Plan a head (or ahead)
 

I moved this outgrowth of the thread http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=9428#post9428 here because I thought it important enough to merit its own thread.

The planning of a painting, whether from photos or life, is most imperative. In order to effectively reach a destination, one first needs to devise a itinerary. Steven Covey says

I couldn't possibly agree with you more, Marvin.

Thinking before you begin is so essential, in my view...not only for composition (here I include figure placement as well as design of negative spaces), but for value scheme, light temperature, color harmony,and at least preliminarily, edges. And, none of these preliminary decisions can be made before you have decided on what you intend to convey about the subject...your focal point.

I think there is also an important sequence to the decisions you need to make. Some come at the end, some can happen at any time, and some must be made before you begin, because they can't be corrected later on without entirely repainting the canvas.

I'm glad you have begun this thread.

I feel that the battle is lost or won at the photography/composition/color study stage of my process.

No matter how good I am at actually painting, if what I planned before I put brush to canvas wasn't right, no amount of good drawing, brushwork or color mixing will correct it. (And I have more than a few canvases that will forever face the wall to prove it!)

Thank you, Marvin for starting a thread that I could not agree with more.

I think it is very important that beginners truly understand what planning means. I have posted several times in the Forum about doing sketches and studies before a finished painting, especially a very complex one.

For many artists, a lot of the planning that artists of the past (like Bouguereau) did has been replaced with the use of photography. Although I will not argue the advantages and timesavings this has. After all we are not in the 19th century anymore. I feel that in some ways we are losing some of the advantages that doing sketches and detailed studies has over photos.

I know that I am nobody compared to the many seasoned professional portrait artists here at SOG. Although I have been earning my living creating art for the past 14 years and have done more than a few commissions, I feel I am not yet accomplished enough to call myself a true portrait artist. So I am glad that someone with the credentials that Marvin has as well Chris and Michele have taken the time to post on this topic.

Maybe a post on the differences between a sketch and its goal vs. a study and its purpose. Some examples of both would help also.

I know that this is a Forum to discuss topics, and not a painting workshop but examples of how a painting is planned from initial idea (or in the case of a portrait, the first meeting with the client) to the final painting. It might help illustrate that you simply do not just pick a nice photo and do an enlargement of it in paint and call it a finished portrait.

I know that many of us look at the paintings of Bouguereau and Sargent and we wish that we could some day equal their skill. But at the same time how many of us do the work they did to get that good?

I have seen detailed studies by Sargent of drapery and hands used to work out these details before doing the finished painting. The work of these artists is so good because they left nothing to chance. Every fold of drapery, the placement and position of the hands and every shadow or reflected light was worked out.

I am sure that if they were alive today they too would use photos for reference. But, they would not be satisfied to paint a hand a certain way or in a certain position just because that was how it was in the photo.

I also feel that in doing sketches and studies we grow as artists and our skills increase with each one we do. So the more drawing and painting involved in your planning, the better not only will that painting be, but also every one that follows it. You gain something that no amount of planning that involves photographic reference alone will ever give you.

Preliminaries should NOT be negated by reference photos
 

It does seem all the

Thanks Marvin, and others for this thread.

Thanks Chris for the check list and methods you teach in your book Painting Beautiful Skins Tones. The check lists make you think and sketch before you paint because the painting has to pass the test at the end. It really makes it easier because you don't have to go back and try and fix all the things you didn't consider before painting.

Tammy

From Marvin's post in the previous thread: I would like to note that some of the best artists, both alive today and of the recent past, who were/are very good at doing this very thing, were/are illustrators who almost always create their backgrounds (or as I prefer the scene or setting) of their paintings from many different references, both from life and from photographs.

If you ever visit the studio of an illustrator you will find all kinds of books, reference materials and props that are used extensively in their work.

I may be somewhat biased since many of my instructors and many of the artists I admire most are illustrators. There are many artists now coming back to realism, and of course portrait artists have mostly been students of realism.

I feel that it has been the illustrators that really have kept the traditions of realism and the importance of drawing alive in the face of the modernist art movement of the 20th century.

Marvin Mattelson is just one of those very artists to whom I refer, but there are many more. To some extent, today and in the recent past, the greater art world did not give these artists the acclaim they deserve. Even Norman Rockwell was known as one of the most successful illustrators of our time and not one of the greatest artists.

It is time these artists are given the credit they have earned as artists. Oops. I think I may have started another new thread. :)

Here's my story sad but true...
 

Thank you Michael for the kudos on behalf of myself and my former brethren (and sisteren). Uncle Normie sends his best. It

Marvin, you wrote:

What did you learn about this issue, in particular?

Ah...to be a great illustrator! This is a desire for most graphic art students whose foundations were based in art vs. computers.

But alas, not all of us had the skills with rapidograph, Dr. Martin dyes, airbrush, etc., and moved into the world of art direction.

I loved the relationships I had with my illustrators, it was always my goal to speak for my clients without stepping upon the talent of the illustrator I had hired, I trusted their talents but appreciated their respect in return. The business of art was to achieve a purpose - to sell a product and/or service, and it was the team effort and direction that a great illustrator could take and make work. But there was, hopefully in your experience, the help of a great art director. Thus a layout and concept provided for interpretation. And always a budget.

I feel this thread takes the "fine arts" and structures them into the world of advertising, periodicals etc., to the point of no spontaneity. This may be far more important in "portrait" art, but the question of where is this going? or where can I take it? can be a wonderful exercise for those who may find themselves trying to be so perfect they are creating a photographic image with oils, pastels, etc..

For some reason I just don't see Van Gogh out in a yellow field with his value determination tool, and pad of tracing paper. But then, you're right he might have had a lot of "Garage Sale" pieces (I'd love to get my hands on one). Did these guys experiment or follow the rules... and then there is that age-old question: Was Norman Rockwell a "fine artist" or "illustrator"? My biggest question was always, "Does it matter?"

Yada, Yada, Yada
 

Michele,

What I

He was a true artist. I recognize no distinction based on the whims of the art critics and dealers of artistic dribble. Yes, the worst of his art was mere commercialism but he was under the constraints of his profession the same as any commercial artist. But even those pieces he completed with integrity and commitment to do the best job he could under the circumstance.

His best work, however, was genius in its ability to speak the truth of the common man and lift it above its commonality to display the beauty in everyday subjects. Many feel his images displayed an idealized world that never existed. In some ways he showed us what we wished life was like as seen through the rose colored glasses of reminiscence. But much of the greatness of Norman Rockwell was his ability to tell you a story with a single image that brought the viewer in to that story and made you feel better for a moment, no matter what might have been going on in your life at the time.

That may not be a critic's idea of what an artist should do but I do not care. To me Norman Rockwell was a True Artist. He just happened to earn his income creating commercial illustrations.

Let's not confuse who we are (or someone else) with what we do to survive. It is how we live our life and the integrity we put into our work that matters. And, Marvin, IMO you have been successful - you need not worry. I of course have not seen every piece of illustration work you did, but from what I have seen IMO much of it was very good art, even if ADs had their way with it.

I feel we all must have a goal far beyond where we are today in order to grow. I would suspect that even Bouguereau, if asked during his career, would have said he still had not reached his greatest level and that he had yet to become the painter he strived to be.

[QUOTE]It

Marvin, I have a very strong feeling that you need not worry about your statement above. You sound like a terrific teacher, and I would love to see your work.

Since you are a teacher, you can now recognize me as the student who loves to rouse some discussion and take it a little further than the of which I am most likely very guilty. Just learning the "art" of portraiture, I am also learning to be more of a planner and appreciate all of your input. But since I am a new student to this, sometimes my planning doesn't work out.

If you have read my threads I have often asked the question about "the rules" and where they came from, mainly regarding color temperature. I do not know if the "masters" had these rules or we developed them over the years from their successful work. When Van Gogh's work traveled to the National Gallery in DC, so did I. He amazes me; I have a bi-polar kid and maybe that is why I find him so fascinating. I can see his frustration in some of his works, but I am so overwhelmed when you stumble upon the one where he got "the rules" right.

To me the fun of his show is the variance of his work, from ...what was he thinking...to OH MY Gosh! I recommend everyone taking in one of his shows. Instead of constant perfection, I think you see the ups and downs. (Didn't mean to play on words there.)

I think a commercial illustrator, and artist working in advertising - would have the BEST training to enter a career in this type of art form. Because of, as you stated, their attention to detail and planning. As I progress, one can never underestimate the value of working with people.

[QUOTE] What I

Marvin,

I just checked out your web site and am now bowing down before you! Awesome!

Your award winning portrait of "Eric" looks like he could walk off the page, and the illustration for the MTV ad is wonderful. I have never seen acrylic look so smooth, I thought the wall outlets were airbrush.

I hope you have not totally stopped illustrating commercially - you are obiviously so accomplished. I see now why you are a MASTER planner! :cool:

No more pretty pictures
 

Michael,
I never let the art director's interference stop me from doing my best work. It just made it harder for me. Ironically, the ADs felt that the work was good because of them while I knew it was good in spite of them.

I was never willing to do a less than perfect job. Regardless of the budget or circumstances, once I committed to doing the painting I gave it my all. I would never take an assignment if I felt the lack of time would sacrifice quality. I loved seeing when other top illustrators did a bad job. I was never willing to give anyone the satisfaction of seeing me turn in a stinker.

Beth,
Thanks for your generous compliment. I am proud to say that my illustration career is now offically over. The amount of money it would take to entice me to revert to my former profession pretty much guarantees that the phrase

Marvin, your uncompromising quest to always do your utmost is a true inspiration!

Planning ahead in my view is similar to laying the foundation upon which to build the final product. If the foundation is weak, the entire effect will be weak and vice-versa. I usually start out with a concept idea, then look for the right composition and theeeen get totally side-tracked and plunge head over heels into the painting.

On one hand, I see being organized and approaching a work with a plan as a fool-proof way to meet one's objective; on the other hand though, one loses those accidental errors that can lead to surprising wonderful results. Painting also turns into a chore of checking and rechecking, that to me takes the fun out of being creative.

Truthfully, I don't know which is better, so I take a little of both and just pray that it will work out.