Difficulty factors
 

Most artists, especially here, would agree that a successful portrait is probably one of the toughest subjects that can be undertaken by realistic painters. It can be assumed then that most portrait painters can paint a good landscape or still life. Indeed, many can. It would seem a natural progression. This was the way for 6 centuries. It was assumed, and stated time and again by JSS. Is this the case? Is this group of portrait painters also a group of still life, figure, and landscape painters?

It's assumed one draws then paints. Paints the easy stuff then the hard stuff. It's a natural progression.

Sargent
 

Like Sargent...

Or...
 

interiors...

Fechin
 

Drawing...

Fechin oil
 

landscape...

Tim: I would agree with you that some proficiency in painting multiple subjects makes one a better rounded painter and is worth pursuing.

I find myself doing a lot of figure work with landscapes as part of the painting, and I have done one or two still life paintings, but I lit them poorly and it shows in the painting. I need to do more.

BTW: I love that Sargent composition. It is so unusual and it really doesn't look - to me - like his normal work. The Fechin portrait is wonderful too - that is a man who understood value!

No brainer
 

Painting a portrait is the most difficult subject for an artist because any error is greatly magnified. If an eye is moved one iota to the left it no longer looks correct and the likeness suffers.

In the portrait there can be drapery and other props. All are still life objects. The background can contain landscape elements. And even if it is simplified it still needs to be considered spatially and atmospherically. It's all about perception and interpretation of what is in front of the artist.

Many so-called great artists couldn

Sargent could do anything he wanted
 

This is a painting I had the great pleasure of seeing yesterday at Sothebys Auction House. A mere $1,000,000 to $1,500,00 takes this baby home.

Today
 

I guess what I find interesting is how many artists today focus and produce only landscapes or portraits. I grant that many landscape painters can't draw well enough to do portraits and many will say so directly. But in the past artists painted everything. I'm thinking of Da Vinci, Rembrant, David, Bouguereau, Benson, Paxton, Sargent, Chase, on and on. It seemed the norm rather than the exception. What changed? And was the change for the better?

Marvin
 

That's a nice one I'd not seen before. I saw a portrait of a young girl by him (in person) recently that I had never been very impressed with in print. The work was altogether stunning in person.