Administrator's note: Michael moved this thread to the techniques section, from its original location at http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...5&goto=newpost
Not sure if this is the place for this maybe it could be moved to a new thread but I wanted it in context to the discussion on detail vs. painterly. Yes, Marvin's work Is beautiful.
As for
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, I find that many artists are predisposed to a certain approach and automatically dismiss or invalidate that which goes against their own personal grain.
|
I might be guilty of this. But my approach to painting was inspired by three artist in particular. Howard Pyle, NC Wyeth, and JS Sargent. I spent hours looking at their work and I was always struck buy how with the lack of detail they gave the impression of full detail. I am not sure how to put it into words but an example was one of the "Treasure Island" paintings. First, it was much larger than I had expected an illustration to be. But in the painting there is a parrot in a cage; from across the room and in the reproduction, the parrot reads as a parrot fully fleshed out and with all the form you would expect. But when you look closely the parrot is about 5 brush stokes you would get from a #10 flat bristle. I am amazed you do not miss the details. In fact, your eye puts them in even though they are not there.
So, yes, I appreciate a highly detailed style and Marvin truly is a master of it. But don't think a painterly style is any easier. A sloppy style is easier, but that is not painterly; it is just lazy. It is like the classical musician and a blues musician. The blues may see simpler then the complex classical composition but it still takes years to become a true master.
Threaded Mode
