Go for excellence in portraiture

[Steven Sweeney]

I have drafted and now deleted three pretty long posts for this thread, because I have some strong feelings about the wisdom that Mr. Whitaker has offered. What the heck, here goes.

My opportunity to receive the training in the classical fundamentals was so far beyond my means and experience and ability that I worked in embarrassment, albeit very earnestly so, for years and yet will simply always feel blessed by it, even if I have made less of it than I might have. I paid a very high price for that opportunity, and only in retrospect can I say "gladly."

Fact is, most of the reference photographs I've seen on the Forum have been awful, sorry to have to say, though I don't often assume the role of curmudgeon here. And though those photos provided convenient excuses for the resultant flaws in the paintings, the fact is that the reference photographs revealed the (lack of) artistic sensibilities of the artist, not an aesthetic failure of the subject. If the artist had known what he or she was after, in terms of fundamentals, the photo would not only have likely been perfect, but it would have been unnecessary.

When I came on board the Forum many years ago, it was the case that even to admit you'd copied a photo was something you protected from disclosure. Now, a few competitive years later, we're proudly displaying our photography skills and our ability to copy those intermediary renderings.

I work for a publishing company whose competitor stole our editorial stuff for years, in the early Internet anything-goes days -- let's call that competitor the Smith Corp. -- and it happened that we produced a t-shirt with an image of a photocopy machine with the legend, "The Smith Editorial Department."

Sadly, that's the level that we're working at when giving up on life, on the real thing, and just copying an intermediate rendering already produced in another flawed, however instrinsically beautiful, medium. Nothing wrong with photographs, but you can't train your eye that way.

If one simply cannot find models -- family members, paid street urchins, kaffeeklatsch sipping buddies -- and, so, cannot proceed save by artifice . . . it may be best to stop. Many schools continue to offer degrees in accounting and archaeology, as well as studio art.

Or continue in portraiture, for the self-fulfillment of it. But don't wonder why your fiddle doesn't play Bach, while you go to book club. Or why the absence of a photograph leaves you completely unable to work.

[Kimberly Dow]

Originally Posted by Steven Sweeney

cannot proceed save by artifice . . . it may be best to stop. Many schools continue to offer degrees in accounting and archaeology, as well as studio art.

This subject comes up every so often here - with great passion. And certainly no one would dare take on the esteemed artists here on this thread about this issue. Those who work mostly from photos and have reached a certain level of sucess with them stay off these threads and don't participate.

Who can possibly argue that working from photos is better? Of course not - every artist that isnt still in diapers knows this.

What Bill said above at the begining of this thread was a call to arms for artists to get better. It is not only noble - but highly prized advice from a well-respected, talented, kind and generous artist as well as teacher.

Some of the comments that follow are not so kind.

What some of you may call 'excuses' - I call Jamie, Dailey & Jacob.
Or...mouths to feed.

I will not accept that not having the means to hire live models for every painting session will result in poor paintings. Nor will I listen to nonsense from artists who want to say that if you cant do that - you should pick another career.

Those of you speaking about sacrifices... How many of you would take grocery money from your family to pay a model? How many of you have painted 12 hours a day or more for years and years? Or gone without meals to be able to afford to take a workshop with a master painter?

I wont argue the 'from life' is better - no doubt about it. We should all be encouraged and reminded of this from time to time.

I will argue though that with enough study, skill and hard work...even without a live model - great paintings can be made. Maybe not as often - but it can be done. With enough determination - many many obstacles can be overcome. And working from photos is an obstacle.

I also refuse to be ashamed of the way I work. Am I working under the best possible conditions? No. Nor am I using the best easel, or best brushes...or had the best training. I would go so far as to say that hard-core determination will beat out the best circumstances any day.

In honor of myself and others here who work from photos for the most part - for whatever reasons....I would just like to say that professional respect for colleagues went a little south in this thread. When disparging others working methods it might be wise to use words carefully..... or some things could be construed as disrespectful. Im sure none of us wants that.

[Steven Sweeney]

Actually, during much of the three years that I spent going back for intensive instruction in the fundamentals, I had two school kids at home and I was the only parent around. All I did during that time was take care of the kids, transport them around to school and Scouts, band and sports, and whatever else, and go to the studio, an hour

[Patricia Joyce]

[Dennis Miller] was like most artists, quite poor. When he could not afford a model he would buy a single rose and paint that.

Check out Paul Foxton, a new member here, and what he is doing on a daily basis http://www.learning-to-see.co.uk .

I greatly admire his daily cafe sketches and the approach he is taking to re-learning color in his series of single pieces of fruits or vegetables.