There've been some interesting observations made on this subject and I feel, as someone else mentioned, that in order to be successful in all three categories one must have the desire to paint the subject matter. However, I also feel that any accomplished artist with the "want to" can successfully render a portrait, still-life, or landscape.

I looked at the web site (the artist who paints all three genres) that Michael Fournier posted. There are artists who are not classical realists who are quite capable of producing fine landscapes, portraits, and still-lifes. Richard Schmid has been cited as one.

I'd like to mention some other artists who are noteworthy for their versatility: Quang Ho, Scott Burdick, Mark Daily, and Everett Raymond Kinstler are a few of the living artists who are extremely accomplished in all areas. Among non-living artists are Boldini, Sargent, and Fechin.

Kinstler in his book "Painting Portraits" begins the foreword with this quote from Sargent:
"You say you are studying to become a portrait painter and I think you'd be making a great mistake if you kept that only in view during the time you intend to work in a life class, for the object of the student should be to acquire sufficient command over his materials and do whatever nature presents him. The conventaionalities of portrait painting are only tolerable in one who is a good painter. If he is only a good portrait painter, he is nobody. Try to become a painter first and then apply your knowledge to a special branch. But do not begin by learning what is required for a special branch or you will become a mannerist."

My final thoughts on this thread
 

Steve, I too have read that quote from Sargent and (I have Kinstler's book) and I agree.

I never set out to be a portrait painter. I think money was the reason I have pursued that special branch of painting. I love to paint people so people often asked for portraits so I figured why not get paid for it.

As I would love to do nothing but paint for a living (we all need some money to live on) so I have advertised myself as a portrait artist to get more commissions for that kind of work. but I still paint other subjects as well and I paint even when I do not have a commission.

My final words on this subject are this:

First learn to paint well. In other words understand the tools you use the painting medium you want to work in and then spend a lot of time painting and drawing. Once you can do that then worry about making money or if you do not want to be a professional Artist then at that time paint what interests you.

If you can paint what interests you and also make a living at it then that is even better. (As a illustrator I know what it is like to draw things only for money).

And always remember no matter what you do always strive to be that best. You may never be the best that does not matter.

If you want to paint a great still life then do it until you get at least one you are happy with. Do not give up after one failed attempt and say that you are no good at still lifes. If you want to paint landscapes then do the same for that subject.

You must first learn to see then you can paint.
Can I paint all 3 equally as well?? Probably not as well as one who specializes in one of the special branches but but I will never say "I Can't" or "I am no good at it".

I feel the first stage of failure is to admit you will fail even before you try. More then a few talented artists have commented on this subject and I do not claim to be better then any of them my advice is do not sell yourself short (Karin) you are probably better at painting that subject that gives you such pains then you admit. And if not then well then maybe that is a good subject to start painting more of.

Since most of the members in this forum are portrait artists think about your first portrait was it equal to what you paint today? I will bet not. Apply the same amount of passion to the other subjects and you may be surprised at just how good you can be at it. (Karin I do not mean to single you out; it is that you started the thread so I mentioned your name and also I felt you fit the example of a talented artist)

Good luck to all who have posted on this subject and lets all thank Karin for bring it up and giving us all food for thought.

And now, let us all go to the easel and paint a painting that falls in the category we find difficult. It will be great fun to see examples from all that have posted. I'll bet you will be surprised at just how good you can be at it.

I agree with most of what's been said.

I've always felt that desire is the prime motivating factor in doing anything well. If you want it bad enough, you'll devote the time, energy and resources required to achieve it.

As to the division of these three disciplines in subject matter ...

Like many of us, I get the most satisfaction from painting people; not necessarily "portraits". Helen Van Wyck liked to say that if you could paint a convincing bowl of apples, you can paint portraits. (Sorry, Helen. I don't like to paint apples.) Some still-lifes appeal very much to me, but by the same token, I believe I'll go to my grave before I paint a vase of flowers. I've developed a basic aversion to painting almost anything man-made as well; don't like straight lines, although ironically there are all kinds in what I'm working on now. Have never done an "architectural" painting, and maybe never will.

Landscapes? More interesting than still-life to me, but how many can you paint without trees? (I absolutely despise painting trees (perhaps because I can't do them well, or at least it would take far too much time than I'm prepared to allow to satisfy myself. I wish I could throw out all my greens! What a wretched colour to paint with.) I'd like to do more figure paintings outdoors, where the landscape-y part would be incidental to the person/people in the scene. Winter landscapes are great, and may be explained by the above.

In the final evaluation, we'll likely do what we like, economics aside.

Well, what started out to be a fun a light-hearted subject certainly got some subjective comments later on. John Singer Sargent may have been an amazing artist, but I found his quotes to be rather pompous. "If he is only a good portrait painter, he is nobody?" What kind of nonsense is that?

I remember Helen Van Wyk and the apples. She wanted to paint portraits but her teacher told her she wasn't ready until she could paint an apple, and then be able to tell that apple from the rest in the bowl! I think people are a little more distiguishable than apples, but OK. People that "teach" art tend to only teach their own favorite methods. I'm glad I used books by various art teachers to learn to paint. I liked being free to accept, reject, adapt, adjust and ignore advice.

I suppose this is what the real Cafe Guerbois was like where the artists got together and traded information, advice, controversy, and yes, even insults.

And now off to the easel...where I will paint an apple. Yuck!

I enjoyed reading everyones comments. I really believe that the greatest challenge an artist has is to be able to integrate anything necessary into a painting. Most of the painters I truly admire can do this. I intend to keep working at it till I can do it all really good. (whatever that is) I may die trying but I think you have to have that attitude. Still lifes seem kind of boring to me, but that's the only reason I havn't done them much.

Some thoughts
 

I loved the sound of this topic and could not resist to post a few things. I think in fairness to portrait painters...there are lots of great landscape painters doing wonderful work that don't really draw very well. As they strive to nail depth of miles they let go of details and precision and we usually don't care. I paint all three things although not well. It is I believe good for artists to fiddle with it all. Here are a few images...I'll see if I can figure out how to get them all on this one post.

A floral still
 

This is a small floral still also painted from life.

Landscape or two
 

Loss of public identity or at least that the galleries and the public don't associate your work with a specific, given field is a true problem. I fought for years not to be, "the guy that paints onions", or "the Grand Canyon" or "wildflowers"...freedom has it's price. Now, I sell figures and stills and landscapes all in the same gallery. I teach workshops for stills and for plein air landscapes. I am, and my work is; "All over the board" It's my goal, to one day to have people recognize a style that transcends subject matter. we'll see...

Aspens back lit
 

This is a huge oil of Aspens about 40x60"

Figures and Portraits
 

I try to paint figures and not true portraits every chance I get since the demands of clients can be pretty tough. I'm nearly finished with a painting of my daughter. I'd like to know if you all think it a portrait or a figurative piece and i'd like to hear how you term the difference.

I posted some fgures in the critique forum last week.