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.

Simple answer
 

Economics

I'm not sure but I think this subject has come up before. I would say that a good artist can paint anything but gets best at what they prefer to paint and paint the most of.

Marvin's short but well put statement of "Economics" I feel hits the reason artists get known for a particular genre. It is very hard to have a focused marketing plan if your portfolio has a few figure paintings, then one or 2 still lifes, then some landscapes.

If you have a lot of each of these then, OK, you in essence have 3 different but complete portfolios. But if you are starting out and need to build a portfolio of portraits then you need to focus on doing as many portraits as you can. Same goes for the artist that wants to sell landscapes. You need to produce more than just a few good pieces to convince a gallery that you can produce good landscapes with any consistency.

I feel it is personal preference that first makes an artist gravitate toward a particular subject matter. After that it is economics, both of time and the economics of the art market that causes artists to become somewhat specialized.

Marvin in one word hit the nail on the head, or is that "put the head on the nail" or "hit the nail on his thumb"? :)

Economics
 

This is getting off the point I meant to make, but the economics of today are not so different than those for artists of the past. If one tires of creating large portraits that must meet the approval of demanding clients one can go to the Alps and paint landscapes like Sargent.

If these works are fine, galleries will sell them. If you are traveling, like Sargent you can dash out a painting of a train stop with oxen and sell that. If your client is busy you can paint your hotel room and sell that while you're waiting for the appointment.

But before you can do the sales, you must be able to make the work.

You've introduced an interesting topic, Timothy. I'm not sure what other artists on this site do, but as a student of painting, I paint "stuff" every day. Or draw stuff. In the hands of a master, even still lifes tell a story.

I'm sure others on this site also paint landscapes, set up still lifes, paint cafe scenes, but because this is a portraiture site, portraits are what get posted. In other words, I don't think the professional painters here focus exclusively on portraiture.

Regarding the amateur, or the serious beginner, you're right if you're saying the most important thing is to paint, and that the way to learn how to paint stuff is to set up stuff and paint it. That seems like the most direct route to me.

Critiques generally focus on very basic lessons on form, edges, light, paint-handling, etc, and the the quickest way to learn these lessons is to start with the simple stuff. Set up a still life of two eggs and an apple, and render it in pencil or charcoal. Yes, I think quite a few of us could back up and study the basics for quite some time before we tackle complex forms like the human form. Quite a few of us need to backtrack and explore value and form before we take on color.

To other artists in my position, do not dismiss this as boring or remedial work. The other day I looked at the piece of sharpened charcoal in my hand and thought, what an incredibly sexy and powerful tool this simple object can be!

There was a similar subject to this if I remember correctly. It was a fun subject about how portrait artists are often good at still lifes, but not landscapes. Some such thing.

To be honest, I think you, Tim Tyler, are the most versatile living artist I have ever seen. You can paint anything, and everything you paint is wonderful. That makes you a very valuable commodity in the art world, does it not? Portrait artists tend to "specialize", but nothing wrong with that either. To each his own.

I too think that the best thing is to be versatile and excel at everything and therefore not have a handicap. A great example would be Bouguereau. Foreground and background elements in his paintings are top notch.

The earlier thread is: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=&threadid=333

Landscapes
 

The thing I've noticed is if you can do portraits well the rest can be learned easily. Landscapes require some aerial perspective and light issues but never is drawing so demanding as the human figure.