Why I Don't Trace Photographs When Making A Painting.

If you have a glance at this Blog on a semi-regular basis, you already know how I feel about this subject. We have some new followers who have been asking if my Disney work is made from photographs. Nope! I work from life.

 Lately it seems as if there is an increase in the defense of tracing in painting. I realize that posting things like this pretty much alienates me from 90% of the current art world, but as they say - I gotta be me.

In a recent post, on a very popular blog, the author defended tracing as "not cheating". He said that it is perfectly OK, not only to trace, but to actually print out, and paint over photographs!!! WHAT!!?? How is that "not cheating".  Actually, if you tell people you traced, it's not technically cheating. But who does that!? Cheating means " to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage". Well, if you trace to make your work look "more real" than you have the ability to do without tracing, and you do it to get ahead of those who aren't tracing, to make yourself look good, well that's cheating!

I'm not going to throw insults or tell anyone what they should or shouldn't do, that is not my place. What I can do, because this is my blog, is tell you why I choose not to trace or grid in my work. I am going to talk only about tracing. If you are printing out photographs and painting over them and passing them off as original oil paintings, the art world doesn't need you. Thank you for playing, please go stand in traffic.

Above is a shot of the Disney painting "Tell Us A Story" and the set behind it. This is a simple set up but often I will build very elaborate sets and work from those. The main reason I do this is because I hate "photo lighting". Photos seem to flatten everything out, the depth is lost. One of the easiest ways to spot a still life that was painted from traced photos is that even though the detail is often amazing, there is a flatness to the painting. The richness and depth are lost for the detail. I'm not saying I don't work from photographs, sometimes you have to. My waves are painted from looking at photographs. I never trace them. I use them as reference and I make a lot of changes. Most of the time I like my painting better than the photograph.

 

It's no secret that tracing makes it easier. I know that I could work far faster and more accurately if I did it. So why not? Because I want to keep "me" in the painting. Tracing is a performance enhancer. No two ways about it. If you trace, you are making your life easier. One of the comments on the blog I mentioned, was that tracing was like an athlete using steroids, something I said years ago myself. The author argued that it was not like using steroids because that is against the rules of sports and art "has no rules". True, but music has no rules either and not singing your own music didn't work out so well for Milli Vanilli.  Baltimora, the band who gave us Tarzan Boy (or that song from the Listerine commercial) also is accused of not being honest with who actually sang the song  but no one seems to care. But if it's not him singing in this video, then he is  lip-synching. Speaking of  lip-synching, is that cheating? Would you pay to go see a concert if you knew the artist was going to lip-synch the whole night?  If the sign said "Tonight Only! Watch Brittany Spears Lip-Synch her entire first album!" Empty theater, but hey, it's easier!

I think it is safe to say that whenever the audience finds out that something is honest we are impressed, really impressed. The first time I heard Lady Gaga sing acapella I was blown away. I said "wow, she can actually sing", because before I heard that I just thought it was synthesizers and producers making her look good.  When I see someone paint an amazing demo from life, I am always blown away. Talent, and more importantly, skill are wonderful things, and if you were born with it or just worked really hard, be proud! Now, I do know a few very talented painters who have traced because they had a deadline, and they needed to get the painting done fast because they needed the money. I still consider this cheating, but it's a damn good reason to cheat.

Koons

 In sports, who wasn't let down when they found out Lance Armstrong used performance enhancers? I was. The same thing should be true about art. When I found out that Jeff Koons hired people to make his work and he then signs his own name to it, I lost what little respect for him I had.
A giant balloon dog - really? Millions for that, I'd rather see the millions go to someone sketching people on the street corner, at least that's honest. What about a mathematician using a calculator? Is that cheating? No, but if you find out that someone can do complex math in their head isn't it more impressive? I remember when I was in school we were not allowed to use calculators in math class. I hear that nowadays they can. To this day I try to do simple math, (tips, measuring, cutting panels, etc) in my head just to keep my skills up. Shouldn't the same be true for drawing and painting? When we meet someone who can speak five languages, aren't we impressed. If you found out they had a mini translator in their ear, wouldn't it take away from that? Admit it, it's not as impressive.

Toulouse-Lautrec

I feel that if I traced, I would loose some of myself, that I would disappear from my work, even if just a little. Who we are, what we can do, all become blurred when we rely on a mechanical device. It becomes all about how it looks, and what it has to say is eliminated...I always use Toulouse-Lautrec as an example. Could you imagine the loss if he had traced? Look at that personality! I think that tracing shows a lack of understanding on both the person who makes a painting by that means, and the buyer that buys it. I would love to hear that collectors were asking, "Was it traced? before they bought a painting! If I could start just one trend, that would be it. Getting people to go into galleries and ask - "Was it traced?"

 Above is a shot of one of my long still lifes. These have to be done extremely quickly because they rot. Usually I have to spend the first three days working from eight or nine am to between two and three am. That's a long day! It would be far easier if I just took a photo and worked on it for as long as it took. I am willing to sacrifice a little of the detail for the depth, and color I can get by working from life. I like to think I get more personality by working from life as well but that point may be debatable. I could shoot a bunch of photos, print them out and paint over them...but I might feel a bit dirty if I did that. The most important reason I work from life - it's fun, it's hard, but it's fun.

It was said on this other blog that it doesn't matter how the painting was made as long as the end result looks good. I couldn't disagree more. I still believe that "how" we do something is as important, if not more important then the end result. Two sayings I remember from being a kid: "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing" and "It's not whether you win or loose, it's how you play the game" Life just depends on which one of those two you believe in.