Following up yesterday's post about Why Bother Copying a Photo?, it might be valuable to consider the views of Italian artist Pietro Annigoni (1910-1988). In a YouTube video in the Italian language, he discusses why he doesn't use photography in his work. Blog reader Mario Zara generously provided the following translation:
Interviewer: for example, you are one of the few painters, if not the only one, who doesn't use photography. Today everyone...
Answer: Well, this return to the so-called classicism, to reality, based on photography, in my opinion is a mistake, it's a form of impairment, in the end, because working from life, which is so transient, always changing, manifesting infinite aspects... working from life means that you accept an effort, a struggle, a labor of conquest, which is removed if you use photography. If you remove this big effort, this struggle, you are removing too much... too many important aspects of art
I: So it's easy to copy a photo..
A: Well... it definitely makes things easier. And then photography is a frozen instant of this reality, this truth I was talking about. Because truth changes together with us, while you are looking at it, it escapes, and you have to chase after it. It's a completely different view of life, I would say.
I: So, besides technique, there is also a psychological aspect.
A: Yes, of course, it's a different way of life.
I: So, the difficult part of portraiture - When you make a portrait, you require many sitting, don't you?
A: yes
I: What is the difficult part? In grasping the essence of the character?
A: To grasp something that is continuously escaping, in the end.
I: Which is the synthesis of that personality, because the instant...
A: The synthesis of...? It's the synthesis of I don't know what, it's that personality, and my personality mixed together. It's an experience of life, anyway... that's what, in my opinion, the use of photography cancels.
I: So you start studying the character of the model by means of drawings? What do you do?A: For me a portrait, or a figure, is first of all an object, like painting a still life. I have to draw this object, to put the eyes, the nose, the mouth and the ears in the right place... I mean, the construction of the figure, its shoulders and everything. Then, at a certain moment, I have to 'go inside' this human being.
So in the first poses I ask for a complete silence and stillness, then, after blocking in the portrait, as I said, with a construction as correct as possible, I start to talk to the person about many subjects, about any subject, in order to see how he or she reacts, and lives, and so on, and I myself identify with that person on those subjects. It is a way to go inside that person, also psychologically.
I: It's...
A: A long, hard, laboring work. That's why, at a certain point, I got tired of making portraits...
I: But the most difficult thing is to let the soul come out from the eyes, isn't it?
A: Well, yes, from the eyes, and from every part: from everything. Sometimes it's a matter of an instant, of a glimmer on a certain part of the face, which can change the expression. There are many aspects...
I: So during many sittings... there comes a moment... when everything gets becomes clear and illuminated...
A: Well, there is... when there is... but sometimes there isn't, and you have to adapt.
I: I've read in your diary, when you went to the US, that J.F. Kennedy let you in his office when he was meeting with his staff.
A: That was the kind of portrait I did for the Time Magazine covers. A few of these things were unfortunately disastrous for me.
I: It's...
A: A long, hard, laboring work. That's why, at a certain point, I got tired of making portraits...
I: But the most difficult thing is to let the soul come out from the eyes, isn't it?
I: So during many sittings... there comes a moment... when everything gets becomes clear and illuminated...
A: Well, there is... when there is... but sometimes there isn't, and you have to adapt.
I: I've read in your diary, when you went to the US, that J.F. Kennedy let you in his office when he was meeting with his staff.
A: That was the kind of portrait I did for the Time Magazine covers. A few of these things were unfortunately disastrous for me.
I: They considered you the painter, and let you stay near him?
A: He didn't pose, I was forced to “steal”...
I: Which models were the most patient? Was it the Queen of England, or the Pope?
A: Oh, well, those... No. The Pope was like Kennedy. But the Queen at least granted me sixteen poses, Princess Margaret twenty-six. I've always tried to get as many poses as possible, because my type of art...
I: At least, on this subject, regarding you as a portrait-painter, no one has any grounds for objection, and they all agree...
A: Well, I don't know, they may take issue with that too, I don't know...
I: No, no, I say, it's unquestioned... at least on this subject, Annigoni...
A: yes, yes, they let me do portraits, because incidentally portraiture...
I: ..Is considered a genre...
A: A cheap genre, an outdated genre...
I: But on the contrary, it's the genre which requires the best technique and “eye”
A: Well, portraiture... is a big hassle...
I: So, you feel you really belong to our time, as a painter?
A: I feel... to our time? I don't know... to my time, that's for sure. If my time doesn't belong to our time, that's not my fault...
--
I: So, you feel you really belong to our time, as a painter?
A: I feel... to our time? I don't know... to my time, that's for sure. If my time doesn't belong to our time, that's not my fault...
--
Related previous posts:
Menzel and Photography
10 comments:
I'm not sure I understood this entirely. This sentence, "Well, this return to the so-called classicism, to reality, based on photography,..." confused me at the beginning. Why is Annigoni saying that there is a return to reality but that its is based on photography? That seems oxymoronic.
I looked Annigoni up on the internet to help understand his comments He worked in a Renaissance style, disliked modern art, and especially disliked abstract art. He painted many of his portraits in oil tempera. This is egg tempera mixed with some linseed oil, and varnish. Plus he liked to add a little red wine. He seemed to start by blocking in, which I think might be unusual for egg tempera. He also did frescos. It seems like his art was really rooted in the 15th and 16th centuries.
This is Lynnwood :) I think what he means ,Susan,is that with the advent of photography,painters and the public and especially the "academy" system,began to compare,even if subconsciously,their paintings to photographs... Almost as a new standard This had never been possible before.As realistic as Rembrandt,Durer and Rubens seem to be ,you could never mistake them for a photograph.Boy,Velasquez could be an exception though sometimes.!!Nothing wrong with it . But there is no doubt for me that at least for a while, people's expectations of what a human being represented in art was different.At least that's how I see it :))
Susan, my translation is probably not very good. During Annigoni's life, most artists painted in abstract, or other "modern styles". A few artists, however, were going back to figurative, realistic or even classical styles, but they used photographic reference ("based on photography"). Annigoni is pointing out this contradictory behaviour. If you want to paint like classic artists, he says, you should use their means: paint and draw from life and avoid photography. Then he discusses the far reaching consequences of his choice.
100 years of angst over a tool and counting. I just laugh whenever someone asks if using photo reference is cheating, lazy, or whatever.
I think the interviewer misdirected the discussion from the start when he said, "you are one of the few painters, if not the only one, who doesn't use photography." Annigoni was hardly the only notable painter working from life at this time--Lucian Freud, Daniel Greene, and many others eschewed the photograph in their work. But yes, many artists were working from photos, and that source does seem at odds with a classic painting style.
Then again, the Photorealists embraced that contradiction, even playing up the fact that they were using photos by painting lens flares, out-of-focus elements, and so forth.
The reasons he gives for his strong preference for drawing from life from photos are interesting to me because they are really modern. His drawings seem to begin with gestural marks that are very accurate by training, like you'd see in Rubens or Rembrandt or Delacroix, and then the form is built into or emerges from that first web of marks. But the pre-photography drawers didn't have to think about doing something **instead of** photography, their gestural beginnings were just a way that evolved to capture certain characteristics of what they saw--the way a subject possesses energy, is not in a frozen state. I think that as the painter of the "official" type of portrait, to be serious about that fluidity of being in time is what makes Annigoni's portraits look different from other official portraits, which so often look like the model was a wax effigy of the subject. The qualities he describes as needing to pursue are abstract--they come out of a very modern sort of struggle with uncertainty about outcomes and what the "subject" really is, and they still have to be absolutely accurate. It isn't, ultimately, about technique, it's a lot about what you conceive the "reality" of the thing you are looking at to be. I goes along way toward explaining why and suggests so much more possibility of creative exploration of visual reality.
This is Lynnwood ( aka "unknown :).While photos can be a good reference tool for certain types of information that might go into a painting, simply copying a photograph puts the emphasis on "making a picture" instead of the experience you are having.Nothimg wrong with that ...but there is so much more fun to be had!!James,you have amply shown how rewarding and enjoyable it is to just go out there with your materials ,challenge yourself,develop your memory,your powers of observation and just interact with the world!And believe me,it will show in your work.And you will most likely discover a way of life :))
Kia, I'm so glad you explained all that, and I've also noticed how many contemporary realists are quite modern in their notions about technique, and as you say, their views about the nature of reality. I wonder how possible it is to imagine returning our minds to a view of the world that is pre-Darwin, pre-Freud, pre-Einstein.
Hi Susan,
I studied with Maestro John Angel for many years in the 1990s. He was a student of Annigoni's in the late 1960s.
Referring to your comment -- what you've quoted is only a portion of Annigoni's whole comment. You need to read it within the context of his entire statement.
Here is a [paraphrase] of what, I think, he was saying.
===============================
"Attempting to return to classicism, to reality, by using photography, (in my opinion), is a mistake.
Why?
Because working from life is TRANSIENT; always changing. Presenting infinite aspects from which to choose.
Choosing to work from life means that you accept effort, struggle, a labor of conquest.
It is NOT a snapshot. Rather, it is the act of...
a. Choosing key aspects
b. From many (again, transient) moments with the sitter.
c. Which are then combined together in YOUR interpretation / and representation of them.
To the contrary of that... photography only presents only one frozen moment in time. It removes too much of the effort -- and along with it -- too many important aspects of art."
===============================
Maestro Angel has said that working from photographs is absolutely possible -- (as from the 1800s on, many painters do).
But -- due to the limited information presented to you in a snapshot -- is more difficult in certain aspects than working from life. So the painter must be clever about it.
You (the painter) have to use your wits to combine the photo with other forms of reference, including...
a. Any prior experience you've had, working from life before
b. And especially the influences and principles revealed by great paintings of the past or present.
In so doing, you are infusing the photo reference, with those very transient moments which, on its own, a snapshot lacks!
Metaphorically...
Working from life, especially across many sittings, is like choosing to fill your plate, your way, in the proportions YOU choose -- from an all-you-can-eat buffet...
While working from a photo (and limiting yourself ONLY to copying it strictly) is like limiting yourself to only one selection on the menu.
Just as in life, the entirety of one's character is NOT often expressed well in just one instant... or in a snapshot moment.
Instead, one's character is best summarized by selecting, and stitching together many key aspects of a person, over the long-stride of time.
Post a Comment