It’s time once again for a highly irregular look into another aspect of the art world, brought to you from the skewed perspective of yours truly. Today’s topic:
How to Paint Wildlife Cheap’n’Easy
- Go to any craft store and buy some cheapie canvas panels, preferably mounted on non-archival cardboard.
- Buy some student quality paints and brushes (no sense paying more! no one can tell the difference anyway!)
- Now we come to the subject matter part! you have several options here:
- You could actually go out and find some wildlife and take photos of it, but WOW this involves a lot of time and trouble. Geez, you have to know a whole passel of stuff, like where to find wildlife, and how to operate a camera, and you have to be in shape to hike around for the animals, plus you’d have to have a decent telephoto lens, unless you just want to go to Yellowstone and walk up to a reclining bison (they’re no different than cows, right? no danger here!) with your little point’n’shoot and get some photos…obviously, this is the most troublesome and expensive option so you should probably skip it.
- You can buy some cull slides from a wildlife photographer … but this does cost money, and we want to do this for cheap, eh!
- You can get some images off the internet - maybe some vacation photos someone posted on Flickr or Photobucket (heck, it’s on the web, no worries about copyright!)
- Or…you could just copy an existing artist’s painting. This cuts straight to the chase, now doesn’t it!
- Ooohh, now for the hard part - how do we get that image you’ve found onto your canvas?? You sure don’t want to spend the next, oh, 5 - 10 years learning how to draw, now do you? Hey, no worries - we did say “easy”! You’ll just need to make one tiny little additional investment in a projector - for example, the aptly named “KopyKake”, which advertises “no more frustration of freehand drawing.” Wow! ANYONE can draw now! Never mind those elitist snob artists who insist that other artists “really should learn how to draw before they paint”. Fortunately, these projectors don’t cost much at all compared to the TIME you’ll save! Oh, you might have a few niggling worries, such as the distortions introduced by camera lenses, or whether you can actually see all the legs in that horse photo properly…but if you can’t tell the difference, no one else can either! so get going and project that image onto your canvas! man, this is easy. Those big-name artists must be living the life of Riley doing this!
- Finally, the fun part: slopping paint around on the canvas. Oh boy! colors galore! you might have heard something somewhere about lightfastness, but nowadays everything is so advanced that can’t really be a worry, can it? They wouldn’t sell paints that weren’t lightfast, I’m sure!
Now, applying the paint in the right way and in the right colors and values might take a LITTLE practice….but thank goodness you have that projected image to guide you! just mix up colors that look exactly like the image and put them exactly where your projection shows you! Photos are totally accurate representations of the real world, right? so your painting will be too!
WOW! now isn’t this fun?? After just a couple of these you ought to be able to charge several grand for each one! time to call up some galleries!!
Tags: art humor
Entries (RSS)
July 22nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I would just point out that one has to be careful because lots of the images on the web are copyrighted.
The fish and wildlife service images I linked to on the last post are in the “public domain” and you can use them without permission. If I am not mistaken, that is actually true with most stuff produced by the government. Hey, at least you get something for your tax dollars right? Also, images taken before 1923 are not covered by US copyright law.
I think one also has to be careful about that because copying another painting that is copyrighted falls under the category “derivative works” which are also not allowed without the artist’s permission. Of course, you can copy the works of the old masters as long as you don’t sign their name to it! (that’s not called copyright infringement, but art fraud)
I would also note that zoos are also places where you can get your own photos of “wildlife” pretty cheap. The zoo near me actually has a bunch of Siberian tigers. Last time I visited they has kittens.
And some natural history museums like on near me will actually let artists set up their easel and paint or draw on the premises.
July 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Hmmm…I think I saw this artist in one of the art fairs I was in.
Even easier and much CHEAPER - you can order “ready made” art from China…they will ship it to you framed and packed in neat little boxes. You only need to remove the “made in China” backing and put in a new one with your own name on it. Voila’ - instant artist!
Saw one of these “artists” at an art fair recently - sitting behind her tent with box upon box of this stuff - doing the switcheroo thing. GRRRRRRR!
On the subject of drawing - it is something I enjoy doing. I learned long ago to forego all the details until I’ve picked a final thumbnail - otherwise, I spend HOURS doing one little sketch!
July 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
ooo, Marti, had I known about the China thing I could have written “Paint Wildlife in ONE E-Z Step!”, gosh darn it.
Larry, that’s the point - on both. (Guess my humor just didn’t…quite…hit the mark).
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Julie-
I got it! Pretty funny!! I see alot of this CRAP! now and then and laugh.
Your ” 5 Easy steps” sounds like something Tom Bosley (Happy Days fame)
would be promoting with that fly by night nick-nack company he is hooked
up with. Better yet how ’bout the late Billy Mays or Anthony Sullivan (Billy’s
partner on Discovery Channel) Better yet Vince from Sham WOW! That’s
what we could all strive for as artists! Sounds like fun! Let’s all follow
Julie’s ” 5 Easy steps” who’s with me? Come on now, don’t let Julie down!
July 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Sorry, I didn’t read past the part about copyrights and when I started out painting, I actually made use of student quality paints and canvas panels for a few paintings, so that advice does not strike me as being all that outlandish, at least not for someone starting out.
And a lot of beginning artists (most people in fact) are not aware of the copyright stuff.
But kidding aside, I think it is possible to paint wildlife without spending a huge amount of money.
As I indicated above, it’s pretty easy (and cheap) to get your own photos at the zoo and there are places on the web like that FWS site where you actually can get public domain images.
As far as the projection thing, I never got into that, and I know I will probably offend some here by saying this, but my attitude toward that is “to each his own”.
In a book he wrote, wildlife artist Edward Aldrich actually talks about projecting his drawings onto canvas, to “save time”. He still does the original drawing “free hand”, of course, but then again, ’scaling up” a drawing is arguably one of the more difficult aspects of the whole painting process, at least for me.
I suppose a real “purist” would probably say that using photos as reference for paintings is also “cheating”, so some of this strikes me as a matter of degree and more than a little subjective..
July 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Larry - I don’t think there is an artist who hasn’t started out with the “student” grade tools - me included. Heck - I just “graduated” to my first linen canvas (Classens). They ain’t cheap and I’m half afraid to paint on it but anxious to try it out! One thing I do know - as time went on, I invested in better quality tools - the difference is amazing - and if taken care of, they will last 10 times longer than the less expensive ones. Buying one or two high quality brushes instead of 10 lower quality brushes will build up a nice set in no time. I still “cheat” to save $$$ - I use freezer paper for pallet paper - the “plastic coated” kind - not the wax coated kind. Same stuff you buy with the neat little thumb hole all cut and glued up pretty - only I can buy 1 box of freezer paper rather than 50 pallet pads (or more).
And I too, do take photos at zoos. When doing so, I keep in mind that zoo animals are sedentary (i.e., small space - little exercise - less muscle tone) and “hand” fed - they tend to be overweight and sometimes exhibit behaviour you probably wouldn’t see in the wild.
As for that website - notice they “request” that you give credit to the photographer/creator and the FWS when using those photos.
July 23rd, 2009 at 5:38 am
HA! I love it! Very funny!
“Shortcuts” vs. “The Process”… For me, the instant gratification of “art” created by taking shortcuts (or cheating, as some would say) has always been overshadowed by the potential for learning and growth by going through “The Process.” In the end, the artist has only to answer to his or herself… unless of course the photographer you stole your reference images from carries a big stick and catches up with you at a show!
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 am
Larry, the whole post is intended as a poke at those who think they can be a big-time wildlife artist in a big hurry, without field time and by cutting corners. There’s nothing wrong with starting out with student-quality materials (we all do - but these shouldn’t be sent to a gallery because of longevity concerns), or with projecting one’s own drawing on a canvas - makes a lot of sense. It’s the shortcut of projecting a PHOTO, never learning to draw, that I’m making fun of. Bob Kuhn once tried projecting a photo, thinking “well heck, maybe it’ll save time”…but found that photos introduce so many distortions that he ended up wasting more time correcting the projected image and never did it again.
For all - whether at a zoo, Triple D, or in the wild/at a rodeo/at a racetrack, you’re observing the animals, not just buying photos. I recently had an artist show me a painting with an elk in a very unlikely pose; she’d copied it from another painting, and gawd knows where the original artist came up with the pose. There’s no substitute for firsthand observation.
July 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 am
I did notice the “Give credit to” (with the little blurb) but that’s not the same as “giving money to”, of course.
As I pointed out, the FWS images (like most images taken by government employees on the job) are simply not covered by copyright.
So legally, you can use these photos as reference for paintings.
Now, some may feel guilty about using a photo without compensating the photographer directly, but in a very real sense, you and I have already compensated them. Their jobs are paid for by tax dollars and in most cases, these photographs would simply never have been taken without that public funding.
Others may differ on the “ethics” here, but it’s one of those things for which there actually is an objective standard to go by: copyright law.
July 23rd, 2009 at 7:15 am
Julie: i understand it’s a joke. I was just pointing out that some of what you said is meaningful in a literal sense.
As far as
“photos introduce so many distortions “.
I’ve seen this repeated a lot with no explanation and am curious what the source is.
I think it really depends.
I took several optics courses in college so am aware of basic image aberration/distortion issues and unless you are talking about specialty lenses like fish-eye or wide angle lenses, most good quality lenses today don’t actually “distort” images very much. In fact, they are specifically designed to minimize spatial and color distortions.
The fact that photos are the result of projecting light from a 3-dimensional object on a flat plane does create “distortion” ,of course, but when it comes down to it, the human eye/brain combination effectively “suffers” from the same flat image ‘distortion” for objects that are not “nearby”.
For objects off in the distance, stereoscopic vision has relatively little effect since the viewing angle between the different eyes is almost the same on account of the small distance between the eyes. So, my guess is that there would not really be much difference as far as flat plane “distortion” between the photo of an elk 25 feet away or viewing it with your eyes.
I would note that since photography itself involves projection onto a flat plane (except with certain special cameras with curved imaging surfaces), unless one actually draws everything from life, the distortions are going to be there whether one projects the image onto a screen or not.
of course, when you are projecting the photo onto a screen, you compound the possible distortion problem, since you get any distortion associated with photograph plus distortion associated with projection itself.
anyway, I think i’d really have to experiment with projection some to get a feel for how serious the distortions really are, but my initial take is that the problem may not be as severe as some people actually believe.
Makes for an interesting topic for discussion, at any rate.
July 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 am
Speaking of reference photos - posted some on my blog - after this morning’s fawn visit:
http://martimillington.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/the-garden-before-after/
July 23rd, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Larry, I’m specifically thinking of several types of distortions:
1. If the animal is not perfectly profiled to you - if some part of the animal is nearer to you than the rest - then it is my experience that lenses shorter than about 70 mm and longer than about 100 mm start to introduce effects such as telephoto flattening or wide-angle weirdness, at least mildly. The more extreme the lens (eg, 28mm or 500mm), the more noticeable the effect. I shoot wildlife with my 500 a lot - and I have to ‘unpack’ the animal, introduce some normal perspective, when drawing from the resulting photos.
2. As Bob Kuhn said, much of what animals do isn’t very ‘pictographic’ (his term) - photos capture everything, including weird and awkward angles of legs and other body bits, and the artist has to have enough skill to improve on the image. So this is not a photo/lens distortion per se - but it IS something the artist must have the confidence to correct.
Marti - healthy-looking youngsters! no wonder, with such a lush green garden to work on. I can’t keep a garden here - the deer are voracious (and then there are elk too!). The deer ate the neighbor’s PLASTIC plants fercriminysakes!!
July 24th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
I had to read this and then go think about it a bit before I responded. Almost everything I sculpt evolves out of my daydreaming. What the teachers hated and blamed my poor grades on in school is the base of my art. I tend to have the whole thing at least roughed out before heading for reference photos. For the most part I use the photos for details like how teeth are placed or how wet hair looks in contrast to dry hair or if I run into a spot that just plain looks wrong and I can’t figure out why. I have a hip on one of the Long Horns I’m sculpting that was like that and I had to search and search to find a photo that was almost the same pose as what I wanted to help me out.
At a show once I had a gentleman who was looking at my bear fishing piece ask me if I had actually gone to see the bears fishing for salmon. When I told him no he asked me how I know they stick their head under water. I said from TV and articles and such and then he insisted that I was just a copy artist even though I tried to explain that this bear came out of my imagination. For some reason this really got my hackles up but I just gritted my teeth with a smile and politely disagreed.
Don’t think I missed your humor here. It is just that the subject brought up this encounter that I obviously haven’t gotten over yet (geez…you’d think four years would dull the anguish).
July 25th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Must be one of those “patrons” at every show - I had a gentleman who came to my display with a friend. His friend was quite taken with my work. He on the other hand was finding fault with a bear painting - not the bear - but the water, specifically, its color. It is BLUE. He said “I’m an artist too, and I’ve never seen water that blue.” I asked him if he’d ever been to Montana or Wyoming. He said no, “but I’m an artist too, and I know they don’t have water that blue.” I explained that I have been there and have reference photos of water even more vibrant than the water in the painting. I resisted the urge to explain the reflective qualities of water there and the reflective qualities of the water of the muddy Mississippi. He insisted however, that, again, he was an artist too, and just didn’t believe water could be that blue. So this guy will paint a bear (being an artist too) in water the brown color of the muddy Mississippi (where he lives). And as you did, Christy, I just smiled through gritted teeth as they both moved on - to critique the next artist’s work. And that encounter has stuck with me - more so than the ones where folks have told me that I have captured the essence of the area - right down to the water. Go figure.
July 25th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Marti,
Don’t know if you have ever been to Lake Tahoe, but the water there is pretty darned blue (pretty darned cold too. I know, I swam in it)
And that guy would probably really have had a fit had you painted some of the glacial lakes in the wind river mountains emerald green (as they are). “Water is NOT green like that. I know, I’m an accountant”
To say nothing of the fact that it’s pretty ridiculous to challenge an artist on the colors they put in their paintings, anyway.
I mean who would challenge Van Gogh on the colors he chose for the night sky in Starry Night?
“Vincent, my dear man, the night sky is black, not blue, and what’s with all the swirls, anyway?
July 25th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
Ah……accountant humor. I love it. The accountant sense of humor is often underestimated ;o)
July 26th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Here’s a site I just love. These videos are NOT royalty free - but if you are looking to observe or just need to clarify a sketch or figure out a trouble spot, they will definitely do the trick. Besides - they are just absolutely wonderful to watch!
http://www.seemorehd.com/brownbearcam/HDclips/index.html
July 26th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Christy;
It’s kind of an inside inside joke (that maybe no one except me would ever get).
I’m actually not an accountant…or at least never thought i was until I read this little perl of wisdom passed along by one of Julie’s galleries:
“If it sells, it’s art. If it doesn’t, it’s inventory”
I do inventory…repeatedly (again and again). other than when i give stuff away, the number never goes down. yep, everything present and accounted for.
July 26th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Oooo, Marti, cool link! Wow. And for both Christy and Marti - I empathize (there are always those who know better, or certainly think they do). Ya gotta let it go, though. There’s a super duper valuable lesson I learned years ago, which is that 99% of what other people say to me is not about me (even if it seems to be) - it’s about that person, and that person’s life, state of mind, frustrations, shortcomings, whatever…not about me. Maybe that will help.
July 26th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Thanks for the pep talk Julie - I’ll try to remember that next time I want to throttle someone who just won’t shut up about their being an artist too
To All - If you click on the “Home” link at the top of that page - you will find hd videos of polar bears too. They spent one month on the tunda making video of the polar bears. Fascinating stuff!
July 27th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Larry,
I got it. Sadly I am bad at math therefore am a horrible accountant even though I am continually forced to do inventory after each show. The nice thing about being an accountant with lacking math skills is somehow I can still convince myself that this really is a worthwhile venture :o) and having inventory just means I don’t have to go to all that hassle of restocking.
Julie,
Thanks and I know your right. Usually I get a kick out of most of the people at the shows especially after extended periods of doing the hermit thing out in my studio. For some reason that one guy just stuck in my craw.
Marti I love the bears. Any chance you know where there are some Longhorns running? Not jogging but running. Apparently they don’t run very often either that or the photographers take cover so as not to become shish kabob.
August 6th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Well, I hope I can squeeze my thoughts into the little time I have here. I think you’re right on, Julie. It’s easy to think we can cut corners and turn out good art. A friend pointed out to me that what we might (stress this) be able to do is turn out some nice “decorations”. I dont want to regress into the whole “What Is Art?” discussion, so I’ll stop there.
With regard to projectors, I have some somewhat flexy opinions. I think that, if you cant draw, a projector wont help you much. As you pointed out, the distortions of lenses, both camera and projector, are usually fairly obvious. (I’ve mentioned before how much respect I have for you wildlife folks who can make those fine adjustments.) Still, I dont think there’s anything wrong with using a projector in a couple of ways. First, assuming one knows how to make those adjustments, then a projector can be a fine shortcut for the artist. Second, I often use one to project a photo onto a blank wall in my studio, to imitate the plein air experience. I find it’s easier to get into my work.
Having said those things, I think I’ll go find a Coke ad and see if I cant paint a polar bear.
August 7th, 2009 at 7:11 am
Don, what a cool idea - to use a projector to create an indoor ’scene’ in which to immerse yourself! I’m lacking any blank walls in my studio, sadly…it’s under a steeply pitched roof, so two of the four walls are mostly ceiling.
Let us know how the Coke bear turns out.