Portraits v. Landscape v. Still Life?
 

I have an unresearched theory about many of us realistic painters....and here it is....

It seems to me that there are three general categories of realism; Portraiture, Landscape and Still Life. Most of the artists that I have met are pretty good in two of these categories - seldom all three.

I do both portraits and still life, but can't produce a decent landscape painting no matter how hard I try unless it is in the background of a portrait or still life - no kidding. Every now and then I try a landscape but find it difficult at best...this past year I have only painted one that I am not ashamed of....ouch.

Has anyone else observed this seemingly odd phenomenon?

:exclamati Karin,

Very interesting that you should raise this question. Part of New Years eve after our grandchildren left was spent leafing through some art materials and wondering to myself why I had not made any attempt since art school to do much still life painting. Besides portrait in oil, watercolor and pastel, I have painted watercolor landscapes and bouquets of flowers but no true still lifes. Southwest Art did a series on Still Life and I am determined to outline some projects. I also wondered why I have not painted landscapes in oil and pledged also to do this in 2002.

There may have been a few impressionists who did all three but I will have to do some homework to find that this is so.

My favorite portrait and landcape combo painter is Sargent but I don't recall any still life's by him. I have also been impressed by Sir William Russell Flint who did wonderful figures and landscapes in watercolor but I could not find a still life by him either.

The artist that quickly cames to mind when I saw your post was Richard Schmid who was also part of my reading list on that eve and is equally skilled at figure, portrait, still life and landscape painting. The landscapes include harbors, city scenes, country, woods, etc. in different seasons, weather, and moods.

Early in my art training I found oil to be the medium that I had the most affinity for and relied on it for portrait and figure painting development. At my first job as a greeting card artist I had to develop my skills as a watercolorist and eventually did fairly well at florals and landscapes in this media. Perhaps this is a circuitous route to saying that you might want to try doing landscapes in another medium. The break from subject and media could help you get past whatever it is that blocks your progress.
I have often wondered if the thinking process, technique, and directness of watercolor as might be found in Homer and Sargent paintings enhanced their skill at oil painting.

Portraits/Landscape/Still Life
 

Funny you should mention it. I can do portraits and still life but I've rarely (if ever) produced a successful landscape!

Hi Karin, Jim, Michele,

I am laughing as I read this post, as I love to paint portrait and still life, and have never painted a decent landscape for my life...

People always say, "Oh if you can paint a portrait you can paint anything!" Ha. I think landscape is so very difficult to do well, and that there is really a lot to know, in order to incorporate it into a painting. (Carlson's Guide to Landcape Painting, what an excellent book!) I also find the compositional decisions unending...should I put this tree here, or to the right, how big, how small. At least for a portrait painter, there's only one right place for the nose, and one right shape. It's either right or it's wrong, period.

I have taken a couple of landscape classes, and I am so intriqued by the different temperaments. The landscape guys whistle, listen to the birds, hang out with their dogs, while the portrait painters are INTENSELY doing EVERYTHING.

The landscape painters seem to be having more fun!
Matt Smith, who is a terrific plein air painter from Arizona, laughs at us and insists that portraits are for painters who are afraid to go outside. I laugh too, since the last time I went outside, by the time I got set up, my canvas had a large, and I mean large, dried bird dropping right in the center. Try as I did to turp it into an "underpainting" the day just continued in a sort of surreal fashion. (I LIKE my studio.)

By the same token, the very compositional issues that drive me crazy in landscape, fascinate and please me in still life.

Burt Silverman comes right to mind when I think of a painter who excels in everything. By the way, Dan Gerhartz is another artist(taught by Richard Schmid) who moves easily and beautifully among all three genres.

Chris

Paint Still life? or paint Life Figures or People
 

Well My opinion is that if you can paint you can paint anything.
Now that said I also feel that you excel where your interest are.
If you are drawn to painting landscapes you will do enough of them to get good at it.
If you love to paint portraits then you will learn what it takes to paint a good one.
If you like still lifes then you will do enough to do that well.

I like to paint figures and portraits because that is where my interests are I find the human form infinitely fascinating but I do landscapes that include figures and I do still lifes as additions to a figure painting after all how often do you sit in a empty room with nothing around you?

So why paint people in a empty void paint them in real settings which will include a still life since most of us have things lying around on tables and put flowers in vases or have have lamps around. And unless you live far out in the middle of nowhere then you will see people in your landscape as you sit there painting so why not include them in the painting.

After all if life was like many landscapes (void of humans) it would look like a ghost town.
Not to say that all landscapes must have a figure in them but I personally find it that it makes a painting much more interesting and more like life if it does.

The real question is why worry about it??
Paint what make your work a great painting not a great portrait or a great landscape or a great still life.

Andrew Wyeth's work is a prime example of paintings that exceed the bounds of their subjects. He paints still lifes that are much more then a still life and he paints landscapes that are more then image of a place but are in fact at a moment of time in a persons life with in that place. And he has done this with and without the figures. In fact Andrew Wyeth's work is some of the greatest paintings done in the 20th century. Would they have been if he limited it to a figure painting or a still life or a landscape? I don't think so. He set out to paint a great painting and painting what he wanted without considering what it would be classified as.

Wyeth
 

Interesting that Michael should cite Andrew Wyeth as someone who could do any of the general painting categories that Karin noted. Noone is a bigger fan of Andrew Wyeth than I and I must say that I cannot recall a still life by the artist. A narrative accompanies so many of his works and it is magic that he can do paintings that suggest that someone has come or gone from the scene and you are left with wonder about who, why, or where they have gone. The closest to still life that I can find are paintings of the tools, clothing, or general evironment of the people he knew and became part of his artistic output.

I live within an hour's drive of Chadds Ford and the Brandywine Museum and have had wonderful moments going through this Gallery devoted to the Brandywine School. To have the chance to see his working drawings and studies is very exciting and revealing. He did many and usually they were scattered on the floor of his studio, stepped upon, and later saved by his wife Betsy. In many cases they are more exciting than the finished paintings.

I think Karen's post poses a bigger question than being able to make an acceptable painting in any subject so much as whether or not we, the artist, find the same drive and need to paint in one of these styles. I can paint a house but find it hard to do that with the care and enthusiasm that I tackle a portrait.

I would bet that Andy (I always call him that) would say "I can't do a good still life." It may be another another way of recognizing that the subjects we choose to portray are not arbitrary.
This is a very interesting topic that I have never given much thought to previously.

I also have been to the Brandywine museum when I was in collage in Philadelphia. I was actually a bigger fan of NC Wyeth at the time. And I still am but I have grown a lot since my days as a inspiring illustrator. I live in New England and spend most of my time between Connecticut and Massachusetts so it is a long drive now.

I used Andrew Wyeth as a example of a painter that just painted not as one that painted only portraits or landscapes or still lifes. I may be stretching the term still life some but, like I said, I do not much care for staged still lifes as a subject (the bowl of fruit or a vase of flowers).

I do not know him (Andrew) personally but what I do know about him and his father and their work leads me to believe that it is more about what artist are drawn to on a personal level that tends to guide their work more then their skill at painting a subject.

I almost did an ROFL (Rolling on floor laughing) when I read this subject! It's amazing how many Kindred Spirits there are. Karin, it's weird how you read my mind sometimes.

Long long ago, in a faraway land called Las Vegas, I started painting landscapes, you know the wet on wet kind with our lovable series artist, Bob Ross. Although I thought it fun at the time, I quickly became bored with the process, and started branching out and studying all kinds of different techniques, and gathered quite an art library. Once I came across Joseph Sheppards book I have mentioned before, I was hooked on Portraits. It was amazing how much better they looked than anything else I tried. I also did a fair amount of still life's. I have one of orange lilies in a gold vase I will never part with. I agree with Michael, if you find something you love, you usually find a way to get good at it.

My family was asking me why I didn't paint landscapes anymore, so one day I decided to do one. Good thing no one was around, it was an absoulute disaster! I grabbed a rag, dipped it in turp, and wiped the canvas clean! Whew! Maybe if I practiced them more, they'd look OK, but right now there's a big difference in quality between the two catagories for me! And I'm vain enough not to want people to see the difference!

Now here's the weird phenomenom, the backgrounds in my portraits come out fine, even the "landscape" ones. So what's the difference? :bewildere

Marta

Often we think we know where we are going with portrait or still life and proceed with great confidence to the least threatening part of the painting. The background.
I don't do many landscapes but when I do I like to spend a little more time doing thumbnails. this allows me to proceed with confidence that some of the big composition, value, and color directions are decided. And, unlike portraiture, landscapes present many items competing for interest and attention and deciding where we are going becomes critical. Nothing is more frustrating than chasing around the canvas trying to find some way to pull it all together. Sometimes making the finished painting as exciting as the thumbnail becomes the challenge. Thumbnails allow you to play and be spontaneous in a way that the "finished" painting might struggle to achieve.

Yet one more comment
 

Well this topic has made me think and I can't seem to forget it.

I was on the web at one of my favorite sites (http://www.artrenewal.org)
and ran into a article by this artist (http://www.maureenhyde.com/)
Go to the paintings page and you will see 6 landscapes, 7 still lifes and 6 figurative and portraiture examples of her work. She seems rather good at all 3 to me. :D

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.

Tim

If you have Photoshop you can combine images in a new page but it still has to be within the forum limit of 400 pixels and therefore will be smaller for each pic. I did this in my post for mediums, paints, composition and techniques, "edges".

figure in a landscape
 

Aspen Bath, oil 16x12... a figure in a landscape, this has been the most popular painting among artists that I ever made.

Magnificient, Tim! What a glorious composition.

I have looked at your very versatile web-site and didn't see this gem! Why are you "hiding" it?

The dynamics of your figure, the rocks, the water ... I'm at a loss for words. I am very much in that group of artists who admire this piece!

Congratulations.

There's a story..
 

:D I'll tell you why, I sent it out, my site, to a couple of "very conservative" printing houses and didn't want them to know what people looked like w/o clothes on. The oddest things can offend people.

Thanks for that review, I'll bask in it all day, Tim

Still from life
 

This about 16x9" it was painted all from life and alla prima

Photoshop is next
 

I just spent a ton on a new camera and etc for it-software will be next I suppose

I think its the psychological makeup of the person. The mind of a person who excels in portraiture seeks out the borders, fences and the confines of a portrait. Even still life has these elements. But a landscape is different. So much ****ed freedom. If my cloud goes here there it just doesn't matter. I think the portrait painter wants everything to matter.

I think Mike hit the nail on the head as to why I enjoy portrait painting so much. He said "the portrait painter wants everything to matter". Not only do I want each element in my paintings to matter (what kind of chair the sitter is in, what their facial expression conveys about their personality, etc) I also like knowing that the whole painting matters deeply to the people commissioning it.

If I paint a great still life there's a chance it will strike an emotional chord in someone seeing it, but maybe not. How excited can you get about pears anyway? But when I paint a portrait of a newly adopted child or a portrait of a client's mother who passed away last year (two of my recent commissions) I KNOW it's of great meaning to the family. That drives me to do the very best work I'm capable of and gives me immense pride and pleasure in what I do.

I wish not to misattribute the quote, so shall I say,"a famous" portait artist once said that all artists want to paint people. Speaking to this- I agree. Even after all these years it's still a drive I have. I used to include one figure usually a nude in a grouping at shows. It would always get notice. The veiwers then were compelled to spend equal time with my other works.

Clouds

I too have choosen portraiture over still life, landscape or whatever, and have some fond and moving memories and stories relating to the response from some of my efforts. I love it!

I must say, however, I believe it a mistake to suggest that because our work is more readily measured against it's specific goal and purpose and that the subject and execution of landscapes or still life is somehow an accumilation of things that don't "matter" seems unfair.

Once portraiture skills are developed getting response from those emotionally attached to the subject can be expected. For the rest of the world the subject might just as well be a pear or a cloud.

I have attached a painting by one of my favorite watercolorists (Roy Mason) who more that half the time will include people (Tim)(usually hunters) but selected this one because it came to mind as a good example of how a cloud can matter.

Jim Riley wrote:
"I too have choosen portraiture over still life, landscape or whatever, and have some fond and moving memories and stories relating to the response from some of my efforts. I love it!

I must say, however, I believe it a mistake to suggest that because our work is more readily measured against it's specific goal and purpose and that the subject and execution of landscapes or still life is somehow an accumulation of things that don't "matter" seems unfair."

I agree with Jim's statement. I had an experience this summer that relates to this. I went backpacking in the Olympic Mtns over Memorial weekend with some friends and brought a camera and art supplies in place of a fishing pole. (I don't fish) I painted a watercolor scene with two fishermen, both of them friends who had hiked with us. I had the painting at a local show and the wife of one of the men bought it for her husband for his birthday. This was his comment when he received it: "It makes me feel just like I felt when we were there." His statement showed me I had accomplished my purpose with that painting - evoking feelings of the beauty of our Northwest.

That said - I still love portraits, and somehow feel that I won't be a "real" artist until I excel at portraiture.

I will admit that about 3 seconds after striking the enter key I could think of a dozen ways in which the placement of a cloud might matter. It was a simplified example. I was trying to suggest that it "matters" to the portrait painter that they must accomplish specific goals. It seems to me that this specificity is something which certain types of personalities seek out. And it may be the (seeming) lack of specificity which may account for the dissatisfaction a portrait painter feels when trying to produce a landscape.

I remember from Atelier Lack that when painting a still life of fruit, you are painting that particular apple, no other apple...an apple as individual as any face you might see. When I look at Ivan Shishkin's landscape portraits, and they are portraits of landscapes, I could walk through a forest and find that tree. That tree which he has painted is unlike any other in the forest. If I might humbly offer for your consideration, that the reason so many of us grow dissatisfied with painting landscapes, is because we are not trained to see what the accomplished landscape artist sees. We see a generic tree (or cloud...) and say, "...this isn't interesting because there are no perimeters", but a landscape artist sees a tree, and a cloud, and a clump of grass that is unlike any other that has ever existed. When he paints that clump of grass, it is as individual as an eye, that cloud is as precious and fleeting as a smile.

Peggy

Sargent agrees
 

JSS said the same thing to a student one time and Fechin said almost the same thing to someone wanting to jump right into figures. Subject matter is just an excuse to paint and "stuff is stuff."

I have just found the difficulty factors thread and was directed to this one.

Karin, you say that you cannot paint landscapes. I would like to ask if you were sitting outdoors drawing or painting or working from a photo in the studio. Can you tell if it is the coloring or the vastness and wildness of the outdoors or perspective that throws you off? Painting nature is probably a specialty that requires a different spirit than portraiture and still-life work in a controlled environment.

John Pence
 

I was just looking at the Pence Gallery and was struck by how many of those artists can and do paint everything well in several cases. I see lots of Italian atelier trained folks there.

I attempted to clean my studio and while doing so found this old slide of a painting (watercolor) that I did folowing a business trip to the northeast coast of Spain where I completed a collection of screen printed cork wallpapers. This is a small commercial fishing boat. The lamps are actually oversized and used for night fishing. They actually use four or five lamps but the compositions/my ability couldn't manage that many.

The roses are something I often paint as gifts. I usually do them in white or red but knew the recipient liked yellow.

And the roses.

Lovely Jim
 

delicate

I have tried landscapes both outdoors and indoors. The problem until now has been composition, i.e., the organization of the painting. I had a lot of trouble seeing depth and objects located at various distances unify into underlying abstract patterns, values and shapes. For some goofy reason, it is easy for me to do this with portraits.

I have been working on this for the past few months and have done hundreds of little landscape studies. I'm finally getting it.