As an aside, I scanned some of the other comments, although no defense is necessary, Prof. Reddicliffe always adhered to his described process and would occasionally show us slides of this process. And to the point there are ways to “do it quicker” seems to miss the point. From your interview I gathered it’s about process, about the experience of doing, the act and enjoyment of creating, not just “getting it done”.

I have a favor to ask Larry. If you happen to have contact with Prof. Reddicliffe, please pass on my thanks for his guidance, teaching me about Morandi, Dienbenkorn, Ingres, amoung other things. Frankly, I not sure he will even remember me, but please pass it on anyway if you would. I’m happy to say that I have recently taken up fine art painting again and enjoy it more than ever. Thanks again for taking the time to produce this interview.

James, thank you for clarifying your previous comment. What your are saying now makes more sense to me. I don’t know if Prof Reddicliffe has ever traced – I’m sure he’s likely to have at least tried it at least once – and found it didn’t serve his needs. In the interview he said he didn’t grid photos, use projectors or even use a viewfinder with more than the one center horizontal and vertical division. He explains why in the interview. To me that is pretty clear and for you to question if he’s being fully candid – does come rather close to saying he is misrepresenting his process somehow, which to my mind is a “nicey-nice” way of saying he’s lying. But you do offer several reasonable points and make a good case for your position on the matter. I’m sure Prof. Reddicliffe can handle any questioning such as yours.

But for you to then say “But I’m not sure why you wouldn’t project an image– it would save so much time.” you raise a whole other concern; which is what is important to you. You are apparently concerned with saving time “it’s production, be efficient” Not all artists feel this way. Some painters, like Antonio Lopez Garcia, will spend years on one painting. Painters like Euan Uglow spent countless sessions with getting precise measurements done in what may seem like a labored idiosyncratic manner – but the initial drawing becomes an essential reason for making and even the subject of the painting. What I think you may not be clear about is that to Harold Reddicliffe – this manner of drawing is fun, engaging and essential to his needs for the painting and for his particular way of being in the world.

One last thing about tracing. I think you’re right that some artists aren’t candid with their process or outright lie and cheat – such as trying to pass off computer reproductions as hand-made art and the like. The public is often indifferent and ignorant and the artworld all too often is more concerned about what can sell more than what has integrity and vision.
I personally feel that some painters who use projection can make great paintings as well as lousy ones. The trick is in the painter not the tool. It is true that many great painters used photographic sources and aids – many great paintings have been made this way and I have absolutely no problem with that. My point is simply to say that Prof. Reddicliffe doesn’t choose to use them.

That said, I tend to think that some painters who project paintings to speed up production can only do so effectively if they already can draw well from life. Painters who use projection as a shortcut to good drawing usually just make less interesting paintings (to put it nicely) However, I know of very competent painters, like some portrait artists, who will project photos to speed up the process of getting proportions, etc right – when indeed the goal is production and making the client happy. I’ve tried this myself a few years ago – when I was trying to figure out a way to make more money from commissioned paintings. I found projection to be technically problematic (various lens distortions and the like) and less useful than I imagined. When the goal has been to work quickly for a commissioned work – I’ve found it more useful to grid a photo and just map and manually transfer the very broad linear boundaries of the important elements of the image onto the canvas.

Additionally, I think part what Prof. Reddicliffe is concerned with is in exploring the monocular vs binocular vision of the eye vs. the camera; the difference between drawing what you see with one eye vs two, and having a carefully arrived at vantage point are all critical parts of his process that could not be addressed properly by projection. But all in all – it comes down to what he said that it’s just more fun this way. More often than not – this is at the heart of the matter to many great paintings and painters…

I’m not calling Prof Reddicliffe a liar. I just think he wasn’t being fully candid about his process. If you say he never traces, then fine–I’ll drop it. But I’m not sure why you wouldn’t project an image– it would save so much time. You can still make all the creative adjustments you need in later stages. This isn’t akin to being a moon-landing denier. A LOT of Great Artists have used photographic aids going back for 150 years. It’s not unreasonable to suspect something similar here–hell, he even paints projectors!! I also don’t think it’s impossible to make those initial drawings without photos. it’s just really time-consuming. Similarly, you can make your own paints and boil your own rabbit skin glue– but why waste the effort? lastly, i don’t think he’s copying photographs at all. his paintings do not look overly photorealistic– it’s clear he paints from life to me. And they definitely have a great deal of artistic merit. This was just a comment about his initial process.

I feel like we’re living in the steroid era. Leaving aside the illegality or cheating, i think it’s pretty analogous. People today are using technology to their advantage, but often feel it’s something to be ashamed of and to conceal–especially with painting (and sometimes photography, what with the advent of photoshop). Lay-people are often unaware of the process (due to crappy art education at all levels) and therefore jump to the conclusion that today’s draftspeople are more highly skilled than those of years before. e.g., “wow, that’s amazing– it looks just like a photo”–in the same way many people think Barry Bonds > Willie Mays. when artists are not candid about their process, it adds to that myth. That’s why i was raising the question earlier. If I was unfair or slanderous, then I apologize. I just wish more artists/instructors were like Eakins, and publicly embraced photography as a legitimate aid. It’s almost like everyone’s gone into the closet.

Mark:
Thanks for your comment. I loved your painting– it was a great effort. Incidentally, I live about a mile from Harvard Square. Your link to Kalf makes my point, though. His paintings are highly realistic… but not photorealistic. Look at estes or richter or someone like this clown: http://whatanart.com/2011/09/28/photorealistic-still-life-paintings-jason-de-graaf/
and you’ll see what i mean. My point is that strictly as a draftsman, it’s obvious that Kalf is much superior to any of those photorealists. But your average person may not realize that. Again, this is not to say photorealism is without merit (at least for richter and estes)… but it’s not evidence of great draftsmanship, either. Sometimes it’s an indicator of the opposite (e.g., Richter says he can’t draw worth a flip)….
Anyway, sorry to come across as a jerk. I really like Reddicliffe’s work– and David Campbell’s on the front page today as well. All the best.

James, there used to be a number of people who believed the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, today there are many people who feel the same way about global warming.
I know Harold Reddicliffe personally and can tell you with complete assurance that he is the real deal. He is a respected professor (retired) at Boston University and shows in the one of the worlds leading galleries for realist art of this type. Your comment about efficiency vs a meditative process clearly demonstrates that your confusion about the nature of creating fine art. To basically accuse him of lying is outrageous. However, I cut you some slack as you don’t sound malicious in intent – just someone who doesn’t yet know much about this sort of painting.

I’m generally less interested in paintings where main purpose is to copy the photo. There are many photo-realists who do this and I find many of their works quite boring. That said, I’m sure their are some painters who use tracing with creative and interesting results, I believe most any approach can be made valid in the right hands, I’m not a purist. However, tracing can be a fairly inaccurate means of speeding up the mapping out the edges of forms as seen by a photo. The real work and artistry is in painting the light, the space, the forms and their relationships between each other and of course the creative thoughts behind the reason for making the painting to begin with. There are no “tricks” to making truly great paintings.

“But none of the early dutch still-life or early trompe l’oeil painters were able to achieve such verisimilitude as we are able to do now. ”
Really? http://emptyeasel.com/2007/03/28/willem-kalf-dutch-master-of-still-life-paintings/

We could go back and forth about the tracing issue forever, so let’s ask Larry to shoot Harold an email asking him about it…

By the way, I’d love to check out the results you got with tracing- Here’s one of mine: http://www.markheng.com/images/HarvardTwilight.jpg
I’m not 100% crazy about the results, but it was a long time ago, so I mark it up as education.

I did read the article above and I am simply arguing that I think this artist traces these images. The evidence Mark helpfully provides doesn’t show that process in detail (it reminds me of this, in fact… http://imgur.com/LU93H) So we’re left with taking the artist at his word. As an artist myself, i just don’t believe him. The evidence is in the paintings of the fan– where theyre all the exact same proportions. Getting the fan correct once is a task, but three (or more times relative to one another?) that alone would take weeks if not longer (assuming teaching duties, meals, sleep, etc). If he spends twice as much time on the paintings as the drawings, we’re talking months of activity for a single painting or two. not much time to build such a portfolio. Moreover, why Wouldn’t you photograph and trace? What about this process requires that step to be some sort of contemplative or meditative process? it’s production– be efficient! And, yes, you can totally trace onto canvas. tons of artists do. and tracing a photograph doesnt mean you can’t monkey with the composition later… im just skeptical of all of this…

anyway, thanks again for the article– this is a great site.

And here’s a good article about Reddicliffe’s work: http://dcommon.bu.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2144/1394/Reddicliffe_Catalog.pdf?sequence=1

James, I can assure you that Harold Reddicliff doesn’t trace a projected image. The interview goes into his drawing and painting process at length. I suspect your problem is that your mind hasn’t yet experienced enough masterful painting and drawing of this type so your mind “strains credulity” rather hastily. He does indeed spend much time on these paintings, a fact you would get from reading the article.

why is it so hard to say, “yeah, i traced that”?