Oil portrait process

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by Mischa Milosevic

. . . I have no words of praise for your procedure. . . .

Originally Posted by Richard Bingham

. . . Amazing. Simply . . . amazing. *

* not necessarily praise . . .

Accurate draftsmanship is not a "gift" that springs from divine inspiration. It is a manual skill that any reasonably intelligent person can master if they apply themselves to a considerable amount of hard work and discipline. That doesn't necessarily automatically elevate their efforts to the level of "high art" any more than copying photographs does . . . but what that study does accomplish is to refine one's abilities to observe and respond in ways that can be conducive to making "great art".

Those whose only concern is with a superficial image will never understand the quantum difference that working from the life represents as opposed to copying from photographs. There are probably 10,000 issues one might bring into question in assessing an enormously oversize snapshot of a baby.

[David Carroll]

Hey Justin, If you really want to feel welcome you can post your opinion on your medium of choice, and why... you'll really feel the love.

Once an artist pushes a button instead of picking up a pencil, they loose the moral high ground as far as I'm concerned. Was Da Vinci a Nikon or Canon man? Film or digital? When I begin a painting from a photo I've already used 3 high-tech machines before I make a mark on the canvass (digital camera, computer, printer). When I take my camera with me landscape painting I often become a photographer instead of a painter.

Q. Why would a "real" artist bring a camera and take pictures instead of sketching?

A. It's easier than drawing.

Q. Why would a "real" artist use a Projector instead of drawing direct from the photo.

A. Refer to above answer.

The world is full of bankrupt idealists who measure integrity with their own personal sliding scale.

Keep working and you will grow. There is no one right way that fits everyone.

Peace,

[Alexandra Tyng]

Justin.

I have never used projecting as a tool, but back in the late'60s and early '70s i taught myself to paint by copying photos. I've never tried to hide this fact. I simply knew no one who offered instruction in traditional methods of oil panting (i.e. color mixing, etc) and I was impatient to learn. I was a teenager at the time. I actually learned quite a lot about color mixing this way, so I can honestly say it was of some use. Since then, I have completely re-learned how to see color by working from life. However, I still use photos in my work. Often I paint landscape studies on site, take photos, too, and use both to develop very large paintings in my studio. I do not copy photos any more, but I use all the information I have to create art that says what I want to say.

Originally Posted by David Carroll

Q. Why would a "real" artist bring a camera and take pictures instead of sketching?

A. It's easier than drawing.,

I am not known for taking the easy road with art. There are other reasons for bringing a camera and taking pictures, as I have just explained. Photos give some very useful information, and digital photos, especially, can be very useful when making decisions about edges and distance. For the correct color I always refer to my oil sketches, but the color of dgital photos is pretty darn good much of the time if you know what a thing really looks like and can remember to put the correct amount of "punch" in the right places. I do the same thing when I paint large portraits. A pencil sketch would not give me the same information as a digital photo.

Real artists use all kinds of methods and references. Personally, Justin, I would encourage you to continue drawing from life. But I also think the large-scale portrait that you posted would be awfully hard to sketch out accurately from life. You would need a very long arm to get far enough away from the canvas. A grid would serve the same purpose as projection and allow for a lot of freehand drawing, especially if the grid is large. If you worked life-size, you could practice sketching out the figure freehand.

I want to say that I like your color and values. Your portrait does not look ameturish. I also think the composition is original and balanced, and you have not cluttered the composition with a lot of extraneous elements. Only the essentials are there and they work very well.

[John Reidy]

I'm way over my head here compared to those who have already posted but I felt I did have something to offer.

In the larger scope, we have all seen traced drawings and can usually spot one a mile away. They tend to lack that certain spark that a "well drawn" piece has.

I have tried my hand at using the projector, experimenting with it's allure of a shortcut to capturing a drawing. Whenever I did I always had to abandon the tracing at some point because it became false and limiting.

However, I will employ the projector on large canvases but only as a quick guide to the very largest shapes. I always go back on my drawing experience to create the real drawing that I will utilize for my painting.

Other times I employ the wash-in, which coflicts with any other drawing method I know of.

[Justin Snodgrass]

Thank you all so much for sharing such great replies. This thread has turned out to be much more than I had expected (in a great way).


I took 6 life drawing classes while getting my degree and had the opportunity to create two sculptures from live models. I have spent a fair amount of time completing studies from magazines and from several of Burne Hogarth's books. All of which have inherently taught me to work from basic shapes and from simple to complex. The good news is that I think I have created a good starting point for myself.


I know that my eyes are keen and that there is more talent inside, but the fact remains that I have only touched on the training and experience that I want and need.


I have no qualms with using a projector to create, any more than I do using a welder to piece together a sculpture. I have no less respect for the work of Chuck Close knowing that he used a small celled grid. In my opinion, one of the biggest questions that should be asked of a work of art is whether or not it touches the viewer(s). This of course raises many questions as to the definition of "art" (something that simply cannot be accurately defined).


I remember watching one of my professors give a demonstration on painting skin tones. She had a student sit in front of her and then immediately starting mixing and painting as she talked. In less than 20 minutes she had amazingly recreated the young man's face. She did this with several other students and with the same amazing results. Come to find out, she had been a portrait painter for 20 years. She completed the painting via pure instinct and without thought or care. I remember thinking to myself, "THAT, is what I want to be able to do". This thread has brought me back to that feeling and re-sparked that same flame.


I honestly cannot pinpoint why this drive exists. Can art be created from grids, photos, or projectors and still move a viewer. I say yes! The question that I cannot seem to answer for myself is why that desire still exists within me to have the same ability displayed by my professor and her 20 minute portraits. Is it so I can "say" that I can do it? Is it because the most typical route to success is long and challenging? Is it because of the unexplainable joy that comes from drawing from life? I can't answer these questions at this point. I just know that the drive is there.

Originally Posted by Alexandra Tyng

Real artists use all kinds of methods and references. Personally, Justin, I would encourage you to continue drawing from life. But I also think the large-scale portrait that you posted would be awfully hard to sketch out accurately from life. You would need a very long arm to get far enough away from the canvas. A grid would serve the same purpose as projection and allow for a lot of freehand drawing, especially if the grid is large. If you worked life-size, you could practice sketching out the figure freehand.

This is a great point and excellent advice. Thank you. I think that one of the drawbacks of using the projector with large-scale work is that the shapes within the image are so large that the drawing process in somewhat lost in that you must stand within arm's reach of the canvas. The shapes come into play when I start painting and am able to step back and compare the work with the image. I think that using a large celled grid is an excellent idea and would allow me to work out the shapes during the drawing process. This would be much more productive in terms of training my eyes.


This discussion has stirred up so much in me. I have much to think about as to my next step. I will be buying Charles Bargue Et Jean-Leon Gerome: Drawing Course as well as Classical Drawing Atelier: A Contemporary Guide to Traditional Studio Practice. I have also started looking into taking some more life drawing classes and finding an open studio in my area.


Again, thank you all so much!

[Steven Sweeney]

Originally Posted by Justin Snodgrass

I remember watching one of my professors give a demonstration on painting skin tones. She had a student sit in front of her and then immediately starting mixing and painting as she talked. In less than 20 minutes she had amazingly recreated the young man's face. She did this with several other students and with the same amazing results. Come to find out, she had been a portrait painter for 20 years. She completed the painting via pure instinct and without thought or care. I remember thinking to myself, "THAT, is what I want to be able to do". This thread has brought me back to that feeling and re-sparked that same flame.

Your answer seems to be implicit in this paragraph. You witnessed an act of creativity and felt the spark, a thrill that for many diminishes with each layer of intermediate

[Claudemir Bonfim]

I think that Chris and Steven have pointed it out very well. I don't care about how you achieve your results, but those guys who don't work from life are missing all the fun.

[Richard Bingham]

[QUOTE=Steven Sweeney] . . . You . . . felt the spark, a thrill that for many diminishes with each layer of intermediate

[Justin Snodgrass]

Mischa,

I must say that I am surprised by your response. It is clear to me that you have misunderstood the purpose of my post. Though I would like to move on, I find it difficult not to respond.

Originally Posted by Mischa Milosevic

David Hocney should take lessons from you as you project images on the canvas or paper.

This comment is simply not necessary and serves little purpose in this discussion.

Originally Posted by Mischa Milosevic

I am sorry but I have no words of praise for your procedure. I think that copying a photo image is one thing but it should lead towards honest study of drawing and painting.

To clarify, I was not seeking praise with my post. As my original post states, I consider myself a novice in this field and this is my first commissioned piece. I was simply seeking input and advice related to my process. I made the assumption that most would understand that constructive criticism is the most common and accepted way in which to respond. Perhaps encouragement to goal myself with working from life would have been a more constructive piece of advice. After learning from your website that you conduct workshops, I am surprised that your response was not more along these lines.

Originally Posted by Mischa Milosevic

Your method, as advertised on your web page, gives the idea that all artist do the same thing. To me it belittles the hard working, talented artists and the life time of sincere and solid education.

I would have to disagree with these statements. In no way does the description of my process imply anything about the methods of other artists.


I have only completed a handful of this type of painting. Again, I am a novice in this specific field. I did receive my BA in Fine Art in 2004, but have spent much of the time since exploring my interest in filmmaking. My point is that there is no need to allow my current procedure to belittle anything. In no way do I feel (nor have I ever stated), that the described procedure is the end all of oil portrait methods. I was careful in my original post to use the phrase "current method" and "novice" in hopes of making this point apparent.

Originally Posted by Mischa Milosevic

I do not think that there is one person on this forum, maybe one or two, that has not tried the projecting method but we have see the error of our way.

The fact that this method has been utilized by others seems to affirm the fact that there is a purpose and a place for such a method. It does seem out of place that you have chosen my post to conduct your rant on the matter.

Originally Posted by Mischa Milosevic

Are you saying that one should go back to something that has been proven to be a falsity?

Perhaps a careful reading of my original post would have prevented an erroneous leap such as this. I honestly cannot understand how you would have come to such a conclusion.

Originally Posted by Miscna Milosevic

You are honest about your method but then that suggests that all others are dishonest and this is the problem David Hocney has.

You are correct that I am honest about my current method. Again, my goal with the post was to receive feedback and advice related to the method. In no way does anything I have said suggest anything about the honestly of other artists. There is no logic in suggesting that one person's honesty equates to the dishonesty of others.


There are several examples on my site of works created from live models. Many of them are 40 minute charcoal studies. This process has been a huge tool for me as an artist. You will also find a number of studies completed from (brace yourself) magazine images. This has also served as a useful tool.


If art is based on process alone then one could argue that the ultimate work of art would not be done from a live model, but from our memory of a live model... while blindfolded and while holding the brush between two toes.


I do not consider the process in question "the way and the light" of portrait painting in any way. I look forward to growing as an artist and allowing myself to be molded by my experiences. As you can probably tell, your reply certainly qualifies as one of those experiences. I can assume that if your post would have been in a more fitting form it would have simply suggested that I should strive to paint from life. This is something that I agree with and that I will certainly apply.


The work on your site is amazing and I wish you all the best in the future.


Respectfully,

Justin Snodgrass

[Justin Snodgrass]

Originally Posted by Enzie Shahmiri

I love it as well. There is such substance to that little boy. Nicely done!

The way you have explained your work progress on your site is also very informative and should be easy for any client to follow.

Enzie,

Thank you for the reply. Iranian Man and A Lifetime on your site are amazing! Very powerful. looking back, I am honestly not 100% sure why I wrote the break down of the process. I am currently a stay-at-home dad with my two little ones (3 and 7). So, I can't realistically work as a commissioned artist (for a few more years anyway). I suppose writing it all out was a way of being able to step back and gain an objective perspective of the process. At any rate, thanks again.


David,

Thanks for the comments and advice. I was starting to question if this forum was a good fit for me. My guess is that Da Vinci would go with Cannon.


I can make armoured cars, safe and unassailable, which will enter the serried ranks of the enemy with their artillery, and there is no company of men at arms so great that they will break it. And behind these the infantry will be able to follow quite unharmed and without any opposition.

-Leonardo DaVinci

Sure seems like he was aiming to make things more efficient. In all seriousness though, I understand the appreciation behind grabbing a pencil over a camera and choosing a live model over an image. For the experience of the viewer, it seems that it is the end result of a work of art that bears more weight. In the case of the artist, maybe it is the process by which the art was created that is more important. Art is such an individual experience at every level, I suppose it is hard to say.

I have at times found it difficult to validate some abstract and minimalist works unless the artist has, at some point, shown the ability to accurately recreate a given subject. I have said before that realism is a means toward abstraction. I see that this is, in many ways, an opinion that is similar to Mischa's. Art is such a complicated matter in practice and in theory... and that is one of the reasons why I love it.