[Alexandra Tyng]

This is a very interesting question! As I was reading everyone's responses I was thinking about how I work. People who come into my studio are are usually amazed at how "prolific" I am, but although I get a lot done, I don't actually apply paint quickly.

Recently I set myself a challenge to get more movement and "life" into my portraits by working faster. I discovered that if I was very careful about eyeballing the correct facial proportions and sketching them in with charcoal or even pencil, I could complete a head in an hour and get a good likeness. I have been much happier with the looseness and the descriptiveness of the brushstrokes. I also just came back from Maine where I painted for a week with an artist friend. We set up our easels and st ourselves a goal to capture the scene in one, two or three hours, which is really all you can do before the light changes too much.

What I realized, reading this thread, is that I don't think my speed of execution was any different in either of these situations! The difference lies, I think, in the speed of my decision-making, and the knowledge that I had to complete something in a given amount of time.

Was it Michele who said that if she tried to rush to complete something, she usually ended up doing it over later? Well, this happens to me, too. I think the problem is one of inconsistency. It seems logical that, when we form a concept of a painting in our mind, we include the degree of finish in the concept. And the degree of finish is related to how much total time it will take to execute the work. So if we are working on a large formal portrait that we are planning to spend a while painting, it would be inconsistent to rush certain aspects of it and spend a lot of time on others. But if we are planning to spend a short time on something, the whole plan of attack is different. At least it is with me.

But I still think I don't actually move faster as I am applying paint.

Alex