>>5796796>Is [...] it also bad?It's not about being absolutely good or bad. The argumentation for photo reference is similar: using reference doesn't help you train your memory/imagination *directly*, though it helps fuels it, and provides a very convenient shortcut. An other problem with photo is that they distort colors/drawing.
Not using photo reference helps train memory/imagination, and using your eyes directly, to avoid color/lenses deformations.
Another problem of referencing, and that's a typical issue in modern trad training, is that people are stuck to copy what's in front of them, struggle to create something that has beautiful originality (on average, there are exceptions). Hyperealism being an extreme example (and yet, this sells, so…)
> how do you reconcile art, historically, being heavily reliant on using real models and landscapesFor instance in the case of landscapes, the process of creation still is manual; light change within the day/from a day to another/through the year. Those subtle variations already amount amount for enough diversity.
Then, there's artistic interpretation, see picrel.
For models, it's similar: it used to be that models were basically mannequins and/or study tools. Nowadays, because we're rediscovering technical art, we think a painting of a sitting male is art, while it was more of an exercice "in the past". High-grade art involved reproducing antique/biblical theme, models were "just a tool".
