|
Aside from the very real and practical guidelines/rules which, as we see on this thread, are subject to changes in technology or limitations of a medium, I don't know how so many people can make such absolute statements about lighting, color, shading, composition, etc. that are really no more than personal preferences.
What works for one person should not be stated as a "rule" for the developing artist. It seems to me that there is nothing in the modern world to suggest that the artist should adhere to methods used by the masters who did not have the benefit of modern lighting and the effects they cast as part of our day to day experience.
Most of us for instance do not really know each other or our families under the presence of north light and the insistence upon it's exclusive use, it could be argued, might appear more artificial than man made lights. (Staged)
For my part it doesn't so much matter in the eventual quest of traditional portraiture to capture personality and lighting doesn't make the critical difference. I have often thought that the "Old Masters", if they could return to the human condition, might jump for joy at the opportunity artificial lights provide. (I never made a study but often wondered if the left handed masters used an upper right light source to prevent working in the shadow of their hand and arm.)
Another "rule" that I fail to follow and understand is the warm/cool colors advance/recede postulate. I don't even think about it. As a great jazz musician once said, "If it sounds good, it is good" and the same applies to painting if it looks good.
If the subject has a light blue shirt I'll give him a light/cool reflected light on the chin or neck. Who said it can't be cool and light?
"Rules" often are the result of overstatement made in effort to be helpful to the developing artist and then become a larger concern than new projects warrant. I avoid "always" and "never" unless it relates to illicit behavior.
|