Painting and Photography

Painting and drawing visually have much in common. The principles of art that make good photography also apply to good painting. Both are two dimensional representations of a visual idea. But the difference between the two goes beyond visual presentation. Both photography and painting require intense study and keen awareness; the difference is in the process and creation of the image. Photography is instantaneous. There is very little time or need to examine the subject beyond the recognition of composition. It is an immediate reaction that stops when the shutter closes. Painting takes a lot of time to create the final image and requires intense concentration. Painting is not necessarily better than photography, but the value for me in a painting over a photograph is in the meditation of the artist who carefully decided the placement and character of each brush stroke. Every stroke is a separate perception and attempt at understanding the subject.

I recognize the importance of time and meditation in my work, but some painters try to cut the amount of time it takes to complete a painting by projecting a photograph onto a canvas instead of drawing by hand. I understand why someone would want to take this shortcut since it provides a perfect representation without having to actually understand reality, perspective, proportion, or anatomy. While it is possible to make a nice painting from a projected image, I think this type of art is much less interesting, and the painting often feels lifeless. I also believe this shortcut is dishonest if left undisclosed since the viewer assumes that an accurate drawing is the result of intense study. Artists who take this shortcut cheapen the value of the painting process, and assume that accuracy in representation is the end goal. But if accuracy is the goal, painting has no chance against photography since even the worst photographer can capture a more accurate representation of reality than the best painter.