Why do photographers imitate painter's art styles?

I have been looking for the answer in the net but could not find. Photography has it's own style & voice. Just to show oneself an artist should photographers imitate painter's vision or style ?

I have been looking for the answer in the net but could not find. Photography has it’s own style & voice. Just to show oneself an artist should photographers imitate painter's vision or style ?

Doing something just to show one’s an artist may not be a great idea. Doing something in order to express oneself or communicate something is often a start toward being an artist.

 

Painting is an established art form and, as you say, photography can have its own voice. So photographers can choose among many overlapping paths, from the straightest of straight photography as an independent voice to a painterly style which pays homage to another medium or even directly imitates it, and lots of places in between. Contemporary artists in all times have often been in a dialogue of sorts with art history. There are many ways to do that while also moving forward.

 

It’s not really a matter of what a photographer should do as much as what a photographer wants and chooses to do and how the artist executes it.

 

Many photographers don’t see themselves as artists and some would prefer not to be seen that way by others.

 

As for searching the Net, for a good understanding of two important photographic traditions relative to painting, see the Wikipedia link below for a discussion of Pictorialism, an early “painterly” school of photography, and the transition from Pictorialism to Modernism, an approach that saw photography as a more unique medium with an independent voice. That should provide at least a start to a view of both sides of the coin, which is still flipping in the air and probably will never land.

 

Pictorialism - Wikipedia

Edited May 11, 2018 by Norma Desmond

Without meaning to sound too condescending, but IMO the question shows a lack of knowledge of art, and in particular the history of human ilustration

 

The roots of illustrations as made by humans lie way back in the prehistoric times when early men made drawings with grease, tinted earth and charcoal on the walls of caves and rocks of the world, animals and events (like hunting) around them

While the idea, based on and no doubt inspired by those very first images/illustrations, remained the same, over time, due to progress in techniques, changes in taste etc, the look of the images may have changed

 

Thousands of years later that eg lead to the artistic exploits of early Middle Eastern civilisations like (but not limited to) the Mesopothamians, which in their turn influenced eg the Greeks and later Romans.

Those civilisations in their turn inspired mediaeval artists like painters and sculptors, who eg in the Renaissance literally started their journey by, more or less succesfully, imitating the works of the classic Greek in Greece and Roman artists in Italy

 

That happened again eg in the 17th century, best illustrated by the practice of established painters like Rembrands ect took on pupils, and who as part of the learning process made them make reproductions of the paintings of Greek and Roman, and sometimes even their own creations (also one of the reasons why there so often are discussions over the authenticity of a recently, found in yhe back of an old barn or storage, painting by an 'old master')

Again so later in the 18th and 19th century, when the 'proof' of an artists true aristic integrity was considered to have spent a longer period in eg Italy to study the works of the 'old' masters

 

So when photography first made its entrance into the (art) world, it too initially took much inspiration from the Classics and the in that age contemporary painting, even if using different technique to do so, as eg illustatrated by the Victorian composit pictures of eg Oscar Reilander and Henry Peach Robinson

 

So why wonder why many photographers even nowadays still take their inspiration from painting/painters etc?

It's a good place to start when beginning to try and find one own voice, and not much different then being inspired by the work seen of a photographer, from the past or the present

Just look at the way Pininterest is used by many budding photographers to give an idea of what they intend to shoot, or as an inspiration for an upcoming shoot (the infamous 'moodboards filled with other peoples work nowadays abused too often to convince onlookers of the - also too often lacking - talents of wannabees trying to peddle their 'work')

 

I'm old school, I prefer looking at books rather then squinting at an image on the LCD of my phone, but still the principle remains the same whan you start : Better imitate welll, then create badly

In the process of imitating, you're very likely to after some, hopefully short, time find your own voice and signature, and become an 'artist' (whatever that may be) in your right (we can't all become a Picasso)

Practice and enjoy.....

should photographers imitate painter's vision or style ?

Don't know about "should", but the imitation can be fun, like a pun. Some like puns, some hate them and some miss them entirely.

Paintings allow us to see what an artist can do when they have one hundred percent control over every square inch of the canvas. Photographers can learn something from that.

As illustrated in a recent TV movie about Picasso, most painters start their education copying the works of masters. That hones their skills and sense of color. A few make a career of copying the works of others, including forgery, but most try to develop their own style. Most photographers follow rather flexible rules of composition and lighting, which have developed over the centuries. This adherence to tradition is often broken, with varying degrees of success.

 

A mature Picasso might be hard to copy with a camera. Perhaps a 5' fall to a hard floor would work ;)

A mature Picasso . . .

“Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up.” —Pablo P.

Hmm... I keep taking photos

of humans, but they never

come out looking like

Picasso painted them...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Of course part of the history of photography was a whole period when photographs were made to look "painterly" in order to be ART

 

That was what the f/64 folks were trying to break out of.

 

Trying to shoot in a manner (word used advisedly) of some painter, may serve several purposes

• it can be fun trying to find out what it takes to echo some style
  
• It can force you to take conscious account of things like focus, color, and composition
  
• It can even help you break out of a spell of "photographer's block."
  

mode à la Hopper?

Of course part of the history of photography was a whole period when photographs were made to look "painterly" in order to be ART

 

 

Trying to shoot in a manner (word used advisedly) of some painter, may serve several purposes

• it can be fun trying to find out what it takes to echo some style
  
• It can force you to take conscious account of things like focus, color, and composition
  
• It can even help you break out of a spell of "photographer's block."
  

Last year there was a thread started by Leslie Reed in Abstract at, W/NW Abstract homage

She asked the question "I thought it might be interesting to explore how photographers' abstract images relate to those of painters. So my invitation to you: how about posting a photographic homage to the abstract or non-representational artist of your choice?"

 

This was a good way to explore the present topic, and one that can, as JDM suggests, be continued.

IMO, painter's vision and style are not unique to painting. It's all about visual aesthetics, and with thousands of years of nurturing, those styles have been perfected and matured. I would say any visual art medium can hope to learn something from studying paintings and their aesthetic principles. I am not in favor of blind imitation, but between that and utter disregard for everything, there can be a middle path (like buddhism) of learning and then using that learning creatively in one's own way.

 

For instance, there is an ongoing thread in NW forum about group shots. One of my favorite group painting is 'Last Supper'. The harmony in postures among the various participants in the feast, the symmetry in orientation of the people around the table, the proportions of upper and lower parts of the frame in relation to the long table in the middle all play such an important role in the aesthetics of this work. While shooting group pictures, these principles can often come handy, and da Vinci had taught some of them to us 500 years back.

 

I think, photographers don't have to imitate painters or paintings, neither they have to conform to painters' aesthetics, but there are obviously principles to be learned from centuries of practice of visual art. In the field of painting, there are examples available for almost any subject matter or genre. As Sanford said, many paintings represent the ideal scenario, when the artist has hundred percent control over every aspect of the canvas. So referring to the best paintings in any genre can serve as a quick inspiration for composition and framing (another important medium for inspiration is motion pictures, but thats a different topic). Photographers of course don't always have total control over the arrangement of subject matters in the frame and that is something special about photography. I consider at least my picture taking to be a live dynamic collaboration between the happening world and the photographer and the lack of total control could be serendipitous (where's David?) at times. Such is the distinction between painting and photography and each can develop it's own voice while gaining inspiration from one another.

One of my favorite group painting is 'Last Supper'.

Da Vinci had it easy, though. At least he didn't have to worry if he'd catch any of the Apostles with their eyes closed! ;)

Da Vinci had it easy, though. At least he didn't have to worry if he'd catch any of the Apostles with their eyes closed! ;)

Oldest trick for group shots or even bright sun - ask everyone to close their eyes and open on the word open. In my experience, around 98% effective.

Da Vinci had it easy, though. At least he didn't have to worry if he'd catch any of the Apostles with their eyes closed! ;)

 

Thats true. Not being very religious, he may have done it anyway (portray some apostles with their eyes closed) for some shits and giggles, but then he had to earn his living.

The other trick is to use digital editing. Take multiple shots at close interval and then blend the best faces from each shot into one. There are even some cameras with face detection, that do it automatically.

Make photographs of whatever it is that floats your boat and makes you happy.

Edited May 11, 2018 by Brad_

Make photographs of whatever it is that floats your boat and makes you happy.

Glad to see you're still "raven'! ;)

Photographers aren't the only ones who draw from, are influenced by, pay homage to, imitate, and learn from other mediums. Photorealists were painters who imitated the detail and realism of photos, often working from photos as their guides. Just as in photography, Modernism, the "straight" approach to photography, grew out of and was a response to the painterly Pictorialist style, in painting, Photorealism grew out of and was a response to the more spontaneous and subjective Abstract Expressionism. Pendulum swinging back and forth . . .

Harris Fogel at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia has a theory that photography developed out of 'laziness and sloth' - the French Revolution produced a new class of citizenry who wanted to emulate the lifestyles of the rich and famous, but who didn't have the financial resources. That is, they wanted to hang pictures of their dead ancestors in the hallway, but couldn't afford the pay artists to paint them. Along came Nicephore Niepce and Henry Fox Talbot (an unemployed French theatrical scene painter and a wealthy English dilettante, respectively) to provide them with a solution - photography.

 

In that theory, photograph was invented to emulate painting, which would explain why many photographers adopt styles that are painterly.

 

For what it's worth - - -

Today painters utilize photography much more than that photographers utilize painting. It's common for painters to project photographic images on the canvas or paper, etc and trace over them when doing figurative work, or use photographic images as reference and inspiration material. A camera is now another tool ('brush') in a painter's studio.

 

The "Camera Obscura" technique has been around hundreds of years longer than photography. I've never known an artist who uses a photograph in more than an incidental fashion. Their ability to transfer what they see to paper or canvas is truly remarkable. What they "see" is what they perceive as important, not necessarily a reflection of nature.

 

The ability to define and capture key elements in a composition is also the mark of a good photographer, whether capturing a man in mid-leap over a puddle, Half-Dome at sunset, or cigar smoke hovering over Winston Churchill.

dang

It’s worth noting that a photographer can act like a painter in all phases of working but especially in post processing, bringing out certain elements and textures, adjusting lighting, emphasizing perspective and relationships within the frame, nuancing highlights and shadows, without emulating or imitating the look of a painting. Many photos have been given the attention of a painter’s canvas in post processing that the viewer will never even realize was done.

I think photographers should shy away from using the term "should".

I think photographers should shy away from using the term "should".

 

If you consider yourself a photographer, then you just used it yourself. :D:D