to give the links that show the lack of basic knowledge in ariel and lineal perspective, while his resume is impressive I don't think his paintings are.
I tried 2 more times to post links to the paintings I'm talking about even encrypting them with spaces but they won't post.
If you would like to go to a forum where we can post the paintings we are talking about I would like that.
Mucha, while I like his decorative and cartoon wood-cut styled work and no one can fault his use of color or design. He is so capable his work could be considered great but it is still in the realm of commercial. Could he paint realistically? I searched his work and have to say yes he could. Could he paint on location, yes he could if he wanted to. As a total group of work he is a fine artist so I was wrong, I don't think he used any references but life.
Klimt next.
admittedly, his architecture is mainly 1 point but that is true for the vast majority of artists at the time; its just a stylistic choice.
as far as aerial perspective, klimt's knowledge is evident in his taormina. i admit his later works are primitive.
i agree w most of ur list. needs more italians though. even the more realistic artists of the baroque/rococco period like caravaggio, velazquez and hals did far more than just replicate what they saw.
once we get post 1850 and the camera becomes available, there is a definate break however. u dont really see the same level of fluency in the draftsmanship. the value and color is more accurate (and so is the draftsmaship if ur talking about mechanical accuracy). but something has been lost.
My comment on Klimt didn't post, I'll have to do it again.
continued.
Plummet, a weighted string to check against vertical.
Pantograph, enlarges images mechanically.
Measuring stick, size relationships measured from an arm's length.
Camera obscura
A pinhole in a dark room will show an image upside down on a parallel wall. A better image was projected with a convex lens. The later addition of a mirror to reflect the image down onto a viewing surface. Giovanni Battista Della Porta 1558.
"the drawing and painting skills are lacking thanks to a steady amount of wars since the Spanish-American War. "
possibly a contributing factor but i think the real culprit is the camera. once it wasavailable, it was too tempting to pass up. people no longer wanted to devote years of study to their craft - the camera allowed even a novice to have perfect drawing. and once everyone could do it, it ceased to matter.
Anyone being paid to produce commercial art work needs references for accuracy. I don't think of that as fine art although it may be fine commercial work. I don't understand your point, Klimt and Mucha I would put in the commercial category even if they didn't use photo mechanical means. Sargent, Carravagio and Rembrandt studied the figure long enough to paint what they saw. Setting up displays or mirrors to paint from is perfectly acceptable. The end result is an accurate to life painting.
mucha basically did trace photos - this is well known. look at taschen's symbolism book and it shows a comparison of photo ref to final work
klimt early in his career sold portraits based on photo ref and also drew in a highly refined (but dull) academic style. in the middle of his career (my favorite part by far) he drew in a more imaginative but still highly skilled manner. ( look at the now sadly destroyed medicine and philosophy). only later on did he became more abstract. klimt > mucha
Camera obscura would not provide a still image to use for a reference, I pity the person (noob?) calling themselves an artist that had or has to rely on one.
I'm talking about artists working with figures all the time like Elizabeth Vigee-LeBrun, 1775-1842, Courbet, 1819-1877 and Bouguereau, 1825-1905. You know, real artists that didn't need a still image to copy from. It takes time, it takes practice with live figures.
don have u actually looked at the burgtheater paintings? they are highly refined academic works - reminiscent of alma-tadema. klimt won plenty of academic competitions and was highly thought of by the establishment early in his career. now u may not like klimt or tadema, but to say he hasnt mastered the basics is a bizarre claim. this guy wasn't picasso.
Yea, I know, and Piccaso is a great artist. I have my own taste and it not influenced by the likes of others. I doubt if Emperor Franz Josef or his advisers really knew anything about art.
We have a shirt pocket digital projector for $300 today that will make the copying shortcut even easier for you who don't have the time to practice but still like to call yourselves artists.
The word has been downgraded to include cooks and dancers, why not you too.
I disagree with mittROMMEY666, being a great artist is being able to paint anything in front of you. I include that artist and the one able to remember what they learned and paint a story, like Masaccio, Caravaggio, Van Dyck, Raphael, Rubens, Rembrandt, Velasquez, Frans Hals, Vermeer, Murillo, Lebrun, Mignard, Delacroix, Bellows, Shishkin, Goya, Vigee-LeBrun, Levitan, Pukirev, Polenov, Courbet, Bouguereau, Repin and Homer. I may have left out some but you know what I mean.
photo ref is cheating
I didn't see mittROMNEY666's last post, I was writing mine. Mitt is right and wrong. First you train with models before you then you paint stories with what you have learned.
u seem to be holding klimt to unreasonable standards here. which of the old masters or 19th cent artists ever used 4 point perspective? i can think of the mirror in the arnolfini portait, a sp by parmigianino, carel fabritus' view of a delft street. but there were not many. there is a very clear 3 point in klimt's medicine. whenever u draw a figure it pretty much has to be at least 2 point.
haha no the outcome is different. they didn't copy models like artists do nowadays. they constructed them mainly using their imagination, the model was only a guide if they even had one at all.
"Could an illustrator do a job on location, not so much."
Why not? Wouldn't them being on location provide a better source and, by your deduction, a better end product?
"there is a very clear 3 point in klimt's medicine. whenever u draw a figure it pretty much has to be at least 2 point."
Now you can send me links from my Inbox.
Klimt never used 3 or 4 point perspective, he didn't know they existed. His figures did not size correctly in distances. Foreshortening is the only perspective in figures and I already stated how badly he did there.
I'm sorry, but this guy will not make the list no matter how much he is promoted.
I don't think Bouguereau used the chambre claire in any of his final work, I think it was more of a gadget he toyed with. I played with one a long time ago and know how limiting it actually is. It doesn't take long to out grow it. To me Bouguereau is a fine artist who worked in his studio with live models.
Klimt is not what I call a finished fine artist as I said before. He never learned the basics.
Van Gogh played with a Retical but left it behind as unnecessary.
depends which "master" ur talking about ... artists like michelangelo and rubens didnt need models - they had studied enough so that they could draw from imagination. i dont think ur a master unless u can do this.
I downloaded 40160204~Vienna-Burgtheatre-Court-Theatre-Posters.jpg. He is not what you say. He is limited to 1 point perspective and would never even dream of 4 point perspective. Her right raised arm is as bad as the MGM logo girl. I overlaid his perspective lines on my image if you would like proof I'll email it to you.
5th try.. Klimt, he's not a commercial illustrator or a fine artist.
He didn't understand aerial perspective or lineal perspective so his landscapes were childish.
link removed.. search his name and landscapes.
His human proportions and foreshortening were below college graduate work.
Link removed, just look at his life child drawings or portraits.
What category would you put Chagall in? Some call him great, I don't. Neither one of them could paint what was in front of them even with a photo.
"Are you going to sit for several days and study cathedral's ornamentations so you can draw them from head few hours before deadline?"
well, you should if u wanted to do a good job. but being a pro illustrator is all about being a hack just to meet deadline. thats fine for paying the bills. but its not art.
"Any professional artist will tell you that using photo reference is very important. "
and im sure a-rod, bonds, and mcgwire would all agree that steroid use is very important for hitting home runs.
artists who use photo ref are cheats, plain and simple.
yes i heard of it. so what? its obvious looking at da vincis work that he didnt need it, it was probably just a scientific curiosity for him. durer recommended a similar device as an aid for figure drawing, but only for artists of limited ability. real artists shouldnt need that. noob.
just cause ur pro doesnt mean shit. but go on congragulating urself ... ur obviously very proud of ur copied photos. but maybe u should give credit to the real artist - monsieur le camera
whatev dude ... go back to tracing photos.
crap
if u use ref ur a hack, end of story. and as far as im concerned, that includes models too, unless u make significant changes that suggest a deeper understanding of the subject. the sight-size method currently experiencing a resurgence in popularity is complete bullshit. might as well just trace. replicating what is before u is not art.