Portrait Artist Forum - View Single Post - Are "celebrity" portraits from photos valid?

Virgil Elliott · 11-17-2001, 07:39 PM

David,

There is a widely-held perception that attaches the stigma of amateurism to painted copies of celebrity photos. That perception did not originate with me; I was simply the one who was good enough to tell you about it. It is generally regarded with less respect in professional artist circles than dog portraits. You may do what you like, but I thought you ought to at least know how those things are viewed by those whom you would have as peers, and by prospective clients as well.

If one practices drawing from life a great deal, it is possible to become very fast at it, and that enables the artist to make the most of short sittings without having to use a camera or, worse yet, someone else's photos. The drawings can then serve as reference material for paintings. I suggest trying grey paper, with charcoal for the darks, the paper for the middletone, and white chalk for the lights, as a very fast way of getting an image noted down. I can get a head and shoulders portrait study done in one hour, perhaps an hour and a half at most, following this method. In another 45 minute sitting I can execute a small color sketch in oils to give me accurate color of the subject's complexion and hair (no details in the color sketch; only color). I can do a grey underpainting without the sitter being there, by following the charcoal study. I like to finish the grisaille with another short sitting from life if possible, but it is not absolutely necessary if the charcoal study is accurate. I can follow the color sketch when putting color over the grisaille, and can finish the picture with one or two more sittings with the subject, if he or she is available, or just by following the study and the sketch, if not. The Old Masters had to work this way when commissioned to paint popes, kings, generals and other important people who had little time to pose for them before photography was invented. The clothing was usually posed on a mannequin, or sometimes sketched quickly while another person of the same build as the subject posed, if the subject were unavailable. I suggest you work that way, regardless how awkward it may feel at first. One improves in speed and accuracy with much practice. I find my sitters are intrigued by the process, and appreciate the results more when they have participated more in the making of the portrait. It also gives the artist a better read on the personality of the sitter, and THAT is really the subject of a portrait.

We all have difficulties of one kind or another to overcome. If quality results are important to you, work with the best equipment you have: the artist's eye. A camera's eye is inferior as a viewing instrument to the two human eyes and brain of an artist. See my article, "The Photographic Image Versus Visual Reality" in the current issue of The Portrait Signature for more specifics on that.

Virgil Elliott

11-17-2001, 07:39 PM	#12
Virgil Elliott SOG Member FT Professional Joined: Jun 2001 Location: Penngrove, CA Posts: 122	Copying Celebrity Photos David, There is a widely-held perception that attaches the stigma of amateurism to painted copies of celebrity photos. That perception did not originate with me; I was simply the one who was good enough to tell you about it. It is generally regarded with less respect in professional artist circles than dog portraits. You may do what you like, but I thought you ought to at least know how those things are viewed by those whom you would have as peers, and by prospective clients as well. If one practices drawing from life a great deal, it is possible to become very fast at it, and that enables the artist to make the most of short sittings without having to use a camera or, worse yet, someone else's photos. The drawings can then serve as reference material for paintings. I suggest trying grey paper, with charcoal for the darks, the paper for the middletone, and white chalk for the lights, as a very fast way of getting an image noted down. I can get a head and shoulders portrait study done in one hour, perhaps an hour and a half at most, following this method. In another 45 minute sitting I can execute a small color sketch in oils to give me accurate color of the subject's complexion and hair (no details in the color sketch; only color). I can do a grey underpainting without the sitter being there, by following the charcoal study. I like to finish the grisaille with another short sitting from life if possible, but it is not absolutely necessary if the charcoal study is accurate. I can follow the color sketch when putting color over the grisaille, and can finish the picture with one or two more sittings with the subject, if he or she is available, or just by following the study and the sketch, if not. The Old Masters had to work this way when commissioned to paint popes, kings, generals and other important people who had little time to pose for them before photography was invented. The clothing was usually posed on a mannequin, or sometimes sketched quickly while another person of the same build as the subject posed, if the subject were unavailable. I suggest you work that way, regardless how awkward it may feel at first. One improves in speed and accuracy with much practice. I find my sitters are intrigued by the process, and appreciate the results more when they have participated more in the making of the portrait. It also gives the artist a better read on the personality of the sitter, and THAT is really the subject of a portrait. We all have difficulties of one kind or another to overcome. If quality results are important to you, work with the best equipment you have: the artist's eye. A camera's eye is inferior as a viewing instrument to the two human eyes and brain of an artist. See my article, "The Photographic Image Versus Visual Reality" in the current issue of The Portrait Signature for more specifics on that. Virgil Elliott __________________ www.VirgilElliott.com