While I agree with most of your comments, Robert, it is interesting to note that Rothko insisted on having his later work shown in half-light.

Google Image any famous painting; the painting comes up a bunch of times, each one with the colours slightly different. Which image has the colours right? They all do...It just depends on what the lighting was like when the image was taken. Light has a huge effect on colour.

Mary – Rothko may be a poor choice on which to base your argument. I don’t believe any abstract painter need worry about whether there is too much or too little light. His work wasn’t based on light per se; so much as it was on form. Rothko’s coloring wasn’t based on luminosity but flat application. Luminosity would have detracted from the work. Working in an impressionist or contemporary realist or traditional style demands that you show it in proper light for light is the key element of this kind of painting. In fact it is the essence of traditional painting. I am amused when I see painters claim they are “ painters of light.” For Rothko personally I suppose he had a vision of what kind of light we viewed his work, but light, in my opinion, wasn’t key to viewing his work. In fact for me, seeing it in different light (no pun intended) may imbue it with a multitude of intensions some of which the artist may or may not have imposed.

Rick- Have you read Anything about Rothko at all ??? His work is ALL about Light...Form? There was hardly any form at all...The colouring was exactly based on luminosity , not at all flat ...He layered colours over and over and over again to achieve a glow...As I browse I am reminded once again of how many readers copy from photographs & pretend to be artists...& how the bias is so ignorant in its prejudice against abstract expressionists...Rothko was a pioneer in his use of colour & specifically his ability to light up a painting from within by using such scientific layering of colours...Rather than dismissing this master, those who seek greater light in their work would serve to study his method...By taking one colour, say yellow, he would apply fourteen coats of slightly similar yellows, but slightly different, one on top of the other...His works shimmered so much that he was given an entire church for a collection...The lower light demand enabled the glow to be truly appreciated...I remind this community of photograph plagiarizing hobbyists to read about the automatistes, a signature Canadian movement...By abstracting a subject you are able to isolate properties to further your skills...This is essential to development as an artist...& develop some humility towards contemporary art...or shall we all just be cameras?

How can we say that a painter who uses photographs for reference is merely "pretending" to be an artist or that traditional or representational artists are a "community of photograph plagiarizing hobbyists?? We're all artists! I'm an artist and I create art whether I'm sitting outside painting the view or inside painting from my own photos for reference. I've said my peace about that. I came here to comment on "Photographic foolery." For me, to see a painting in person in a gallery or museum or even hanging in someone's home is a much better experience than viewing an image of it. The colors and luminosity just don't translate for me that way. I'm reminded of an Alan Soffer encaustic exhibit I was lucky enough to see about 2 years ago in Philadelphia. I viewed the images of his work online and thought, hey...it's only a 10 minute drive, why not go see it. When I saw his works in person, I was blown away. And for me it seems to be that way with all art. It's just so much better in person. By the way, Alan Soffer is an abstract artist and I'm a photo plagiarizing hobbyist pretender. Somehow, I'm still able to appreciate his work.

If Canaletto had had a photographic camera, I expect he would have used it, Sari. As it was, he and many others painting before the mid 19th century had no choice but to use the camera obscura and whatever other technical means they had at their disposal. When photography did come into its own, Degas was one of the first to appreciate its merits (and was condemned for it at the time). While I am not an advocate of projecting images onto a canvas wall and then tracing them, and do not use that method, that and many other techniques are used today by people who would certainly not fit into the "plagiarizing hobbyist" category. The traditional way of learning to paint was to copy what had gone before in order to learn the technical skills. The great painters went beyond that learning process. Any painting from an existing image of any kind is copying to a certain extent. Artistry is not about getting away with copying, it's about getting beyond what is ostensibly there and making it "your own" through style, interpretation, medium etc. Capturing an image on photos is often the only way of retaining enough detailed information to complete a painting later on, especially if it is going to be too large to paint in situ. But the camera's "eye" picks up different information from the human one and the artist filters this information and makes decisions about what is going to feature in his or her interpretation. I find such categorical judgments as quoted above unproductive and unhelpful. And strangely enough, what applies to figurative painting is also relevant for abstracts. We should be talking about shape, colour, light, mood, tonal contrast etc. and not about inventing the wheel. I remember seeing work by a class of Bob Ross addicts who had done a landscape according to minutely detailed instructions (and the image of the Bob Ross painting they were imitating). In the end there were as many different landscapes as there were students, some were good, some were not. Some painters could be said to have used that particular technique (which was incidentally not invented by Bob Ross), some hadn't the faintest idea. Some will have learnt how to paint better from those lessons, some will not. I could go on ....

Well, I think I'll try to get back on topic and talk about lighting LOL. I'm surprised that no one mentioned painting outside and bringing the work inside. It usually tends to darken up when brought inside. Almost bringing it to half light in any inside lighting. I've heard that if you keep your canvas in the shade while painting, that will help. I haven't really noticed that to make much of a difference in my work. I just use a dark color pallet and they are dark in any lighting. Sometimes I wonder if artists spend way too much time worrying about everything else instead of just letting the painting do what it's going to do. I'm sorry, I just don't have time to worry about how this light bulb affects my work over that light bulb. I think that lighting is like the art itself, subjective to the individual, so stop worrying and paint!!

'Edges are Very Important." said on the subject of edges - Bruce McGrew. Softer edges add much more movement to the painting. I achieve the edges that please me most with a good quality (which is key here - otherwise they shed horribly when used with oils) 1" sky wash brush. The key is to use the brush judiciously, and I don't spec it for my students, as they get carried away with its use. I'll let a particular student who is doing well give one a try now and then, but never require it for the entire class. Best illustration for this note would be the image from Penland Catalog last year - "Blue Norther". THANKS SO MUCH ROBERT. C

Sari- Your verve and enthusiasm is commendable and I support your beliefs though I’m not in agreement with all you wrote. My experience with Rothko is primarily based on his late work where he increasingly moved toward black darker nearly invisible imagery. I did some research on the Internet and found his earlier works were painted with what enthusiasts consider luminosity. When I was referring to luminous I was referring to the kind found with say a Rembrandt. Not to say that Rembrandt personifies this technique. My comments were not to malign expressionism or Rothko in particular though I feel his thin washes are not to be what I consider luminous so much as transparent in nature. I understand I go against the believers in his time and obviously today’s devotees of Rothko.

Loud cheer to Sari Grove, followed by several more. Wish I had the nerve to apply that wonderful phrase, "photograph plagiarizing hobbyists," in one of my classes, but they'd all walk out. I agree, du fond de mon coeur, that a good look at a few automatiste paintings -- particularly Paul-Émile Borduas and Marcel Barbeau -- would do all of us a world of good.

Jane and Sari... I won't drag this out on here but (ref to your crude comments referring to others as 'plagiarizing hobbyists') I have invited each of you 2 elitists to view a little of my work at: www.creative-artists-guild.com ...click galleries...click ted openshaw and comment...would you call it art or not?...neither of you have responded...to go any further with this would just be childish. I'm sure others will agree. Ted Openshaw fireball61@bham.rr.com

There is nothing wrong with painting from a photograph. I prefer realist art to abstract....When I go to a gallery, I'm not interested in seeing mashes of colouring on a canvas (I’m sure the painting means a lot to the artist, but frankly, I don’t see it). With realism you can see technique. You can learn so much just by looking at the simplest details. Abstract art is the kind of art I would buy to match my sofa. I do, however, agree that we can learn a lot of layering colours. I remember reading somewhere that Cezanne was big on doing that.

Many use copying of full or partial images as a step towards abstraction. I use photographs to capture the initial composition which may be an idea for a painting. I also know people who copy photographs because they feel joy in that, or they are making their first shaky steps in art or therapy. Some move on and some don't, like in any activity. They all undoubtedly contribute to the art community in their own way, very often with their dollars funding the art workshops. Regarding the difference between images on the computer screen and in the real life - obviously in the first case the light comes from the screen rather than reflection from an external light source through the layers of paint. The digital image can be adjusted to "look better" from the point of the range of values or color harmony and vibrancy, but only the real image carries the subtle luminosity, textures and variances in close values and colors. Perhaps the paintings with bold compositions and values present better on the computer than the subtle ones.

Sarah...To reduce all abstract art to "mashes of colouring on a canvas" and "the kind of art I would buy to match my sofa" is not only harsh and narrow minded but also an insult to those who enjoy the challenge of painting abstractly as well as those who do "see it", artist or not. In order to educate yourself you could take a workshop or two with an abstract artist. Expand your emotional horizons. You are missing out.

Joan - I guess your right, I was a little harsh....I took "photograph plagiarizing hobbyist" rather personally because it pretty much describes me exactly. It's true, I don't understand abstract art...but I shouldn't act like there's anything wrong with the art...when in fact there's something wrong with me.

I paint from life because I think it helps me to become a better artist, whereas painting from photographs does not help me to become a better artist and painter. Some folks who have been painting from life for 40 years can use photo references more judiciously, but for me it sucks the life out of my work unless I already have painted the subject or at least done a pencil drawing and have spent considerable time looking at the motif. I have learned this from bitter experience and hundreds of cringe-making paintings of my own done solely from photo reference.

Yikes Sarah! Why not tell us how you REALLY feel about Abstract Art? I paint in a lot of different styles. I am adept at Impressionism, Plein Air, Realism, Post-Impressionism and more. I enjoy it all. But for the past several months, I've been working in Abstracts again. I've loved them, so I thought I'd spend some time exploring the creation of them. To my astonishment, I discovered that they are MUCH harder to do than I ever imagined. Instead of having God's Creation in front of me, I'm having to reach deep inside of myself for the work. It lays you bare in a way that nothing else does.

Just a comment re painting from photographs. I asked a professional photographer how he would feel if I were to paint from his photos and his reply was that tho maybe flattered in one way, in another he'd feel rather miffed as he was the one who arose early in the morning and waited in uncomfortable positions for the sun to rise. The photo is his creative vision and no one elses. Copied paintings aught never be sold as the painters work without showing thanks to the photographer( named). Best to work from our own photographs....Or from life.

the painters of photographs are only cheating one person... themselves

I believe that God gave each artist the ability to be creative in their own way be it plein air, realism, abstract, or photography, and by using a photo as a starting point does not mean I am going to reproduce it on paper or canvas, I am just using it as a reference. I did once try to paint a photo exactly as it was in front of me as I was asked not to change any thing, believe me it didn't happen, but what I did produce my customer was very happy with, and I don't feel I am cheating my self by using photos, as what happens between it my creativity and the painting is very different.

Thank you, Margaret! I don't know why we have all this snobbery over which process is more acceptable than the others. We all have our own way whether we can sit outside and paint the landscape or we use photos. I'm currently working on a commission on three 24x36 canvases. The subject is a catskill waterfall. Excuse me, plein air painters, for not driving 4 hours, hiking straight up a mountain for 1 hour and then scaling down a cliff for another half-hour to get to the location. Sometimes the use of photos is necessary. Having spent plenty of time at this hidden place in my younger days, I think I can pull it off.

Wow, reading all the photography comments reminds me of a discussion about smoking in public places! I think the topic of edges and using photos as reference are tied together. I paint both with and without photos and always try to pay attention to my edges even more when using photo reference. Part of the problem is a photo brings EVERYTHING into sharp detail. If I were to just copy it, the painting would fail. I've drawn and painted endless hours from life, and using a photo when I have to doesn't diminish my work a bit! I do have a rule though.....I'll only work from a photo that I took myself, of things or people I know about. I often paint the figure in a position that's impossible for the model to hold for long, so the camera has been a great tool. What are you anti-photo folks so worked up about? Photo or not, a crappy painting can't hide!

Amen Jennifer! I agree in a fullhearted way about using photos for references especially if the subject you are painting is as fleeting as waterfalls, running horses or surfers. The camera captures a moment in time and lighting. I do not paint verbatim from the photos, in my case digital images. I expand, discover and reinterpret, what turns out is a profound piece of art and it doesn't look just like the photo. Also, I paint on location (plein air) to teach myself how to capture the colors of nature and the atmosphere at the time. We as artists have the right to combine both into astounding works of art. I have painted water from life again and again, so if I wanted to paint a larger piece, the images are definitely important to plan out the composition, values and shapes while I insert all those years of formal academic fundamentals. Then I just let my emotions take over and the changes happen, it's magic I tell you.

So far I have had success in creating what many people consider to be good paintings through the use of my photographs. My subjects are usually coastal areas and flowers. Since I only have time to paint during the snowy winter months, I have to rely on my photographs. I can say though that I spend time walking the coastal areas and enjoying the spendour of flowers, so I know my subjects intimately and they are strong in my memory.