rewebster said:
That's one thing about art---there are no rules (for its creation). We used to have discussions late into the night about it sitting around the school's studio--and plenty of coffee.
There
are 'rules' (standards, procedures, techniques), but they're different for, and personal to, each individual artist.
Some 'rules' are perverted: I've run into a lot of beginners who have the weird notion that it's "cheating" to even look at an object. In other words, they actually believe it's not "art" unless you make it up completely out of your head. This is a terrible meme to stick in someone's mind because these same people all judge themselves to be inept, since they can't do it, and have been psychologically cut off from the only way anyone can learn to render.
I've seen daguerreotypes (c 1840's to 1860's) even completely painted over by an artist keeping the proportions exact.
Painting directly over a photo is taking "photographic reference" too far, in my opinion.
I've liked Chuck Close's pieces---they're almost overwhelming in person,
Early Chuck Close was astonishing: he turned "snapshot" poses of ordinary people into monumental experiences.
and Warhol's 'portraits' are really color fields applied to a photo---
Warhol's not about rendering, though: he was about "exclusivity"; clique psychology. He was a master manipulator of that. His highly artificial
persona was his art. He made it work for him during his life, but I think the physical artworks he presented are highly forgettable.
what's interesting is when a group of artists are given the exact same image, and the variety of end products come out due to each artist's interpretation.
Yes, PencilPortraitClub at deviantART has had contests where everyone draws the same reference photo. The differences between one rendering and the next demonstrates it's not about realism, but about the elements of art: line, form, rhythm, color, texture, balance, etc. and about the artist's emotional reaction to the subject.