Leyendecker believed that artists should only draw from life, NEVER photos. Was he on to something? The human eye does not see the world the way photos capture it. We perceive much more subtlety in light and form. Because we and the world are in motion, we often see more than one side of an object in the same moment of perception. Photos are deceptive.
>>7725318He was rich and famous and could easily afford the privilege of hiring models. But he wasn't that strict about it.>Sometimes because of prohibitive model rates or other reasons, one is forced to use photography, but try and avoid it if possible.https://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2010/09/leyendeckers-method.htmlPlenty of artists did fine with photo reference. There are pros and cons to each, strict dogmas are anti-art. Drawing from life isn't always practical or possible with fantasy subjects for example. Your brain deceives you too, there are plenty of optical and visual illusions you have to look out for when drawing from life too. Less subtlety in photos can actually be a good thing. Lots of modern art styles are based on film and photo effects.
>>7725355TRVTH NUUUUUKE
>>7725318I think he just had the autistic nitpick preference given that captured photos has external factors that doesn't capture human and object perfectly such as the focal point, the brightness etc that doesn't appear to natural human eye.
>>7725318>Leyendecker believed that artists should only draw from life, NEVER photos. Was he on to something?I'd say yes and no. Photographs, as >>7725405 pointed out aren't totally true to life, but almost any of the great historically golden age illustrators were using photo refs - loomis even heavily recommended getting one, and I believe the Famous artist's course as a section on photography for refs (if I recall correctly).You shouldn't be following a ref perfectly anyway, as you want to things to idolise them, as the perfect human isn't going to exist on life, or in a photograph, and can only be drawn by you.It's one of the reasons Layendecker's work is so beloved, in my opinion, his men and women are so handsome and charming - the dude knew how to idolise people, and I doubt they looked so perfect in their modeling time, or even if they were photographed.
>>7725443mistake by beginners are not studying from life and doing it as accurate as possible until they're getting used to the painstaking labours before starting to pamper themselves with photos and 3rd party reference (3D models, sculptures, manga, old masters, derivatives etc) The mindset itself is important.
>>7725318what would happen if you master drawing from photos? your drawings wuold look like... photos. You'd still be a godlike artist.He was talking about specifically using portait photos of people which are noticeably flat.and have the same FOV.
>>7725318It's just pretentious bullshit, same as his pictures.
>>>7725318>Leyendecker believed that artists should only draw from life, NEVER photos.That seems kinda dumb. But he can draw very well so maybe I'm stupid
>>7725318he worked at the turn of the century, photography at the time was still developing and would have looked like pic related. although I agree with the overall idea drawing directly from life is ideal.>pic related
