The rightful place for camera in painting
by Tissa Hewavitarane
Osmunde Caine suggests that water colourists should use a camera as a
helpful aide-memoire. When time and opportunity to capture a subject run
out, the use of the camera by painters is a controversial matter. Some
purists consider it to be a position of painting. On the other hand it
is now known to have been used as, an adjunct to painting much earlier
than we have realised.
Monet, Degas and the Expressionists all used the camera. Some of the
old masters, such as Vermeer and Canaletto made use of primitive
precursor called the camera obscure. This was before Fox-Talbot invented
the photographic process as we know it today.
 The question is whether painting stands to gain or lose by the use of
the camera. Accepting that, apart from the surface quality, a good
photograph may be better than a bad painting. It should also be accepted
that if done with the aid of a camera, the painting should always be
better than the supporting photograph.
In fact, photography is at its best when it aspires to the quality of
a good painting and painting at its worst when it results in being
merely photographic or mechanical.
Although copying from photographs may have some value for beginners
in helping to develop technical skills I believe that you should paint
well directly from nature before using photographs.
Most of my landscape paintings have been carried out directly from
nature rarely make use of photographic reference.
This was possible because I live within walking distance from the
beach. There are times, however, when you are unable to stay in one
place long enough to complete the picture on the spot. In such cases
photographs are invaluable. But they should always be taken with
painting in mind.
Painting should always be done as the result of a direct and personal
visual experience.
The human eye and the camera lens need not be in opposition. They
should be complementary. Once it is realised that the camera lacks
perception it is not the same as optical seeing.
There are some things a camera does not do well. It does not give you
either luminosity or form in shadow, which an artist sees; neither can
it give the distortions and selections for artistic expression. It is
difficult for a camera to give a sense of scale, nor is it capable of
moving an object from its original place to another, both of which
artists need to do. On the other hand, the camera can sometimes surpass
the artist, for example water in action such as waves breaking on the
shore, falling cascades, the complicated ripples in disturbed, still, or
fast-running water.
It is very difficult for the artist to pin down such patterns.
The camera is also better than the artist at recording fast moving
objects. Except for clouds, this doesn't apply to landscape, but it
applies to animals and the human figure in action. The excellent press
photographers of sport exemplify this fact. Since the camera was
invented in the 19th century great artists such as Degas, Corot and
Sicker all used photographs as a source of reference. The great thing
was they knew how to use photographs properly.
What has given the process a bad name is the amateurs who sit and
copy photographs slavishly and mindlessly. It becomes a kind of crutch
that spares them from the trouble of having to observe carefully and
draw skilfully.
However, I have found that the camera functions with a sketchbook.
The two form a team. The drawing records the composition which I saw and
responded to. The camera records the details and fills in whatever the
sketch may have missed.
The scene on this page was painted on a cloudy day by the Kelani
river and I have titled the painting 'Down the Kelani River'. Notice the
dark shady clouds and the atmospheric effect of most expressed to show a
downfall of rain at any moment.
The painting was completed at home from a photograph taken due to the
bad weather, unable to complete the picture on the spot. |
