[jack_riminton]

Totally agree. There's a raft of modern realist painters who's work is so similar to photographs that they're utterly devoid of the main criteria of good art... feeling

A lot of this is compounded by the practice of working from high def photographs. Working from life is worlds apart from working from photos. As an illustration of this, try and take a photograph of a beautiful sunset and compare it to what you see

[inasmuch]

I'm very bothered by how much of today's art is based heavily on photographic reference. In some part due to the difference in skill development required by using a photo for reference versus using live references or your imagination/memory/whatever, but mostly because of how much the technological conceits and limitations of that photography come to infect other media which don't suffer from them.

It's most obvious in paintings and videogames. Depth of field, bokeh, motion blur, perspective, lens distortion—even focal length and composition. Once you realize it, it becomes impossible to ignore, and it really compromises the work for me. So many of the most technically adept artists today are using all their skill to effectively simulate one form of art with another. It's an interesting exercise, sure, and I'll never dissuade someone from developing and refining a skill, but in the best-case scenario, I'm just left thinking I'd rather see the photo or the movie, or not see the image at all. And I'm someone who will gladly spend 20min+ standing in front of a Rembrandt.

I don't have any issue with realism in art and think it can be quite effective when used well. But so much of what makes something like The Night Watch incredible is how it feels both convincingly real and compellingly uncanny at the same time due to its rendering from some fuzzy approximation of what the artist observed from his models, conceived in his mind's eye, and meticulously sketched and reworked.

To me, it's the ability to capture and create something within/from that gray area that makes an artist great.

[jack_riminton]

Yes, people confuse an accurate photograph of being as real as you can get. But in actuality the brain does a lot of work in order to compose a scene, as any optical illusion will reveal. So the accuracy of a photo becomes its downfall in feeling real.

The Impressionists understood this and used effects such as 'optical mixing' (from the scientific findings of Maxwell) to create works that felt more real

[sudosysgen]

Depth of field, bokeh and perspective are things that aren't photographic, it's just physics and our eyes do it too. You can easily notice it in real life.

Focal length being variable has nothing to do with photography either. It has to do with screens that vary in size and distance. To be able to match the angle of view of our eyes, the camera in a video game needs to vary it's focal length. And of course, our eyes have a focal length too.

Our eyes feel motion blur too. It's just cut out when you saccade your eyes by the brain. Track a car with your eyes and notice the motion blur over the whole street. Now, for video games, it doesn't make much sense until you realize that we use 30/60fps screens. Motion blur is a crutch to minimize the obviousness of low frame rates. In a perfect world of course, you would want your screen to have 144+Hz of refresh rate and let your own eyes do the motion blur, but that's too expensive for now.

So you see, these things aren't actually there because of photography. They are things that our eyes do just as much as any camera. In fact, the only real difference between our eyes and cameras is that eyes operate continuously while cameras operate semi-discretely, though at 200fps+ this converges almost completely.

[inasmuch]

> Depth of field, bokeh and perspective are things that aren't photographic

They are, though (unless you think I'm saying that relative physical distances literally do not exist outside of photography?). You can say our eyes operate as more sophisticated lenses and are likewise constrained by physics and light, to be sure, but the experience of seeing something is very, very different from viewing that thing in a photograph or film.

With your eyes, you cannot study or capture or examine the blurred areas on the periphery of your vision; photography enables that. Similarly, photography enables the capture and examination and artistic presentation of motion blur. Photography creates that apprehension of the world. Painting from or to mimic that apprehension is, I feel, limiting. Even when your subject is not abstract.

What I'm taking issue with isn't the basic principles of light; it's painting a scene the way a camera captures it, rather than the way a painting can. If you truly don't see any representative differences between the paintings of the 'old masters' and the current paintings-of-or-like-photos to which I'm referring, then I think we're just not on the same page here, or I'm simply doing a poor job of explaining what I mean.

[technothrasher]

> I'm very bothered by how much of today's art is based heavily on photographic reference.

There's a big difference between photographic reference and copying a photograph. For instance, Ben Aronson (https://benaronson.net/), a contemporary impressionist painter I very much like, heavily uses photographic references to paint cityscapes that he just literally couldn't paint live (because, say, its in the middle of a busy downtown street, or way up in the air between buildings). But his paintings are far from "photorealistic", not only utilizing an impressionist style, but also often moving or adding buildings or landscape that don't actually exist in the photo.

[inasmuch]

> There's a big difference between photographic reference and copying a photograph

But of course. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. As I mentioned, my primary issue is with how heavy reliance on photo reference can result in a photo-like final painting.

As I mentioned in another comment, I have a secondary issue with how photo reference affects the process, but that's another discussion.

[syntheweave]

The problem is not really one of the technology, though. At some level, all we are doing in making representational visuals is copying proportions, either spatially by indicating shape and form, or by samples of light. Where the source material doesn't have those proportions we need, the artist is filling in gaps. You can still iterate into The Night Watch from photos by using intermediate sketches; it's just a process.

A big part of why abstraction took off at nearly the same time as photography is that the differentiation of an artist from a camera had to come from somewhere. Artists that make art that looks like cameras are simply drawing on their strongest reference and not doing much additional decision making.

[inasmuch]

Agreed. I don't mean to vilify the technology itself, but rather the ways in which many artists employ it. What bothers me is when that gap-filling you describe is either not being done or is being done in such a way that retains the character and forms of the reference medium. I similarly dislike it when photographers try to make their photos look like paintings.

I do have misgivings about how reference photography affects the process of certain forms of art-making, but that's another issue entirely. In this case, I'm just talking about effects on the product, not the process.

[cntainer]

I always found that practice weird. When using a photo as a source it feels like you're just taking someone else's vision and photocopying it on a canvas.

Yes there are many photos that you can call art, but if you're not the one that took the original photo it feels like most of the creative effort was not yours and you're just showing off your brush/pen technique.

As a disclaimer, I have 0 talent when it comes to drawing/painting so I'm pretty much clueless about the creative process of modern painting.

[dagw]

When using a photo as a source it feels like you're just taking someone else's vision and photocopying it on a canvas.

There are lots of ways of using a photo as a source. A lot of the 'art' comes from choosing which techniques and paints and colors to use to capture the feeling you are after. You can also choose to make choices like adding/removing elements, changing the field of view or moving the point of view, playing with perspective etc. to make the composition more interesting.

You can give the same photo to 100 different artists and you will get back 100 different paintings with 100 different artistic choices, some of which will appeal to you on an artistic level a lot more than others.

[cntainer]

Thank you for the details, and I agree that what you describe includes plenty of creative effort.

I guess my scenario was much more narrow, as I was thinking about doing an exact copy of a photo that you didn't take yourself. Doing an exact copy limits greatly the number of artistic choices you could make as most of the choices were made by the photographer.

Just found out this is actually a thing called photorealism where the artist is expected to also take the original photo. Feels good to read about something else than software and politics for a change :).

[rdtsc]

The painter themselves can take the photo. Photos can help if the subject or the scene is hard to be around long enough to paint. Say, an artist painting impressionistic city streets in the rain. It’s hard to stay in the rain and paint, but they can take a photo and paint at home, while recalling the feeling of being at the scene - the cold, the wetness, the sound of the splashing water, cars driving by, etc.

[cntainer]

yep, I already addressed this in another comment, that's photorealism, and the artist always takes the picture so painting it is just the last step in the overall creative process.

my point was that it feels weird for me to call it art if you didn't take the photo and your just doing the last, arguably less creative, step.

Not that it doesn't take a great deal of effort and skill to achieve it, it just feels somehow "lesser".

[rdtsc]

> Not that it doesn't take a great deal of effort and skill to achieve it, it just feels somehow "lesser".

Yeah, it does in a certain way. Say, I take a picture then send it so someone to make a "painting" of it. I does feel a bit "lesser".

Of course, depending on the trend in art, it may be that's the whole point of the piece -- to highlight that everything is just a copy of a copy and so on. Basically, it could be a deliberate part of the process like say https://www.moma.org/learn/moma_learning/andy-warhol-campbel...

[watwut]

Is it weirder then trying to become good in literally any other craft or skill?

People spend hours trying to become good at coding competitions, games, sport, musical instrument, embroidery, hoby electronics ... you name it. Why would "trying to become as good as possible at creating realistic drawing" would be weirder then anything else? The technical skill involved in making it look hyper realistic is huge.

[cntainer]

By "weird" I meant that having great technique doesn't automatically translate to great art. It could translate to greater craftsmanship, faster and more precise work, but by art I understand the process of applying your own creative filter and emotions to whatever you want to represent/imitate in whatever medium.

I feel like I'm going to deep into this "art" thing so time to get back to a domain where I have more experience, software development.

Being great at touch typing is an awesome skill that many people train but typing fast doesn't make you automatically a great developer/architect/manager.

I see the effort of exactly copying someone else's photo similar to how developers do "coding katas" to hone their fundamentals. It's basically practice, not really creative problem solving.

Nothing wrong with honing one skills, but in my book skills are tools to be used as part of a creative process. They don't replace the creative process, but they can elevate the end result.

[watwut]

Artists themselves do call it art tho. They value the technical skill on itself too, apparently. And talk about it a lot. And then it becomes separate field where you can try to excel or competition on itself. (Also, in subgenres like manga when they talk about quality of art, they typically mean technical skill more then ability to convey emotions.)

It makes it something you don't value or like, which is 100% valid. But it seems to be fairly within what artists themselves call art.

[cntainer]

I understand that people can call art whatever they like.

One can argue that doing an exact copy of a photograph with the end result being indistinguishable from the original photo is some kind of "meta" art and the lack of creativity actually puts focus on the technical skill and the effort of the artist, as a kind of "anti-creativity statement" type of art, "there is no artist just paint and effort".

But my non-artistic brain would still rate this lower compared to the original in terms of creativity, insight, originality.

Yes you can raise a skill to the level of an art, but then wouldn't the actual performance of the skill be the artwork? And the resulting picture just an artifact that has no artistic value without the original side by side + a description/video describing/showing the actual effort?

On that note, I think I'll stop. I feel I'm getting high just from all the meta-ideas I'm writing, lol.

[watwut]

> One can argue that doing an exact copy of a photograph with the end result being indistinguishable from the original photo is some kind of "meta" art and the lack of creativity actually puts focus on the technical skill and the effort of the artist, as a kind of "anti-creativity statement" type of art, "there is no artist just paint and effort".

I mean you can, but generally, artists would call this bullshit explanation. I am pretty sure you are aware of that too :). None of what I talked about was any meta. It was down to eath, pragmatically, "yeah art is also technical ability to make hyper realistic picture".

> But my non-artistic brain would still rate this lower compared to the original in terms of creativity, insight, originality.

Again, yes, judged by insight and originality. But, it is not the only valid criterium for art work. Among other things, realistic portraits are pretty low in general if judged by creativity. The old master did not went for creativity there - the realism was actual ambition for many of them.

> Yes you can raise a skill to the level of an art, but then wouldn't the actual performance of the skill be the artwork? And the resulting picture just an artifact that has no artistic value without the original side by side + a description/video describing/showing the actual effort?

I dont understand why the result would had no value. You don't have to like it or find it interesting, that is 100%. This sort of stuff is subjective. What I found out was that many artists often do value technical skill and do see value in the resulting picture, actually.

You seems to insist on one definition of art, which is super strict and exclusive. And kinda excludes majority of drawings people produce. At least I think. Most of drawings are people trying to figure out how to draw the thing, again and again.

Art, as used currently or in history, does not have to include only super deep I have philosophical opinions or deep feelings or whatever. Plenty of times it is "look guys, I finally managed to draw a nose".

[yanmaani]

What's wrong with brush/pen technique?

[cntainer]

Nothing, it's a great skill to have, and one that I never invested in.

[jacobolus]

> Working from life is worlds apart from working from photos

What if you use a camera obscura, as many of the “old masters” are believed to have done?

[jack_riminton]

Funnily enough quite a lot of artists use early digital cameras, where the quality is described as 'grainy'

Its of just bad enough quality (and hasn't been altered by algorithms) that you can get a 'sense' of the scene without too much detail, being over/under-exposed, etc.

Edit: also see the use of a 'black mirror' https://londonfineartstudios.com/the-mirror-the-black-mirror...

[rainbowzootsuit]

I think this is a perfect post to bring up the theory of Vermeer's work presented in this film, "Tim's Vermeer." The focus of the movie, Tim Jenison of NewTek, hypothesized the use of a mirror to allow an almost paint-by-numbers recreation of the sitting subject.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3089388/

[meowzero]

I met a local portraiture teacher, and all he did was take a nice photo of someone and copy it on canvas. His craft seemed great. But I didn't get the point of copying a photo exactly. Why not just print out the photo? But I guess he enjoyed the painting process.

[pmoriarty]

"Why not just print out the photo?"

An interesting argument... which could be extended to "why paint from life?" because you're just copying what you see.

In fact, some artists who paint completely from their imagination or who create nonrepresentational art have this exact objection to just painting what you see (even without photographic reference), which they don't find interesting because it's not creative enough for them.

[jack_riminton]

Yes it'll never turn out as good because you're no longer painting a face; you're painting a poorer 2D representation of a face

[HPsquared]

What if a 3D scan were taken of the subject, and the artist then made the painting while viewing the 3D representation in some kind of augmented reality setup?

That would be 3D but still effectively painting from a "photo".

[jack_riminton]

But then you're adding in several more processing layers away from reality: 1) the digital scan won't pick up the details sufficiently 2) the AR rendering will again strip a lot of detail

It'd also be incredibly difficult and straining for your eyes of focussing on a canvas and then on an AR image

[meowzero]

his painting looked exactly like the photo. So it's like a painted version of the photo. It was very realistic. And like I mentioned, the craft of painting was great. But he took the time to take a nice portrait with a camera so he can paint it.

Since I'm a photographer, I guess I didn't get why he would need to copy a photo exactly.

[pmoriarty]

Vermeer is highly regarded, yet there is evidence that he worked using technology that was something like a camera (though of course it was primitive by today's standards).

Photography is just another tool, and what matters is how you use it.

[jack_riminton]

A Camera Obscura is worlds apart from copying a high-def image. The primitiveness allowed them to get dimensions correct for a sketch but then they'd have to use all of their artistic skill to pick the correct values, tones etc.