Dear Chris,

Great post! Good ideas and opinions.

I agree with Michael, too. I think that just rendering a portrait that looks exactly like a photograph or even exactly as they look in life is maybe great for the client. Most seem to like that. But without the creative input, it doesn't seem to have the mood or relationship magic that is in Henri Casseli's paintings for instance. Or Carol Katchens' paintings.

Also, I think that everyone is agreeing that using photographs, real life, and the creativity of the mind can produce more than a realist painting.

For instance, I love Marvin's little girl on his home page. She is done in lilac and yellows/golds. The entire little oval is mostly lilac as the shadows on the little girls face are almost the same as the color of the background. Now, that probably would not happen in a photograph or in real life. But his masterful knowledge has transformed the image in front of him to that super portrait. That's genius in my opinion. He used his mind's eye as well as his eyes.

Also, on Michaels's homepage portrait, there is a wonderful red that permeates the image. What vigor and sizzle that adds. Again, I don't think that the human eye can detect that without using the mind's eye as well.

One little note. Have any of you ever seen the art work of the savant that sculpts bulls in clay? They are picture perfect. And he isn't using anything except memory. So it doesn't take genius...just using that part of the brain.

The only thing that they don't have is the creative ability to make something that they haven't 'seen'. So they are repetitive. But there are a few artists that can render exactly as seen and be creative about it as well. But, they have just had a lot of years of practice at it. No genius involved..just work.

Celeste, if you think that refering to me is a "genius" will get you brownie points, you're sooooo right. Actually, I think idiot savant gets much more to the heart of the matter.

As I stated above: Merely copying anything is never the point. The idea is to go beyond the inspiration of your subject, be it from life, photo or inner vision.

However one's energy can be easily drained from this lofty task when there is doubt or lack of conviction regarding the structure of either some or all aspects of the subject matter. And in my experience, that with which I have had uncertainty regarding, will wind up being overworked and less than satisfying.

It is my contention that the best realist painters throughout history were not just better at drawing or painting but also excelled in their ability to gather the pertinent information to make their efforts as convincing as possible.

I recently had the privilege of seeing Paul DeLaroche's painting the Execution of Lady Jane Grey, a monumental painting of great emotional power and technical virtuosity. I had just read an article about how DeLaroche constructed models of the room as well as the figures for perspective and lighting info. This is of course in addition to the painting of the figures from life.

Here's the painting.

Dear Marvin,

That is about as good as it gets. (The picture by DeLaroche.)

Also, your quote that you repeated is very wonderful. I'm going to print it out and hang it in my studio. Thanks.

I also love this quote from Vincent Van Gogh,"I dream my paintings and then I paint my dreams."

This artists memory paintings have a haunting look about them.

http://www.kemperart.org/exhibits/Ca...llfreiwald.asp

This is a quote from Richard F. Lack's interview on a website:

Q. Please elaborate on the necessity of having a highly developed visual memory in painting portraits from life.
A. Memory training is crucial to the portrait painter. However, you can't memorize well unless you're trained to know what to look for. I used to tell my students that one-third of every portrait is done from the model while two-thirds is done away from the model. For instance, while painting from the model, I will make careful observations and notations about placement, color, value and so forth. After the model leaves I will develop the work from memory, based on these notations. At the next sitting I will check the accuracy of this work, make necessary corrections, and go on.

This was very interesting to read.

I personally don't give much credit at all to process. I give credit to what I consider to be good finished paintings. If my memory serves, all you get to state is size, medium, your name and maybe the date. If you must post a placard giving qualifiers such as: painted in the dark, painted during a thunderstorm, painted from memory, then you will be judged accordingly. Best of all the portraits done from a photograph while standing in a thunderstorm.

The finished art must stand alone, no qualifiers, no art speak, no additional points given for process. All of what you know, and don't know, must stand without further explanation.

If someone can produce great portraits from photographs, from life or from memory, that's fine, but they have to be great first, without the knowledge of process.

I wish someone would tell that to the Seattle Art Museum, to remember when they hang their next modern art exhibition. When I went there recently visitors were spending more time reading the lengthy explanations than looking at the (otherwise largely incomprehensible) art itself.

Frye
 

Michelle, you must only visit the Frye to cleanse your palette.

Celeste, I'm with Marvin. Works that knock me out are those where lots of information is there for the artist. His example and story speaks volumns.

Actually I go to the Frye (a terrific Seattle museum devoted to realist painting, for those who haven't been) a lot more often than I go to the Seattle Art Museum. I just went to S.A.M. to see the Van Dyck portrait they recently acquired. Funny thing, it only had a couple of sentences of "explanation" beside it.