Plan a head (or ahead)

[Marvin Mattelson]

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

[Chris Saper]

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.

[Michele Rushworth]

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!)

[Michael Fournier]

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.

[Mari DeRuntz]

It does seem all the

[Tammy Nielsen]

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

[Michael Fournier]

From Marvin's post in the previous thread:

This requires skill in analyzing the background and either recreating it on the subject or coming up with a scenario in which two divergent lighting schemes can feasibly coexist. For example, the subject may be under an awning or a tree, in front of a vista. However, one must be careful to include any influences of any light source in the background (sunset sky for example) on the foreground elements, otherwise the result can have the flattened look of a model placed in front of a photographer's painted background. Not good if you are interested in a naturalistic as opposed to a theatrical feeling.

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.

[Marvin Mattelson]

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

[Michele Rushworth]

Marvin, you wrote:

One of the most important lessons I learned was to appreciate the difference between what people ask for and what they want.

What did you learn about this issue, in particular?

[Elizabeth Schott]

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?"