(Films about painters have it easier by comparison.)
They do if they're about real painters. Films about fictional artists have to make the horrible choice between using paintings by real artists (and risking defamation issues if the character is thought to be a fictionalised version of the real artist) or trying to create fake paintings that have to be both believably by the character portrayed and good (if the character's meant to be a good artist). I remember that some critics accused Hal Hartley's film Henry Fool of cowardice for never actually quoting the scandalous and successful novel written by one of the characters that plays an important role in the plot, but I didn't see how any fake excerpt or recognisable excerpt from a real book could match what the audience could be left to imagine.
no subject
They do if they're about real painters. Films about fictional artists have to make the horrible choice between using paintings by real artists (and risking defamation issues if the character is thought to be a fictionalised version of the real artist) or trying to create fake paintings that have to be both believably by the character portrayed and good (if the character's meant to be a good artist). I remember that some critics accused Hal Hartley's film Henry Fool of cowardice for never actually quoting the scandalous and successful novel written by one of the characters that plays an important role in the plot, but I didn't see how any fake excerpt or recognisable excerpt from a real book could match what the audience could be left to imagine.