My daughter asked why I still paint by sight when the camera is right there
My daughter came into the studio the other day, looked at the still life I'm working on, and asked why I don't just take a photo and paint from that. Not even mocking, just genuinely curious. She's sixteen and the camera is a reflex, like breathing.
I tried to explain that the eye doesn't see like a lens. The lens flattens everything to the same plane of focus, it fixes the light at one instant, it gives you a truth that isn't the truth you actually saw. When I look at a table with a dish and a cloth, my eye moves. It lands on the edge of the bowl, rests on the shadow under the rim, comes back to the highlights. There's a kind of negotiation happening that a photograph never has. The photograph already decided.
I don't think she was convinced. She kept looking at my canvas like it was the slower version for people who hadn't heard about the shortcut. And maybe part of me was annoyed, but another part thought she has a point about speed, we just don't want the same thing from it.
I did end up using a photo for the initial drawing of the pears, because they were about to bruise and rot. But then I threw the photo aside and painted the rest from the arrangement as it aged. The pears changed as I worked. They kept their own time. That's the whole thing, I think. A painting should have time in it. A photograph has a fraction of a second.
3
4commentsSaveFollow threadShare
My niece asked me something similar once, when I was working on a portrait and kept redoing the same eye over and over. She said why not just take a picture and copy it, you'd be done in an hour. And I couldn't explain it then, but I think I get what you mean now.
A photo is what the light did in one split moment. But when I'm painting someone, I'm painting the way their face changes while I look at it, the half-movements, the tiredness that shows up after ten minutes, the version I remember when they've gone. The camera can't hold any of that because it isn't trying to hold it.
I think your daughter will understand it herself one day, the first time she makes something instead of captures it. There's a whole different way of paying attention involved. It's nice that she asked at all, honestly, instead of just rolling her eyes at you.
You've got it right. I work in mosaic, and people ask the same thing, why not just send the image to a printer and stick it down. And the answer is that I'm not reproducing the thing, I'm recording the time I spent with it. Every stone I place is a decision I made while looking, and the looking changes you.
That thing you said about the eye redoing itself over and over, that's not wasted time. That's the whole point. The camera gets it right once and stops caring. You keep caring because you keep seeing. Your daughter and my niece will get it eventually, usually once they've made something badly enough that they had to look twice. 🙂
Mosaic, that's real patience. I have a friend who does glass and I don't know how you people do it, stone by stone, no second chances with grout. But that phrase you used, recording the time you spent with it, that's the thing exactly. People think we're making an image. We're making evidence of attention.
Your niece will come around. Usually it happens the first time they make something that took actual hours and they can't throw it away the way they'd dump a photo. Sixteen is young enough to still get surprised by that.
You said it better than I did, honestly. That bit about the tiredness showing up after ten minutes, that's exactly it. The painting is a record of the looking, not of the thing. A camera has no patience, and patience is half of what you're actually painting.
Your niece's question is a good sign though. Kids who ask it are thinking about what a picture is for. Better than the ones who just assume the photo is the end of the conversation.