On the other hand if one looks at Nelson Shanks' site they would see some really wild and daring portraits of some very famous folks. Ole Nelson, along with the Swedish Nerdtrom (sic) feller and that Siggy's nephew would lead one to go for the bold stuff.

Administrator's Note: Tim is referring to Odd Nerdrum. You can see his work at http://www.nerdrum.com.

I love Nelson Shanks' work but I wonder if he did the bold stuff when he was starting out, or if he does bold work for most of his commissions even now. His portrait of the Pope is very conservative as are most (though not all!) of the work on the portrait page of his website:

http://w3.icdc.com/~nshanks/gal_port.htm

...

In 1707 Gerard DeLairesse (who wrote an important book about painting) that painters like Vermeer were too modern or too trendy, because their images had no timelessness in them. They would be forgotten soon. We all know he was right, don't we?

Timothy - Could you please explain more specifically why you would want to call yourself a kitsch-painter? To me the 'kitsch-philosophy' is a personal PR-strategy by a respected painter, although Nerdrum likes to portray himself as a rebel.

What boundaries do you exactly feel, is it the 'shirtless'- thing, from this thread, or is it something else that you feel, that limits you?

Peter

Michele--

I'm as discerning as the next artist in regard to what one should include in a portfolio, almost to a fault. Most of my own work, to me, seems awfully safe sometimes.

However, the danger in underestimating the range of what clients will respond to is that it limits their ablility to learn what the potential for portrait art is on the whole, and moreover, it causes artists to "self-edit" and stop stretching for the transcendant image.

An atypical subject, stupendously painted, will resonate with even an unsophisticated layperson; they can appreciate excellence without necessarily being able to articulate why. Or at least that's my hope. We can't fault the public for expecting poker-playing dogs if that's all we give them.

But I realize that your effort is toward helping Kim get started, and it's a very generous and commendable thing.

Best--Tom

I just checked out the work by Odd Nerdrum. I do not know what I think about his work, but I do feel like washing my hands now.

Tim N., I did not dis Odd's work. I pointed out that it's bold and brave. Take care not to read to much between the lines. I think Nelson Shanks and Oddie's work is powerful. But O.N's self-portrait that got so much attention was not on the mere merits of quality. Shock effect gets press.

Tim M,
Thanks for the comments.

I hereby swear (right hand on the Art Dictionary) to learn all I can about photographing my subjects.

As I am reading this, Tim T's quote on his signature caught my eye again. I know I can paint this painting the way I intended. It will not be today and not too soon, but when I feel I can do it right I am going to attempt this pose again. Just for my own satisfaction. I will not admit defeat. I had a certain vision of this and it was not scary, it was endearing.

Kim, here are a few quick tips on how to photograph the boy if you want to try painting that pose again.

1. No flash.

2. Don't use a wide angle lens (or wide angle setting on a variable-length lens). This means that if you're using a camera that can zoom, don't use the farthest-zoomed-out setting. That will distort the features dramatically. Zoom in at least a couple of steps. If you have a camera with a detachable lens, use a 50mm lens. You may need to get on a chair above the subject to get the right distance away for this to work properly.

3. Set up the subject so that the light source (window, daylight, whatever) is off to the side enough that you can see the roundness in the forms. Don't have the light directly behind you.

Hope this gives you a place to start.