Realism without references?

[Maidith]

I had a very interesting chat with a friend who also paints. His opinion is that a painter can create super-realistic paintings (like Linda B's) entirely from his or her mind, if you only practice enough and accumulate enough knowledge about how things look and work. Reference photographs and nature study would be necessary only for practicing, but not for the finished paintings.

My opinion, on the contrary is, that the human imagination is too limited to create the diversity found in nature. It means that if you draw from your mind, be it a naturalistic style or not, you have invented "formulae" for drawing certain things. By drawing a head from your mind, you'll draw a certain type of head, not an individual head. Thus, if you do the same for your finished paintings, your heads will soon look very generic. The same goes for all other things.

To quote Harold Speed's 1917 book “Drawing Techniques and Materials”:
“Try and draw some cumulus clouds from imagination, several groups of them across a sky, and you will find how often again you have repeated unconsciously the same forms. How tired one gets of the pet cloud or tree of a painter who does not often consult nature in his pictures. Nature is the great storehouse of variety; even a piece of coal will suggest more interesting rock-forms than you can invent.” (p. 186)

What's your view on this? In how far, do you think, is real nature-like diversity or realism possible without studying nature (either from life, or from reference images) ??

Please keep in mind that I'm talking about highly finished, very realistic artworks, such as these:
http://goodbrush.com/cpg146/displayimage.php?album=16&pos=0
http://goodbrush.com/cpg146/displayimage.php?album=16&pos=6
http://goodbrush.com/cpg146/albums/commercial_projects/empires/spanish.jpg
I'm not talking about speedpaints or anything not so hyper-realistic looking.

[Mirana]

I think your friend will become stagnant pretty fast.

This (http://www.furiae.com/) "Linda B?" Though there has been discussion about the authenticity of her works, she has said herself that she uses models. The old masters used models and reference studies. This is nothing new. Perhaps if you had hundreds of yrs to practice? :D

[HunterKiller_]

Are you talking about photo-realism or something else?
Those paintings are not photo realistic, and I don't believe it's something Craig Mullins was aiming for.

Short answer: Given our limited life span, I don't believe it's possible for any human to produce a completely photo-realistic imaginary scene without some use of reference.

[Ilaekae]

Maidith...

...your...friend...is...an...idiot.




You can tell him/her I said so...

[Maidith]

HunterKiller, I mean all kinds of realism, Craig Mullins being just one example :)

I'm gonna play the advocatus diaboli.

Imagine you have a rectangle. It has two different parameters, the sides a and b. If you know and "understand" those sides, you are able to vary them as you like, thus rendering different forms of rectangles.

Isn't the human body, for example, in about the same, only with much, much more "parameters"? The theory is that as soon as you have understood how the human body works, you know all its parameters and can vary them to create different, individual bodies and types.

The same goes for light and color - when you fully understand how it works, you will be able to recreate every visual situation that occurs in nature.

That's my friend's theory.

[_Mario]

His opinion is that a painter can create super-realistic paintings (like Linda B's) entirely from his or her mind, if you only practice enough and accumulate enough knowledge about how things look and work. Reference photographs and nature study would be necessary only for practicing, but not for the finished paintings.

And could your friend explain why this practice and knowledge does not count as reference. Reference is not just using a model or a photograph when you are painting. What is so different about referencing information that is in ones mind? If he really were to use no reference at all then he would not use his brain and not even know how the human figure looks like.

But strictly only referencing your mind when you have access to other types of reference is dumb. Why just use second hand reference that over time changes in your mind with each access? Our brains are not static and access to information changes it over time, and the information stored is not "exact" like on a hard disk. In contras to a hard disk our brain/memory can work with fuzzy and changing information as it is based on this work-flow system.

Practicing the whole "from memory" thing is useful and has its place. For example: It's one thing for a concept artist to work purely from memory when there is need for fast iteration and very loose work but then to just ignore useful information because it is perceived as inferior when creating some marketing illustration is not that smart.

[algenpfleger]

Ilaekae, I'm pretty sure that people said the same thing about Galilei.



Imagine you have a rectangle. It has two different parameters, the sides a and b. If you know and "understand" those sides, you are able to vary them as you like, thus rendering different forms of rectangles.

Isn't the human body, for example, in about the same, only with much, much more "parameters"? The theory is that as soon as you have understood how the human body works, you know all its parameters and can vary them to create different, individual bodies and types.

The same goes for light and color - when you fully understand how it works, you will be able to recreate every visual situation that occurs in nature.

That's my friend's theory.

Sounds convincing to me. Everything can be learned.

[Hyskoa]

Possible? Who knows. But the quest is damn interesting.

[dbclemons]

...To quote Harold Speed”:..even a piece of coal will suggest more interesting rock-forms than you can invent.”

What's your view on this?
...

I agree with Harold. There's a certain degree of intricasy and chaos, if you will, found in a natural reference that an artist would have a extremely difficult time recreating in a believable manner without reference, if at all, and what would be the point? Consider a pile of fallen branches, or the multiple folds and creases of a satin bedsheet. It might be possible to struggle enough to make it look convincing, or just set up the easel in front of the real thing and get it done, or go scouting with a camera to find the real thing. Are they looking to pat themselves on the back for recreating something in such a way that no one will truly appreciate?

There's a certain shorthand that artists will interject into their work when they don't work from a natural source. The folds of clothing, or the play of light through a fractured glass will only look like what they imagine it to be, and that's fine. It can be fascinating to see something through someone else's eyes, but it can also be jarringly false and unconvincing. The solution to that is very simple, so why avoid it?

[J Wilson]

HunterKiller, I mean all kinds of realism, Craig Mullins being just one example :)

I'm gonna play the advocatus diaboli.

Imagine you have a rectangle. It has two different parameters, the sides a and b. If you know and "understand" those sides, you are able to vary them as you like, thus rendering different forms of rectangles.

Isn't the human body, for example, in about the same, only with much, much more "parameters"? The theory is that as soon as you have understood how the human body works, you know all its parameters and can vary them to create different, individual bodies and types.

The same goes for light and color - when you fully understand how it works, you will be able to recreate every visual situation that occurs in nature.

That's my friend's theory.

Possible? Maybe. Likely? Hell no. Some of the absolute best artists in history, artists who have spent FAR more time drawing the human figure than most of us ever will still used models. If they had such mastery that it was unneeded, why would they bother? I think it's because no matter how intimately we know the human figure, there are are so many variables and little nuances that slip our minds until observed. We're fallible. Memory especially is fallible.

To do what your friend suggests would mean studying each and every thing you might ever want to paint in the same sort of rigorous study that we currently spend on just perfecting our humans. Nature is infinitely diverse and our imaginations just aren't. Our memories generally hold the impression of something, but those little details that make something look "real" are far better observed.

That isn't to say a good artist can't make convincing images from memory, just that the same image done from observation will be better.

[Elwell]

There are artists who work ONLY from direct observation.
There are artists who work ONLY from memory or imagination.
There are artists who work ONLY from photographs.
And there are artist who work from a combination of sources.
The intentions of all these groups are very, very different.

[Giorge]

They look pretty great , yes its very realistic , but what i think , is that the characters in the paintings lack personality , they look like stereotypes , is not enough that you are a master of anatomy , you have to create a new being in your mind. I sometimes refuse to work from pictures . Only work form life model or memory. And nature is not standard , when you paint a forest you have broken branches on the trees and on the ground , dead leafs in the trees and on the ground , dirt on the trees , and so on ... things hat are not anticipated . You simply can not sit in a room with no widows and draw ... you need inspiration. You get the drift.

[kev ferrara]

There are artists who work ONLY from direct observation.
There are artists who work ONLY from memory or imagination.
There are artists who work ONLY from photographs.
And there are artist who work from a combination of sources.
The intentions of all these groups are very, very different.

Forgive me, but I would say this isn't necessarily so. One can be an illustrator and work from any of the above methods with the same intent in mind, to make a fine illustration.

It is also very rare to find a professional artist who thinks that realism alone is the core value of art, thus making the artist's job and the photographers job essentially equivalent. If we take as a given that art's job is not photo realism per se, the intentions of all artists fall into a narrower, smoother spectrum of expressive intention, rather than some broad cartoon rainbow with discrete frequency bands for, say, realism and abstraction.

kev

[Ilaekae]

alpenpflager, I can only agree with you and Maidith's friend to a point, and that point comes up really fast.

You and I can both mentally create an image and carry it through to completeness, but that completeness is "superficial" or limited out of necessity. For example, I can visualize the face of a stereotypically beautiful woman and create that image accurately enough that anyone would recognize what I was doing. I could even spend a few minutes thinking about some "flaws" to insert to give her "character," but I could not create the family that she comes from. I could create a close approximation, but not anything close to any form of reality because the variables have gotten totally beyond my ability to control them. The burr in her puppy's fur, the scratch on her neck from last night's bad nightmare, the fact that maybe it's almost--almost--time for her to wash her hair.

Nature is messy at the surface level. A centimeter of difference in leg length or eye placement creates another individual. Add this level of awareness to the need to actually execute, and you've moved into never-never land. I can do a cube. I can do 6,000 mis-shapen and painted cubes. But I can't do the Shangai market at sunrise in 1935.

What it boils down to is a compromise. We have enough info to get the point across and create an "aura" of believability, but sometimes not enough to make me actually smell that really bad cup of coffee next to our painted heroine. No matter how hard you practice or observe, you cannot retain everything indefinitely. You must refer to "something" at some point to establish the true fuzziness of real life...

[algenpfleger]

Ilaekae, that did sound convincing as well. Guess it takes a while to get to that level anyway; and I think those little details can be learned as well - but when it comes to such stuff, referencing might very well be the quicker way.

HunterKiller mentioned our limited lifespan, that seems like the only real problem to me.

[QSeptember5]

What's wrong with having high ideals and striving for something bigger? It's not like the guy said he wanted to move mountains with his mind.

[Mirana]

Hey, there's nothing wrong with it if he likes hurting himself and his progress. Maybe he's better than Michelangelo and DaVinci, right? :D

[Bruce Pluto]

Maidith, this is an opinionated subject and really what else do we have but our opinions?
Here goes, yes there are artists that can paint or draw photo-real subjects without reference materials being used or used only slightly. Yes their work can become dull and stagnate at some point. That doesn’t mean that it can’t look real. I think we are limiting the human consciousness to say that no artist can execute an artwork (or body of artwork) of reality quality without using references. That’s not saying much or giving the human animal much credit do you think? There are some amazing works in the art field and I imagine many of the GREAT works can be attributed to pure imagination. JMO.

We have to give the human race credit. It may be 1 in a 1000 or 1 in a 1000000 but someone can do it. The other thing, so what if references are used for 80% or even 95% of an artwork idea. Here’s an exercise; have a person draw a car that’s never seen a car. Draw it only from description ( no photo references either) . Bet you get something that looks close to a spaceship. Anyway we draw what we see or what we remember seeing. There are some people that are damn good at it even without a reference.

Bruce

[QSeptember5]

People need to reread the first post. He didn't say, "References are gay, I don't need 'em to be awesome!". He implied that with enough study of life and realism one could produce a work seeming photo-realistic without the on-site need for references. Christ, sight is the science, creativity is the art. Sciences are definite, limited, structured...and if you think such a thing is impossible to master then it would seem that you're the ones pushing divinity into space it doesn't belong, not him. Why practice realism at all? You're just pissing in the wind if it can't be mastered or even remotely understood. Instead, worship it like the elusive dream that it is. It's far too divine, right?
Could a person achieve it? I don't know. But, I'd rather root for somebody that shoots for the moon than sit around in a thick coat of cynicism saying, "There's no way.", when it's entirely feasible.

[J Wilson]

We have to give the human race credit. It may be 1 in a 1000 or 1 in a 1000000 but someone can do it.
Bruce

I think those people work on very specific subject matters that they know very well and have studied enough that they can remember enough variations to make a convincing imagined new version. MAYBE someone who only paints people and spends a lot of time observing them will remember little details like the little creases in the flesh that show the person recently had on socks that were too tight, or the uneven tan of a truck driver, are that strange little scar from a polio vaccine as a child. But ask them to paint a flower next to that person though and you'll probably get a generic looking non specific flower. Ask them to make the setting Tokyo and you'll probably get a collection of japanese cliche's. I honestly don't know anyone can believe that you can get to the point where reference just isn't needed. No matter who you are, you are just not a visual dictionary of the world. I'm going to go out on a limb (but I feel very safe doing so) and say NO ONE can do it, unless they are painting an extremely limited set of subject matters and rarely vary from them.

I actually think the idea that artists DON'T need reference is detrimental, because for some odd reason people are let down when they discover that you had to use a photo to get some of the details right, like you are now less of an artist for caring that it's right.

[dose]

My feeling is- why would you want to work without reference? One of the real joys of art is the process of observing the world around us. There's always something new to experience...

[BlackGuy]

what?

"Reference photographs and nature study would be necessary only for practicing, but not for the finished paintings."

It seems like a lot of you are skipping that line. It's not like he wouldn't still work from reference to do his studies. Iain McCaig works in a similar fashion according to his DVDs. Doing reference studies first, and then doing his final illustrations from his imagination, and he goes on about why he approaches his designs and illustrations that way. I think methods are just methods, and there's always gonna be somebody who's very existence disproves your preconceived notions about what's the best way to work. The best thing to do is just find what works for YOU and do things that way.

[tensai]

I think methods are just methods, and there's always gonna be somebody who's very existence disproves your preconceived notions about what's the best way to work. The best thing to do is just find what works for YOU and do things that way.

word.

[FlameDragon]

Yeah I think reference photos/people/nature will always be needed. I know comic book artists have to create scenes for their panels and make them look natural (the scenes where it's just people walking or standing outside) in terms of the people's actions and movement in the background, the surrounding nature, etc. I'd bet they use reference for that, as I can imagine it being quite difficult to depict such scenes from one's mind.

[kev ferrara]

My feeling is- why would you want to work without reference? One of the real joys of art is the process of observing the world around us. There's always something new to experience...

A small point is, the more I work out of my imagination, the more information I am able to extract from reference at a glance.

The larger point is the more I work from my imagination the more I force myself to remember what reality looks like... the more I feed my imagination. The more one's imagination understands, for instance, how rocks break apart into certain rhythms, or how cloth looks in movement, or how the muscles look in unphotographable instances of extreme stress, the more the imagination is better than reference as a supplier of "expressive" information. The more the imagination is empowered, the more the art differs from photography. Which is, it seems to me, as it should be.

kev

[krisCrash]

A small point is, the more I work out of my imagination, the more information I am able to extract from reference at a glance.

The larger point is the more I work from my imagination the more I force myself to remember what reality looks like... the more I feed my imagination. The more one's imagination understands, for instance, how rocks break apart into certain rhythms, or how cloth looks in movement, or how the muscles look in unphotographable instances of extreme stress, the more the imagination is better than reference as a supplier of "expressive" information. The more the imagination is empowered, the more the art differs from photography. Which is, it seems to me, as it should be.

kev

Very, very true. I guess because then we realise when our memories/imagination failed us, and we know then what to look for next time :)

And to reply to the topic, I think it's very possible to do high-realism unreferenced. Given talent, training, memory... maybe it will not be like a photo. But neither are most referenced drawings (and I'm glad so). By the way, good luck removing all reference from an artist. He or she will always have their own body and shadows in the room around them to glance at ;D

(and to sidetrack, that is why I don't understand anyone can have a hard time drawing hands)