Mark Junge wrote:
Notice I said painting en plein aire is a "worthwhile and invaluable endeavor." I didn't say it shouldn't be done at all, even by studio painters like myself. All I said was:
plein aire painting may not always provide the accuracy in coloring one might expect
some people go overboard on their insistence that photos NEVER be used for painting
There are artists who, having paid their plein aire dues, don't need to produce the finished panting outside. And there are painters who work strictly plein aire who, in my opinion (take it for what that's worth), produce crap. And, above all, LIGHTEN UP!!! Is that really too much to ask?
Notice I said painting en plein aire is a "worthwhile and invaluable endeavor." I didn't say it shouldn't be done at all, even by studio painters like myself. All I said was:
There are artists who, having paid their plein aire dues, don't need to produce the finished panting outside. And there are painters who work strictly plein aire who, in my opinion (take it for what that's worth), produce crap. And, above all, LIGHTEN UP!!! Is that really too much to ask?
Not at all, in fact that's the position of most people here. This issue comes up again and again with one or two people at most saying something like "Some people abuse photography and end up with flat and troublesome paintings as a result." Then someone says "Hey it's just a tool, it's not always bad, though it can of course be over-used as a crutch." And even though those two positions are essentially identical they end up arguing over what they both agree on. Toss in just one additional guy who genuinely does think that any use of photography is pure evil and the debate can go on for weeks even though there's near universal agreement on this issue.
--Brian
