“Why just copy a photo?”
“That’s not art, it’s just copying.”
We’ve all seen comments like this. I’ve had more than a few on this blog I don’t mind telling you. And more by email.
There’s one in particular that sticks in my mind, when I posted a photo of a sight-size still life set up with the painting beside it. I often work like that.
Someone added the pithy comment, “why just copy-paint a perfectly good photo?” The funny thing was, I was working from life. Some people see what they want to see, I guess.
Realism isn’t copying
Here’s the thing: Those kinds of comments reflect a basic misconception. Painting realism isn’t copying.
To illustrate what I mean, I’m going to attempt to describe what I did with this painting. Specifically, I’m going to list how I adjusted the colours as I painted. Because it was a series of very deliberate decisions made whilst painting that deviated from what I saw.
This came up on the Facebook group of my Colour Course the other day, and I’m sharing it here because I hope it will be useful to show how I go about changing things as I paint, what I change, and why.
And also hopefully explain why my course is set up the way it is, with such a strong emphasis on colour accuracy.
Start by knowing what you’re seeing
I spend a lot of time very accurately judging the colours I see. I often use a colour checker and Munsell chips, to do that, like this:
I carefully set up my easel and subject so that I know that, as far as possible, the range of colours and particularly the values I see are within the range of paint. Why makes things harder than they need to be?
Once I’ve done all that, I know the range of colours in my subject. I also know, because I’ve done this a lot, where the colours I see are outside the range of paint, whether it’s the chroma or the value, or where I have some leeway to push things around a bit.
The point here is that I know what the starting point is. I know what the actual values and chroma of the colours are. I’m not guessing.
Here’s what I changed
So here are the changes I made to the colours in that little painting of the jug and the apple.
The apple is much higher chroma than it actually was, in the reds and the yellow-greens (that means the colour is more intense). I kept the value pretty accurate, and I kept the relationship in chroma between the lights and the shadows accurate, but everything came up a notch or two. If you prefer something more concrete, it was 1 – 2 steps on the Munsell scale. May not seem like much but it makes a big difference.
The background and the ground are both considerably lighter in value than they were in the subject. And so is the cast shadow, because cast shadows belong to the surface they are cast onto, not to the object that casts them.
So changing the local value of the ground also meant changing the value of the cast shadows to preserve the relationship and the realism. Otherwise, it would just look wrong. The only reason I changed the value of the background and ground is because I wanted a lighter picture.
The body of the jug is painted slightly lower value than it really was in the lighter parts so that I could add highlights with pure titanium white and they would stand out enough to work. You can’t match the value of specular reflection, because it’s effectively like a little light source, so you have to try to suggest it.
The value of the pattern I didn’t change at all, because I know (from painting lots of studies of cubes and spheres of different local values) that low local values cover a smaller value range from dark to light, and any discrepancy in the value relationships would be minimal and not obvious. It wouldn’t break the picture.
So I changed a lot of the colours in this painting. But they were still anchored in what I saw and I did it deliberately, preserving relationships. And I knew how much I was changing them by and in which direction.
I changed them because I wanted to make a better painting. Whether I achieved that or not is debatable, sure, but the point is that I didn’t paint exactly what I saw. I painted something based on what I saw, informed by my knowledge of how light affects colour – knowledge that I’ve gleaned from a lot of investigation and practice panting cubes, spheres and pieces of fruit.
People sometimes ask me why I spend so much time painting cubes and spheres. This is why.
I’m not making any great claims for this painting. It’s not a brilliant painting. But it’s also most definitely not a paint-copy.
Unless you were with me when I painted it, seeing what I was seeing, you’d never know that. And that’s the way I want it.
I don’t want the changes to be obvious, I just want to make better paintings.
It’s my belief that being able to paint accurate colour makes you a more effective painter when you’re deviating from what you see. I believe more knowledge is never a bad thing. I believe that greater skill results in better art. I don’t believe in happy accidents, or at least, I believe they happen very rarely and much less often than some people like to think they do. I believe in intention, in clarity of purpose, in knowing what you want to achieve and doing your best to achieve it.
You may not agree, I get that and I’m fine with it. But please don’t tell me I’m copying what I see. Because if you do, you’re doing pretty much every realist painter out there a great disservice.
Best wishes and thanks for reading,
Paul
The Keys to Colour - Free 6 step email course
Learn how to:
- mix any colour accurately
- see the value of colours
- lighten or darken a colour without messing it up
- paint with subtle, natural colour
Well said Paul
Great post Paul! You are absolutely right! I respect your view but also agreed that changes can be made as you wish. You have always been clear and have done an exceptional job explaining the whys and why not issues. Keep up the good work and please continue posting your work. You are absolutely knowledgeable and expert on color and there is no one like you giving out so much important information. I am grateful for that.
Thanks Crisalida 🙂
Being a photorealist artist working from photo references (rather than a realist artist like yourself working from life, Paul) I am perhaps more suceptable to the barrage of such questions about my work. A similar comment would be, “Why not just take a photo?”
Too which the answer could be, “if this was an exhibition of photographs, would you pay so much attention to the works?” As photographs, many of the paintings might not work as well as they do in paint. This can be due to the artist’s intent for painting the piece. Realism shouldn’t simply be a display of technical skill. It would have to offer something more to the viewer than that. Otherwise taking a photograph may well be the better option! For that to occur, the artist needs to have purpose for their painting. Intent. It may be an exercise in colour and tonal relationships, innovative composition or a celebration of the subject matter depicted.
Really good points, Tom.
I do work from life but I’ve also seen some very compelling and beautiful work made from photographic reference.
Thanks for your ideas, and I’ve gotten the same comments- unfortunately, the viewer doesn’t see the process, which is abstract and actually follows theories from modern physics/math worldview – chaos, complexity, self organization, quantum physics, etc. (I did my M.Ed. research on it. We’re wired up with the universe and we get to experience it through painting.
I think it’s cool to recreate reality by escaping it!
The question “why not take a photo” is about as interesting as “why not eat out every meal.” Some things are worth pursuing for the mind and soul and what is expedient is irrelevant.
Now that’s a REALLY good point.
I like that, Graydon. Great point.
Well said Graydon, unfortunately I know more than a few people that appear to value expediency over feeding the mind and soul and I think always will.
“The first process in the art of the painter is the composition of colours” (Theophilus)
Who’s to say that you can’t change the composition of colours as much as change the composition of the subject matter? For me that painting isn’t ‘wrong’, it’s ‘yours’.
well said
Bravo, Paul! I suspect the people making such comments about your painting were nothing more than arm chair quarterbacks — you know, they don’t play the game themselves but they’re absolutely certain they could have done better than every player on the field. I’m a beginner myself and so I’m a bit slow when doing art. As a result, I’ve sometimes photographed a still life so that I could preserve the natural lighting at that moment, rather than having the light and shadows change as I’m working on it. Either way, whether from live still life or photographed still life, painting it brings a good deal of pleasure, relaxation and learning. So I don’t think any way you pursue it can possibly be wrong.
Absolutely right. On all points 🙂
Hi Paul,
Thanks for describing your process for this painting. I’ve often wondered how literally you try and copy colours, because you do seem to emphasize it. For me it’s always been something to practice, but not to ruled by. Knowing a colour space lets you make creative adjustments. Frees you from the complexity of copying and lets you experiment. I notice you didn’t mention shifting the hue? For example you could shift the blue towards indigo and the red towards rose. Or the blue towards cyan and reds towards amber. It’s all playful and the painting still looks great!
Lovely work Paul, a pleasure to see.
That’s a really interesting point, Mark. It’s true, I don’t play with the hue much, although the approach I use, with Munsell informed by and understanding of how light affects colours, would certainly make that very possible. Easy, even. If you know the value and the chroma you want, changing hue believably is pretty simple. In fact, I did once paint a fictitious blue stripe down a lemon just to prove to myself that it would work.
Thanks, you’ve given me something to think about 🙂
And by the way, I agree, it’s something to practice but not be ruled by. I do practice it fairly intensively because I learn so much about light from doing it, that’s why I emphasise it so much. And because understanding colour and light frees you from a lot of the mistakes I see, both in my own and other people’s work. I’m pretty sure the study is endless 🙂
Hi Paul
I am always amazed by how much knowledge you are able to impart by these blogs. I always find something to ponder and reflect upon in each. I thank you for sharing so freely of your depth of knowledge of colour. I try to apply the things I have learned from you in each painting I attempt and slowly I feel that I am improving in some small measure. I am primarily a landscape painter and getting the light and shadow right are so important in setting the mood of any painting. I am seeing the colour of these much more clearly now thanks to you and your references to the Munsell system. I may even try a still life after reading this blog. I have not painted a still life in over 30 years. Where does time go?
Hi Paul
Thank you for sharing such information with us. Am a beginner and i don’t really know much about arts, i just started to learn and process new information about arts. And hopefully with your help and by doing a lot of practice i will become better at it.
I just learn so so much from you. Thank you for doing this blog. I am going back to work soon and I can’t wait to buy one of your paintings to inspire me everyday!!! Hope you are well.