Intelligent Design: Using a Reference

There's a really nasty misconception floating around out there that in order to be a good artist, you have to be able to paint or draw "from your head" without any kind of reference. Bullpucky. Let's say you want to build a house, so you go about trying to find a decent construction company with only one requirement- They have to be able to build it without a blueprint, or ever having seen a house similar to the one you want.  That's about how much sense this makes. Most people expect and require the construction company to produce a blueprint- one that's well-thought-out, measured, up to code, and hopefully able to produce an efficient and visually pleasing result. So let's say the crew gets to work on that house, and a while later you find out they're a bit behind schedule because one of the walls was built 6" too far from where it was supposed to be. I imagine the first question the foreman asked the workers was, "Did you forget to look at the blueprint?"

If you see a portrait of a face that has a nose sitting too far to one side, unless it's a portrait of a deformed person, you'll be pretty safe to assume that artist didn't use a reference, or didn't pay close enough attention to the one they had. Good artists use imaginary plumblines, and take measurements of angles and proportions to accurately replicate the reference, which could either be something they're looking at in real life, or a photo. The best artists become so proficient at seeing and judging these angles and proportions that they're able to take a mental note and remember them between between strokes or marks on their work, so if you're watching, it might not be obvious what they're doing.  I should clarify that some artists do work without a reference in the brainstorming stage, and in this stage rely on their knowledge of proportion from previous measurements in order to get a rough idea down. But if they plan to create any kind of lifelike illusion, then what they'll be doing next is replicating the shapes that light and shadow form when light meets a physical object. Because the color of light differs in every circumstance, and the texture of the objects alters the light pattern, an artist will always be able to create a more lifelike version if looking at the actual scene, or parts of the scene he or she is planning to replicate.

Does that sound boring? Do you think that takes all the creativity out of art? No way! Since the artist is his own architect, he can change parts of the reference at any time, move things around, enhance certain parts, and even abandon the reference for the parts where it doesn't serve his purpose or vision for what the piece is to look like. And a whole lot of designing decisions can go into the reference in the first place. Maybe you're setting up a still life. As the artist, you decide what's going to be in it, and where everything will be placed, as well as what color of light will illuminate it, and which direction the light will come from. If you're painting a landscape outdoors, well...here's where you lose all control as the lighting changes every 5 seconds, the bugs go swimming in your paint, and the wind blows your easel over. JK. Once in a while things work out just right, but the lack of a consistent reference certainly doesn't make it any easier for the plein air artist! They still need to decide how much of the scene will be included in the painting, and what to emphasize or leave out. There are still so many choices to make that just figuring out what you want this painting to "say" can take a good amount of time and brainpower.

If you still think artists should be able to create the illusion of reality and make it look good without a reference to base it on, I challenge you to find a really good artist who doesn't paint from life or ever use a reference. Good luck!