There's a history of artists using optical aids that starts with a Chinese philosopher from around 390 BCE, who first described a pinhole camera as a "locked treasure room." We know that similar devices were around even earlier, but by the 6th century the Byzantine architect who designed the Hagia Sophia was using the camera obscura in his experiments.
By the 15th century, Leonardo De Vinci described the camera obscura in his Atlantic Codex. Venetian painter Canaletto was known for painting "from nature," although many of his later works feature blurred technical elements, suggesting the use of a camera obscura.
In 2001, artist David Hockney and physicist Charles M. Falco put forth the theory that for 200 to 400 years, many of the Renaissance Old Masters used optical aids to improve the accuracy of detail in their portraits. In their book, Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Lost Techniques of the Old Masters, the argument was again raised as to whether the use of optical aids somehow negated the validity of a painting, or if an artist's ability to create a thing of beauty stemmed from something beyond the use of "visual aids" - certainly the ability to trace an outline is extremely different than the ability to recreate realistic fabric surfaces and skin that glows with a life force.
Artists trained in the Graphic Arts, Illustration, and Set Design Fields do not have these pangs of conscience, as they traditionally use photographs and project necessary images to speed up the work. On Gurney Journey, James Gurney discusses Norman Rockwell's use of photo references here and his own ideas and uses here. I think the real argument shouldn't be a question of should you use photo references, but what is the more appropriate way for the artist to think about the references he or she is using.
Isn't careful observation of the figure from two feet away just as informing to the artist as studying the photographs taken of the figure? Particularly when the artist is searching for information such as where does this form bend and become that form? The artist backs up visual information up with the foundational skills - design elements, drawing, artistic imagination and style.
This is quite different from replicating what is recorded, which requires little thought on the part of the artist. As a learning process, I find nothing wrong with asking a student to use a reference photo for direct information. After all there is no other way to begin to learn how to construct a painting or to learn a subject matter than to paint it over and over, and using photographs facilitates this process.
What I do see as a negative is that many artists become so dependent upon the camera making the decisions for them that they never learn how to edit, or subordinate certain areas, or to actually interpret what they are seeing. There have been times when I've walked into a gallery to see another artist's landscape work and my only thought was, 'Oh, I bought that guide book too - that image was on page 22."
This is artistic laziness, or insecurity, and I would agree with critics who argue that by simply copying a photo - whether your own or someone else's (copyrights!) - the artist is prostituting their art. And it's a shame, because often times I think inexperienced artists are unaware of how restricted their work is when they simply restate what the camera produced.
For more information here are additional links:
Secret Knowledge: Rediscovering the Techniques of the Old Masters
Comments