[email protected] long does it take YOU to paint a portrait?
 

Bouguereau is said to have completed a painting from conception to the last brush stroke in only 8 days.

I have long held a theory that states:

Success as an Artist equals Time at the Easel.

I think this is especially true for portrait artists as what we do is quite a bit more exacting than many other artistic fields.

Today, I underpaint an average head and shoulders portrait in between 6 to 9 hours. Three years ago, that number was more than 20 hours for the same work. To me, that reduction is due to "time at easel" - by myself, in classes, on commissions, etc.

The more time we put in at the easel, the more successful we become at making the difficult translation from eye to hand. I mean success in terms of our ability to render what we see, not our overall success in the art marketplace - though one hopes that there is some spillover certainly.

Our families are usually not thrilled by this theory...long hours, very hard work.

An oil portrait for me now takes between 3-5 weeks depending on its complexity. Someday, I would like to be able to approach eight days, but I am not holding my breath. :)

So, how long does it take you to paint a portrait from start to finish? Do some math. Does that effect your plan to make your living at portraiture?

Michael,

Along those lines, I think it is true that a person's level of success can be measured by the number of failures he/she has amassed. You have to risk and you have to fail.

There is a thread in the "Oil" critique section labeled "The Lookout". I had never kept track of my time until I started on this painting. The following remarks I pulled from that thread:

Great topic. I'm going to "punch the clock" for the painting I'm working on now, a portrait of my husband. The preliminary drawing took 2 hours (attached).

What I find is that it's best if I put it down after the first two hours, then sleep on it, and when I come back, I can clearly see any errors, weaknesses, etc.

Next I'll do a 2-3 hour oil color study, from life. (Two sittings.)

Anyway, one of the things I recognize about my process is that the time is not only consumed at the easel, but also the important time is spent IGNORING the piece so I can look at it with fresh eyes and scrape down or repaint where necessary, and it IS generally necessary to repaint passages, no matter how much time I've spent with the preparations.

Bottom line, it's good that I enjoy time at the easel :exclamati

Nice work Mari. I agree that there needs to be time away from a piece so you can see it with fresh eyes. I take little breaks - like this one here - for just a few minutes. Walk away, come back and sure enough you start seeing inconsistencies that need attention.

Mike, I agree, failures are part of the process and can be just as important as the successes. You certainly learn from them! :)

Time is on my side
 

I understand that time is money and we certainly need to pay our bills in a timely manner. That being said, I think to approach the creation of art as a function of time is not the road to success but the highway to **** (rhymes with bell), as far as artistic growth and success is concerned.

I know there are portrait artists that are very successful monetarily and may even have

Marvin,

I am sorry, but you missed my meaning entirely. My point was that success as an artist is entirely dependent upon spending as much time at the easel as possible. The easel is where it all happens - learning, development, rapidity, brilliance, etc.. Lord knows that there are so many things that keep us away from painting, from fear to family, etc.. My intent was to illustrate that time at the easel will make one a better artist and is, IMO, the best path to success as an artist.

Further, and to your reply, I had also observed that over time, I became faster (and better) at what I do. I never compromise on my works due to time constraints nor did I ever intend to imply that anyone should.

It was my intent, however, to clue newer artsists in that if they hope to do portraiture for a living, then they need to spend the time at the easel and develop not only their skill, but developing a fairly rapid pace would help too.

Eight days is a very rapid pace and does not impose at all on Bouguereau's repuation or work ethic. If anything, it enhances it.

It's not just an adventure, it's a job.

"Timely" Quote
 

Here's a quote from Art and Soul: Notes on Creating by Audrey Flack that I think applies.

"Grunewald spent years of his life on the Iseheim Alterpiece. Matisse's art appears to materialize in a moment. Only the appropriation and major shifts in the usage of time are different. The length of time it takes to make a work does not necessarily make it good. Conversely, the sponaneous and rapid production of a work does not make it good. Supremacy in art lies outside the realm of countable time."

I had observed that ultimately it comes down to the artist and his canvas. You can take tons of classes, sit in on lecture after lecture, view multitudes of paintings, BUT, until you actually stand there and put brush to canvas, and do it repeatedly hour after hour after hour, you cannot be successful as an artist. It takes a lot of time at the easel which is sometimes hard to do, but as artists we need to sacrifice time in order to train the eye and the hand in the degree of accuracy needed to produce realistic art.

Further, the fact remains that if an artist wants to take portraiture beyond the hobby stage, he will need to develop not only his skill, but his work ethic as well. Time at the easel will not only increase skill, but should also reduce the time it takes one to get a good result.

If you can create a well-crafted portrait in 8 days instead of 6 months, you have a much better chance of making portraiture work as a profession, not just a hobby.

Michael,

Around the studio, it was 10 to 14 days at 2 hours daily, to produce a good portrait head.

It isn't just pounding away at the easel, it's developing your individual way of "seeing" and then if what you have to say is universal and important enough to be worth preserving.

It need not be realistic or even well drawn, though this is the higher percentage.

Kim, Thanks for your response. I had no idea that this topic would be so controversial! I am afraid I have to disagree with your opinion above. To me, it IS about pounding away at the easel. That is where it all happens - successes, failures, learning and growth. To my mind, you not only have to learn to "see", but to translate what you see from your eye to your hand. You won't get that skill easily unless you are amazingly gifted, you put in a lot of hard work, or you paint abstract expressionism.

Whether works are worth preserving is not up to us, but to society. Given that society currently puts such value into Thomas Kincaid, I am not taking society very seriously - I am just having a lot of fun doing what I love. :cool:

Hope you are well.