Go for excellence in portraiture

[Allan Rahbek]

Using a photo requires that you have taken one and that is where the problems begin.

Sharon is putting her finger on a sore place and we know it.

I once tried to have a debate about this issue, in the tread

[Geary Wootten]

Originally Posted by Allan Rahbek

Thinking about it makes me want to postulate that I have seen more painters being good photographers than the opposite.

To sort of "piggy back" you Allan, this statement makes me think we should all think more like SCULPTORS than anything when we are drawing and painting from life, photos, or the combination of both. I say this because I always am adding on and then taking away stuff when I'm working. Just like a sculptor. Oh, to be like a Heidi Maiers!!!

~Gear

[Steven Sweeney]

I was about to quote and comment on the same words of Allan. In fact, learning the fundamentals of painting a good picture completely changed the way I take photographs, even if I don't intend to use them for references. If what I see in the viewfinder wouldn't make a good painting, I usually don't press the shutter button anymore. It's really jazzed up my photo albums a lot.

But another aside -- not a continuation, because as I said, I've contributed what I have on the subject, but I realize now from intervening comments in another thread that I've been misunderstood here, and a clarification is needed.

For critique purposes, by all means post the reference if you'd like. It's always useful to some degree. As I said before, it's essentially the "model" to which we compare your execution. To reiterate, posting the photo is most useful if you want to know if your painting accurately depicts the information in the photograph.

The catch is that, even if it does, it still may not be a good picture, in terms of design, composition, or other elements. That assessment can be made from the painting alone. However, it still may be useful to see the reference (the "model"), simply because it could be the case that the vision, as it has been put, in your photograph actually exceeds what is revealed in the painting. In that sense, seeing the photo could concededly provide some basis for discussing elements other than mere accuracy.

And it can go the other way. A reference photo could, yes, "prove" that the painting was accurate, and yet prove too much, if the result is, say, a poor value design in the photo itself. You must be willing to hear that, too. (If in doubt, consider pre-posting in the reference photo critique thread.)

If nothing else comes of this thread, it may be an appreciation of the fact that you are the artist, and you are in control of your artistic expression, and you, not a photograph, are responsible for what you put on the canvas (and for what you put on your palette, and so on).

An analogous pitfall that is heard by every teacher of fiction writing is that, well, since it "really happened!" (or, since it's in the photo), it is therefore a believable and good story. That is as false in visual as in written art. Another is the protest that it took 10 years of selfless toil to write a manuscript for a novel, and therefore it must be worthy and publishable (that is, "good.") No it musn't.

[Sharon Knettell]

Actually it was Bill Whitaker's profound observation that started this discussion. I think it should be reread by all of us.

I have read to the arguments both pro and con vis-a-vis the use of photography. Somehow I cannot imagine Sargent snapping Lady Sasoon's picture, bowing out gratefully and tacking the reference to his easel to finish the painting.

I have some beautiful photos of a Eurasian student of mine at RISD. She has gone back to Japan. I would love to use them, but I keep hoping I will find another model that could substitute.

I am not negating some of the fine work that has been done from photographs, but I am saying, it seems to be increasingly the modus operandi, and I think realism is suffering because of it.The arguments I have read seem to say that, yes, because of the state of portrait art, they are a necessity. Also, models are expensive and hard to find. I have not seen an argument that photography is a better source, only a more convenient one.

I can only speak for myself . When I first started using models it was like looking at my subject without a scrim in front of her.

"For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face."

[Steven Sweeney]

(If this isn't the right article, Sharon, give a shout.)


A Bastion Against Cultural Obscenity

In a speech delivered at Burlington House last night, the critic Robert Hughes calls for a revitalised Royal Academy to defend art against the degrading power of the wealthy collectors.


Many years ago, when I was still cutting my first pearly fangs as an art critic, one thing used to be taken for granted by me and practically everyone I knew in what is so optimistically termed the

[Sharon Knettell]

Thanks Steven, It is!

[Kimberly Dow]

Sharon, I admire and respect your work and your decision to work only from models.

As you pointed out yourself - you havent done commissions since realizing the client wont sit for you. Most here on this site are looking to paint commissions - it is primarily a site made up of portrait artists, not figurative artists.

You point out above that people are saying models are hard to find and expensive. But - the folks here who do commissions arent painting models - they are painting clients who hire them. This is classic apples and oranges.

How many Governors, Senators, 5-year-olds or even housewives are going to sit for an artist? Not to mention dead people. Sure, it's a great thing to want to change the business. If we all go on strike perhaps in 30 years there might be a switch and folks will make the time to sit for artists again. I could also give all my money and food away to help end world hunger. It is noble and admirable, but unrealistic.

Bill did start this thread - and his call to work more from life is one we should all heed. When the wording gets so strong as to say we should all give up photography completely, then who can listen? Bill knows that it is necessary at times - Ive seen his portraits done from photography as well. And his point that working from life makes all the difference - sure shows in his skill when he has to use a photograph.

So, while most agree that life practice will make a world of difference in their art - most can not do what you did - and many wouldnt want to anyway because they like painting commissioned portraits. For you to work only from life you now paint figuratives and sell them after they are completed. That is primarily what Bill does also I believe.

Incidentally, it is also what I do. And perhaps that explains why I am taking you on about this issue. As a figurative artist, theoretically I could use models live since I am not painting for a client. If I had a spouse that helped pay for the expense or if I sold more of my paintings at higher prices. And someday I expect to. In the meantime, Im not about to be embarrassed of my work because it wasnt created in the way classical tradition commands. No matter how much you rant.

I dont think there is much we disagree on - except how far you take it in your wording. Your wording, to me at least - seems to be saying we should be ashamed of ourselves. (Have I mentioned you remind me of my mother?) Ive seen so much wonderful work on this site using photographs and those artists have no reason to feel ashamed. Not striving to try to do out best, to get the best training we can (which includes training from life) or not learning to take decent photographs would be reasons to feel ashamed.

And lest we forget - there are many types of painting styles out there. This is certainly a site for artists who work in a classical realistic style, but it isnt the only style out there. I cant speak for anyone else - but I love a lot of work that isnt done in the traditional ways.

I think the only thing any of us should ever feel ashamed about is if we stop trying to improve - or give up all together.

ps. Im wondering if you would take my children for a week or two? I know you dont have children, but your 'guilting-skills' are really good. Im thinking you could have my kids shaped up in no time flat. I cant afford models, but I could scrape up the money for that.

[Kimberly Dow]

Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell

Kim. You have done some remarkable work.

I'll admit to being hopelessly shallow. That's good enough for me (for now) - rant on. Later I will expect to be called 'Master'.

I'm kidding - dont hit me!

[Julie Deane]

Originally Posted by Steven Sweeney

If nothing else comes of this thread, it may be an appreciation of the fact that you are the artist, and you are in control of your artistic expression, and you, not a photograph, are responsible for what you put on the canvas (and for what you put on your palette, and so on).

An analogous pitfall that is heard by every teacher of fiction writing is that, well, since it "really happened!" (or, since it's in the photo), it is therefore a believable and good story. That is as false in visual as in written art.

From "Walking on Water: Reflections on Faith and Art" by Madeleine L'Engle:

"Credibility in creativity is a hard lesson to learn, and I

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Julie,

It is interesting to me that you are going through a time of reflection as well. It seems as artists, we set these goals and as we achieve them we are never quiet satisfied and yearn for more.

Commissioned work has many benefits, but it places also many constraints on the artist. Most portrait commissions are like a nice acquaintance, you are happy to see them, you do everything in your power to make the time you spent with them a success, but when it's all over you yearn for something more fulfilling.

I yearn for a love affair, a commission that gives me sleepless nights, has me up in my studio at 6am and keeps me enthralled until the sun sets.

This search for artistic fulfillment happens only when a client is so enamored with your painting style, that price becomes no objection and you are offered the "carte blanche".

I believe the only way to reach that point and to attract such clients, is to break free from the mundane. This might involve hiring a model or bribing family members to pose in garments and staged settings, that allow the artist to be as creative as he/she wishes.

By creating such a body of work the artist is thus able to not only explore his/her artistic expression, but also push the art of portraiture to new heights.