Thought I would throw this out there. A blast from the past. Here is something I saved from years ago that Jeff Jones had to say about the use of photography for painting and drawing. Its interesting and might be nice for others to hear what he had to say about it all: Jeff Jones and Photography Subject: Re: Re:Photoswipes I had, whatever Art education I did, based in Art History and hanging out in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC. Every day I would walk across Central Park to the Museum (it was free entry in the 60s) and look for hours at Artists works whos view of the world seemed similar to my own. I was inspired! I would then walk back across the park and during the afternoon try to paint what I had seen. This went on almost daily for years. In almost all cases, up until German Abstract Expressionism (and even some of that), the Artist had worked from a model, from the land, the sea or from a photograph (starting around the 1850s). From my Art History courses I learned that certainly both Rembrandt, in his later years and Vermeer (who both knew their fellow countryman Leeuwenhoek and his experiments with early lenses) projected images of their models onto their canvases upside-down–a complicated process of darkened rooms, windows and blackened drapery, holes and lenses. Vermeer even went so far as to paint into his works the out-of-focus highlights that only projection and, later, photography emphasizes. So when I naively entered the world of comics and illustration as a professional in New York, around 1967, it became confusingly clear, that out of all the myriad fields art can appear in, it was only in “Comics” that artists took some kind of “pride” in “making it all up” and denying the use of any reference whatever even at the cost of their souls. This highly defensive attitude seemed to come from the fact that a lot of comic book artists, from as far back as the 30s, unable to fulfill their dreams to become illustrators, would sit around and amongst themselves say, “Well, at least I dont have draw from a photograph.” This, of course, has no bearing in what used to be called “funny animal” or “bigfoot” comics. I understand that most comics, especially superhero comics are based on archetypes and not reality so the “making it up” could give some kind of satisfying “formula” to the work, i.e., all legs are drawn the same way by a particular artist (some just bigger or smaller). This abstraction from reality is part of the charm of comics. We all know that in reality everyones leg is slightly different. This is part of the challenge and discovery and joy of drawing from reality. But what I never quite understood was why the artists who drew “realistically” would deny using reference and kick photos under the bed when an unexpected guest would show up at the door. I can only conclude defensiveness. Jeff ----------------------- I remember going to a convention years and years ago and Jeff was on the same flight. I had personally been struggling with the use of photo reference because I was feeling trapped by it. So I had begun to draw more out of my head. I mentioned this to Jeff and he asked me why. I told him about the struggle and feeling trapped. He said, “My work looks the way it looks because I use photo reference. I want the information, even if I dont actually use all of it. Your work looks the way it looks because you use photo reference too. Theres nothing wrong with that.” In my interview with Jeff for the Sketchbook of his I edited and designed for Vanguard Publishing way back, we talked a bit about photography: P: Id like to discuss your use of video capture as source material. When you shoot film, it really captures a lot of detail, but with a digital camera, theres less. It demands you interpret more. J: When I was shooting black and white film in the early 70s, I found it very difficult to work from good photographs. I much preferred Matthew Brady, or that kind of stuff. I tried to reinvent the camera, but the bad camera. I tried by putting pinholes in boxes and all that. I wanted to figure out how to take bad photographs. I had a Nikon that took excellent pictures, so I developed a bad darkroom technique, which was almost as good as a bad photo. I would jerk it out of the hypo and it would start to fade on me, it would be all spotty, I would overexpose, it would be great. It would give my imagination more to play with. All I needed was a foundation of proportions, of how the light fell across something. I didnt want to see the fingernails or the bone on the elbow — I wanted to find it myself. Its also difficult to work from a color photograph. I never shot in color. It really screws me up. Its so easy to become a slave to something thats already done for you. I tried to objectify, or abstract that experience in a bad photo, or a bad digital camera photo. P: It seems to me that your paintings have become more suggestive since you started using the video camera because youre inventing more, rather than getting it from the reference. Less is more. J: Its certainly something to do with the reference. Ive always developed that open technique to try and do that, too. Ive always tried to simplify. Im learning now more how to simplify. Its been a quest of what not to put in the picture. As time goes on, the clearer that becomes to me. ----------------------- In that interview I got Jeff talking about all the stuff I ever wanted to ask him about his work and process etc. If you can find a copy I think its the best interview he ever gave.
Posted on: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:22:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015