Is using a projector (or tracing) to start a painting cheating?

Everything is a tool.... from the projector to our brushes to the paint we use. Does using paint from a tube, rather than mixing it ourselves, make our work unworthy of being in a gallery? Like Sharon Beth said, if you can be honest and proud of your work then how you got there is just part of your process.

Explain cheating. Who is being cheated? A projector is just a tool to establish correct proportions and a simple outline to work from. The same as using a grid method or a scale divider. Is a buyer really going to care how the image got on the paper or canvas or are they buying because they like the finished product?

I used a projector as a tool to assist with the creation of four large-scale portraits. Because of the size and details of the portraits, the projector helped me with the proportions, composition, and placement of key features more efficiently. It easily cut the amount of time required for the initial drawing and allowed me to dedicate more time to the painting and details. It also helped me stay on schedule and successfully meet my project deadline.

Needless to say, ideally someone would know how to paint something without any tools. But the reality is that there would be a lot less art without the use of tools at times. I have been using Photoshop since it came out in, was it 2008? I never have tried to hide it. I think being disingenuous is mostly what I object to. Let the world know your process, be honest, show how you did it and be proud. The result of the art is the real product. Were you able to communicate what you wanted to put across? People respect honesty in my opinion.

I don't know. Were the Great Masters cheating when they used pinhole cameras to start their paintings?

I was taught this technique as a sophomore illustration major, it can help but if you're doing a painting you still have to render the images. I found it a good starting point especially if you're working with a deadline.

I think it's perfectly fine and have done it myself along with using other tools like grids and compass. The projector or other tools can't mix the paint, blend the charcoal, graphite or add depth and values to our artwork. Photographers use photoshop and lightroom among other tools. Rumor has it that the great masters used the camera obscura or lucida to make art. For those that think it's cheating, would they think it's cheating for a home builder to use a blueprint and tape measure? Should He or she should free hand and eyeball it?

If using tools were cheating then Pollack and Warhol were cheating.

Sometimes I do sometimes I don't. Sometimes I photograph a piece im working on and lay my reference over the top to check my perspectives. Helps me learn to see where I am going wrong and how to see better as an artist

My opinion is that using a photograph and projecting the image onto a canvas to sketch in every tiny detail eliminates the artist as a natural talent. Completing the painting, even if masterfully done, just makes the artist an expert draftsman.

I often use a projector to scale up drawings or compositions I've already work through - but wish to paint much larger. It seems a bit extreme to me to "require" hand drawing again at a larger scale to somehow justify myself as an authentic and capable artist. The funny part is that the drawing is just a starting point when you use oil paint. Outline and edge boundaries usually move around in the painting process, both purposefully and not. You don't know what you're really after in a painting (vs the original drawing) until you're in the midst of it and making real time color shape value texture and focal point decisions. The drawing can be a piece of stand alone art, but the drawing really isn't the same as the painting and is only part of the painting process. Does this make sense?

I'm a photographer - and I'm not sure if I qualify as an artist. BUT if one were to consider using a camera "cheating," then no photographer could be considered an artist.

My father was an old-school B&W photographer, with his own darkroom. Later in life, he began taking some of his B&W prints, used pen and India ink to "copy" (freehand) important lines and shapes, then did some photo darkroom magic to chemically delete the photographic image. The result was essentially a pen-and-ink drawing of the original scene. And they were definitely artistic images of the original scene.

It’s really just a tool. I use it every now and then to work out composition and proportions—easier said than done: it creates a flat effect, and ultimately it’s just the starting point for further work, but it saves a lot of time on larger pieces—it’s better than working with a grid, for example.

The Hockney-Falco thesis on the camera obscura was an eye-opener for me: Secret Knowledge by David Hockney. A particularly fascinating book.

im interested to know what everyone thinks in using a projector compared to using AI?

If it's tracing something from my sketch book on to a canvas it's still my own work so I don't see that as cheating.

Being able to draw is a gift. And there are few who possess it naturally. But for an artist, the gift that will be most useful to him is knowing how to sell himself. I have a friend with that special gift for drawing, but he doesn't know how to sell. You can't expect people to appreciate him in this technological world where lying is what sells best.

Okay, I voted It's just a tool, because that's true. But I don't use any tools to draw except my eyes and my hand and my brain, because for me, that's the challenge and the challenge is what makes drawing feel so rewarding to me. I prefer to sacrifice perfection so I can fully enjoy the process. But that's me. I think whatever works--meticulously gridding, tracing, projection is fine as long as the creation is ultimately yours.

No, I use one all the time to upscale my drawings

It’s just a tool available. Everyone has tools they use. The final piece is hopefully by the artist. I’ve used stencils for shapes. I’ve used transfer paper to put one of my granddaughters painting over one of my pours. Both were hand painted.

Im honestly surprised how many people say they use it. I have spent all my life becoming and finding my voice. That tool won't help me figure that out

I agree that what method that an artist chooses to use is their decision. It is their art.

Visual artists, like painters, are free to use any physical medium to try to transfer what is in their brain in 3D into a physical 2D reality.

Those who criticize these points are always those who are unable to use them or who lie about using them when they hide using them, while they buy a TESLA fully developed with AI, of which there are thousands identical all over the World, but they are unable to value a unique creation no matter how it is made. Next: Is it permissible for photographers to use cameras? That sculptors use electrical tools? That painters no longer make their paintings with natural colorants? That they speak on the phone or by email with their agents and not by letter? Or is it permissible that writers do not write with ink and a pen?

Expression is important to me even in drawing. I feel it gets lost/highjacked/loses authenticity when devices are used, but I say to each his own.

I think it's a means to an end product so transfer paper, tracing and projecting are OK. As long as you are not stealing someone else's image and as long as you make it your own. ie: not tracing a whole painting, just one or two items and then making your painting around that.

No it is a just tool. I use a “Lucy” as a fast way to get proportions and sometimes shadows correct on portraits and sometimes to get me perspective vanishing points. Rembrandt probably use some type to aid him. If you can draw without one good for you. I am not competing against anyone so why does it matter?

Personally do not use any type of projector but I use my photos for reference, then draw from that. Recently purchased an IPAD so that I could get it a little bigger as my eyes are not as good. But, I like the abstraction of a small photo -4 x 6 It makes me see the essential shapes. After the image gets so far along, I abandon the photo/ipad because the painting needs to lead the way.

When people say results are all that matter; usually it's because they are unable to look at something and draw it. Maybe they need a good review to feel good about their work, or someone to say wow did you draw that? They are able at that point say yes, and feel like a real artist? Validation is wonderful, l get it. If they are unable to draw with proper proportions with foreshortening techniques etc; they have to trace, or use "cheats". That way they are able to achieve art, "sub par art at best", cause that's what matters most! They skip past the education, and dedication, and the hours it takes to learn how to draw properly, "totally forgetting about Integrity". these are the same people that sell their work for $10.00 or $15.00 or to anyone with couple bucks. Although they complete the work, it is sub par, and dose not cary the same monetary value, spontaneity, or intellectual value as a true drawing from a skilled draftsman that dedicated himself to his craft. in closing, A trained eye will see right through the imitation drafting skills, and what is hidden behind closed doors, always comes to the light.

Shawn Kaae

Artist/Draftsman/Portrait Painter

Very handy tool when you have a pressing deadline or you want to check proportions.

In general I think it is a tool like every other but I personally know an artist who can draw human figures and faces freehand and with perfect anatomy and perspective. This is to be a master of the craft and Ideas define whether you are an artist or not. Mastering both is what rely amazes me.

To each their own, personally, I freehand all my art. I'm self-taught and find it helps me to learn from my mistakes. If I used a projector, as my sister did, my paintings might look amateurish like hers. But, I don't know.

Would I have developed my own style and technique?

It's not acceptable to finish it with AI, and claim that it's yours.

In the end, All that matters, Is you enjoyed doing it & have something nice to look at.

I think for me especially it works when I do a real big painting l, just for contours. It works a little faster then measuring.

If a person is very good at painting and uses a projector to get a fast start with a project especially a large one , its a neat tool to have around , but not always as one could get used to it too much and slowly skip their actual skills that they qorked hard to get .

Its exciting. Its like a sculptor workiñg from a maquette, But, then it all depends on finishing and if timid.

I've always used a tracing based on my own photographs as a tool for over 30 years. I learned to use it when I was a senior in high school attending a vocational school for their commercial art program.I learned more useful techniques in that one year than in three years at college art school!

I don’t know. I never did because I like to draw. But I tend to agree with everyone else: it is a tool, like a ruler, masking tape or looking at a photograph.

And I just got a projector to enlarge my phone’s screen, I might very well try

stuff with it in a painting.

You do realize the old masters used the camera obscura, right? It's basically a projector.

I’ve thought it was cheating, but it certainly would make life easier with formative work. Mostly I do abstractions so it’s kinda a moot point. But I’m intrigued that you say folks use projection as a means of their process. Thanks for this post.

I use it for all the basic proportions - adding a lot of details by hand (by eye). It saves so much time.

I have used tracings in the past because I realized that I was uneasy about my drawing skills. That just showed me what areas I needed to develop as an artist. I am turning that around with practice and now feel better about my growth as an artist. It’s a personal decision.

I’ve used a projector for mural work, and from my experience it’s an incredibly practical tool, especially for transferring a design onto a large surface while keeping the proportions accurate. I don’t consider it cheating at all. The projector helps with the transfer; the composition, decisions, technique and actual painting are still yours. A tool doesn’t replace the artist — it simply helps with part of the process.

I do the drawing, take it digital, and finish my art. Then I project it onto the wall and paint on the wall. I don't see cheating in that.

I too often use a projector for my large-scale paintings, it helps enormously with the speed by which I can complete a work. For me it provides the confidence of the placement of the features, and the rest is up to me... I don't consider it cheating. I know that I can do it without the projector but the time it would take me to complete the initial sketch and underpainting, is more than I want to spend on the prep. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I like to make life as easy as possible, and produce as much art as I can. So, my vote is that it's a tool!

For me it depends on the project. In mostly all cases I will sketch it myself, first at a size that is comfortable for me; often now on my ipad. Using the layors in an art apps is so handy to make changes without a total redraw. Once complete I then use a projector to enlarge my own sketch for the big projects. Or I'll enlarge my own sketch via a large format copying machine to fit and transfer (with carbon paper) onto my canvas. I erase and fix too often to just draw on a canvas. I admire the artists that can though!

BUT!... if it's a graphic/illustration type of project with a very tight deadline, and one my fiddle and fussing can't create in time... I'll make an exception and trace the outline, but the painting part is all mine.

So my short answer is yes, it can be seen as cheating... but it's also a valuable tool in a pinch.

I don't use any of that, I'm totally old-fashioned

I think tools are tools, and all options can be explored.

It is a tool. As long as the finished project is your own.

It is just a tool, as a camera can be. I use stencils a lot in my pattern work. If you look at art as a trade, then, like all trades, you use the best tools available; for example, battery tools have replaced electric tools. In the future, when the experiments have stopped, every artist will, to some degree, use AI.

I think you mean a camera lucida – at least from 19th century. Camera obscuras were bulky and inconvenient as they need a darkened space for the projected image to be visible and worked on sunny days so I don't think many artists ever used them.