Why do photographers have less artistic license?

[Donald Miller]

Before I begin let me clearly state that I shoot both film and digital. I can make good prints with each method so I don't have any axe to grind here.

One of the things that I keep observing as being brought up in discussions...mostly by what I like to call the "film fanatics" is that digital folks are really not true photographers since they photoshop their images and that just ain't cool because when they do that PS crap their images are no longer pure.

Now I can understand that some of those film types would say that and I accept that they have that opinion but I wonder why those "real photographers" are such elitists to believe that to be artistically viable that "real photographers" can not practice full artistic license...in other words it appears from their viewpoint that "real photographers" aren't permitted to create something that they envision in their mind if they can't see it with their eyes.

Hmmm...yet when I consider painters, they most often paint some interpertation of something they envision in their mind...they often bring into existence something that does not necessarily exist in objective reality...even musical composers don't go around copying some other musicians work because to copy someone else's work and then to pass it off as their original creative output would not be considered to be creatively cool. Even writers seem to follow what musical and painter types do...copying and claiming it as our own would normally being considered to be plagiaristic under those conditions.

Why are these photographic purists not ashamed to make photographs of trees, rocks, waterfalls, buildings, and people ad nauseum and continue to pass these "generalized copies" off as their latest "artistic creation"? Yet when it comes to producing a print that comes about by truly being creative, in other words by bringing into existence something that really does not already exist in objective reality, that to do so would be considered by these selfsame "photographic purists" to not be really pure enough?

Wow!!!!, that is something that I wondered about while I contemplated my belly button for about five minutes a while ago. I would really like to understand why this disparity exists between other artists and "photographic artists"? Did God make photographers somehow more unique than the rest of those creative types? What makes these "real photographers" nothing more than less than automated copying machines?

[Vaughn]

Before I begin let me clearly state that I shoot both film and digital. I can make good prints with each method so I don't have any axe to grind here.

Whoa! No, you don't have an ax to grind, it is already sharp and you're ready to go to town with it! LOL!

I think your "real photographers", as you put it, are a statistically insignificant portion of the population. Often very vocal, but there is not enough of them to worry about.

I would say that "most" landscape painters, and probably portrait painters, work from photographs -- yes they can add or subtract things, but it is surprising to see so many paintings done from a photographic perspective. I think it would be safe to say that 90 to 99% of the paintings do not come from "something they envision in their mind", but from something they have seen outside of their mind...something remembered. I really do not see this as anything to terribly different than what photographers do.

I'm afraid you are sounding a bit like one of those "real artists"...elitists who believe that unless one holds the same concept of art as they do, one's artistic license should be folded, stapled and mutilated.

"...bringing into existence something that really does not already exist in objective reality..." Point out something to me that exists in objective reality. You can not. By the time you try to point it out to me, it is already in the past -- it no longer exists.

I allow a controlled chemical reaction to happen on a sheet of film by selectively exposing it to light reflected off the landscape. Where is the objective reality in that? LOL!

Time for me to coat some paper with some expensive platinum and palladium salts!

vaughn

[janepaints]

I would say that "most" landscape painters, and probably portrait painters, work from photographs -- yes they can add or subtract things, but it is surprising to see so many paintings done from a photographic perspective. I think it would be safe to say that 90 to 99% of the paintings do not come from "something they envision in their mind", but from something they have seen outside of their mind...something remembered. I really do not see this as anything to terribly different than what photographers do.

Hi Vaughn

Respectfully: most painters, especially those educated within the classical western fine art tradition, do not work from photographs. There are many exceptions but, in general, classically-educated painters tend to avoid photographically referencing their work.

There are many reasons for this. Here's two:

-The brightness range capable of being captured by lens/film is a fraction of what the human eye/brain detects. One critical result of this discrepancy is how it affects color. Tho I love tons of color photography, most of it pales compared to what paint can achieve with color.

-The lens is monocular while human vision is binocular, which affects perspective and spatial relationships.

There are many contemporary publications which push the use of photos as a basis and reference for painters. Almost all of these publications are aimed at the hobbyist/amateur/semi-pro/enthusiast market. On the other hand, I'm aware of no current publications aimed at serious professional painters--the readership base would simply be too small and 'how to' articles concerning the craft of painting would be impossible.

This is not to say that painters don't or can't make use of photographs, nor is it to say that there haven't been fine painters who based their work upon photographs.

Recently I saw the photos of the painter Pierre Bonnard for the first time. They were great. They bore very little similarity to his paintings, except for subject matter. (lots of women, family, interiors) How Bonnard dealt with his subject matter in his paintings versus his photos was like 'night and day.' I was surprised by how intuitively Bonnard worked 'photographically' with a camera. He didn't try for painterly effects or painterly composition. It seems he 'got' what a camera can do and went with the flow. He was a natural 'straight' photographer even tho he was a quite painterly painter. A Janus.

What usually results from photo-based paintings are paintings of photos. This is such an obvious thing, yet so commonly overlooked! What the eye sees and what the lens sees are so dissimilar. The paint-from-photos situation is an odd mirror-image of the early-20th century where many photographers (White, Steiglitz, etc.) strove to make their photos 'painterly.'

Photographers have as much artistic license as workers in any other medium. No medium is superior to any other. Apples and oranges. Each medium has its own nature, limits, beauties, possibilities, disciplines.

A few decades ago Photorealism was a big trend in painting. Not so much now. Photorealist paintings tended towards HUGE scale, immediate and sensational impact. Lots of 'wow' factor. The trend ran out of gas pretty fast.

Sometimes I think the aims of the classical painting education can be narrowed down to this: 'Learn to see what you're seeing and NOT what you THINK you're seeing.' Drawing is a key tool used to achieve this. Painting students are required to draw from life every day for at least an hour, for 4 or or 5 years. What is accomplished is a sharpening, refinement and command of the human eye-hand mechanism. I become the brush or pencil=Eye become the brush or pencil.
This is why 'how to' painter-publications like 'American Artist' can't really provide much education for serious painters. 'Putting In The Time' means few shortcuts.

Translating this to the camera realm, IMO, the equivalent of life drawing for photographers to have the light-lens-film-eye interactive mechanism become 'second nature'--so that what they see is in close-accord with what their lens sees and so that what they think, imagine and envision can be effectively achieved by their chosen camera, lens & output medium. As in painting, 'Putting In The Time' means few shortcuts, whether traditional darkroom or PhotoShop.

Do you know the work of Joel-Peter Witkin? If not, see what you think of how he's dealt with limits on Artistic License within the camera realm. I've never been able to quite figure out if I like or dislike his work (which problably means I like it). I can't tell if he's a photographer who wants to be a painter or a painter who happens to be a photographer or simply a Shaman Idiot Savant. But I do know that whenever I see his work I tend to look at it for a long, long time--usually completely mystified!
Maybe Witkin tore up his Artistic License a long time ago and applied for the even-more-difficult-to-get Total Mojo Voodoo License! But I'm pretty sure of this: this guy is WAY into seeing. SEE. He might even be a seer :

http://www.edelmangallery.com/witkin.htm

[Vaughn]

But Eric, it is ALL nonsense...the point is to have fun, and perhaps even learn something! I hope Donald does not take me too seriously!

vaughn

[walter23]

Donald makes some good points, but as pointed out they're based on generalizing just one group of photographers (or critics) as representative of the whole.

As a bit of a side branch from this, I've found it interesting to observe the sorts of dogmas that float around photographic forums. Often you can predict almost down to the exact wording what a response to a particular photograph is going to be. There's an amusing parody of this, based around famous photographs, out there somewhere but I can't find it right now.

It's also interesting to look at the different camps or schools that are emerging among different internet forums or groups. Go post your latest APUG-esque lith print scan on fredmiranda.com, or take your heavy-saturation cartoon-coloured high-dynamic-range image and post it on APUG... it's really amusing. I don't know much about the real art world outside of internet forums so you'll have to forgive me for just talking about internet sharing.

On the original topic though: I'm striving for more interpretive forms of photography myself. There are so many interesting print processes out there (and not just in the digital world) and I'm sort of flopping around between them trying to find something that fits how I want to represent the things I see. It's a really enjoyable process and I'll be perfectly content even if I never "succeed". I've messed with digital manipulations but right now I'm mainly interested in the alt. processes - bromoil is next up on the list.

[Vaughn]

Hey there Jane,

Right you are. But I think the way we are flooded with photographic images (including moving pictures) has heavily influenced all of society -- including the non-"American Artist" artists. It affects the way we see (and while we do see in stereo, it is only for the first 60 feet or so -- after that it is 2D.) Whether they use photos directly, as a point of departure, or subconsciencely, the way most painters see is influenced by photography. I wonder what the percentage of "classically trained" painters is of the total number of painters.

"Translating this to the camera realm, IMO, the equivalent of life drawing for photographers to have the light-lens-film-eye interactive mechanism become 'second nature'--so that what they see is in close-accord with what their lens sees and so that what they think, imagine and envision can be effectively achieved by their chosen camera, lens & output medium."

This is why I was never in a hurry to get more than one lens for my camera...and never a zoom. After 25 years of photographing I felt I was finally ready to gather a collection of focal lengths (159mm, 210mm, 300mm, 19" and my latest, 600mm) for my 8x10. Learning to see has always been my driving force.

"Do you know the work of Joel-Peter Witkin?" Yes, good example!

Vaughn

[janepaints]

Hey there Jane,

Right you are. But I think the way we are flooded with photographic images (including moving pictures) has heavily influenced all of society -- including the non-"American Artist" artists. It affects the way we see (and while we do see in stereo, it is only for the first 60 feet or so -- after that it is 2D.) Whether they use photos directly, as a point of departure, or subconsciencely, the way most painters see is influenced by photography. I wonder what the percentage of "classically trained" painters is of the total number of painters.

"Translating this to the camera realm, IMO, the equivalent of life drawing for photographers to have the light-lens-film-eye interactive mechanism become 'second nature'--so that what they see is in close-accord with what their lens sees and so that what they think, imagine and envision can be effectively achieved by their chosen camera, lens & output medium."

This is why I was never in a hurry to get more than one lens for my camera...and never a zoom. After 25 years of photographing I felt I was finally ready to gather a collection of focal lengths (159mm, 210mm, 300mm, 19" and my latest, 600mm) for my 8x10. Learning to see has always been my driving force.

"Do you know the work of Joel-Peter Witkin?" Yes, good example!

Vaughn

Hi Vaughn

Sometimes it amazes me that any one image or imagemaker can gain widespread--or even narrowspread! -- recognition in a world that is so SO image-saturated. It's kinda bizarre and crazy that it can happen. It's like suddenly we all agree that one grain of sand is WAY more fab than most other grains of sand, ever.

"influenced by photography"--Yes, I totally agree with you when phrased like that. The lens knocked the brush for a loop and then some.

I'm a professional painter and have been for almost 20 years. I attended a traditional art school. I live & work in an longtime 'artist's colony' area. Many galleries and serious working painters hereabouts.

I'm only speaking empirically, but the % of local pro painters who work from paintings seems no more than 20%. (I almost never do) The % of local amateur/hobbyist/semi-pro painters who work from photos seems about 70%.

Berenice Abbott wrote a photography how-to book. My memory is suspect but I think it was titled 'An Approach To Photography". I once owned a copy and hope to find another. I loved it! She was all for simplicity. She urged photo students to master one camera-one lens-one film before expanding their toolbox. Avoid the too-easy-to-fall-into trip of endlessly buying the latest gadget or lens in pursuit of Instant E-Z Genius Results. She thought TLR's & press cameras were good choices for students--lots of integral options & high-quality but still simple & basic. She stressed looking-looking-looking over worship of technique, formulas or methodologies. She was a big fan of 'Sunny 16 Rule.' Keep it simple.

Anything decent I've ever done tends to've been in-harmony with Ms. Abbot's advice, most of my crappy stuff tends to've not been!

Yeah, Witkin's a trip. It's like he's figured out how to photograph dreams or myths. Yet his stuff is so totally photographic in nature. It's obvious he adores daguerrotypes, tintypes, cabinet photos, photobooth imagery etc. Even his manipulations are photographic in nature. He seems a singularity, a realized individual & vision. What kind of 'ism', genre or category could his work possibly be shoe-horned into by the critics, pedants and reactionary academic hot-air afterburners? Good for him! I suspect his camera gear is pretty simple.

I didn't know about binocular vision's effect lessening with distance. Thanks for the info! Something new to think about. That's a kinda fascinating fact.

[Walter Calahan]

Your initial question is simply wrong.

The only limits within a medium is imposed by the artist themselves.

If you believe that you have less of an artist license then you do, but no one is imposing those limits other than yourself.

Enough said.

[Gary Tarbert]

Funny but 3 years ago i sold to a painter an image,who loved it and wanted too paint it and was prepared too pay my unframed price.
I visited this person about a year ago she still had my photographic image now framed on her wall.
I asked if she had painted it the answer was yes and sold it already! plus another slight variation.cheers Gary

[Greg Lockrey]

Why do photographers have less artistic license?

Most photographers are frustrated artists to begin with, they put this limit on themselves. An artist doesn't give a hoot what his medium is or what the observer has to think about it unless it's commercial in purpose. If it is to sell, then the piece has to satisfy the buyer and not necessarily the seller. If it is art, then it has to satify the artist.