Do any of you ever get the picture in your mind, say of your own children, for instance? Then paint from that?

Painting by using our mind's eye is fun. That way we can change the direction of light and the shadows.

For instance, right now I can see (picture in my mind) a baby. Can't remember whose it was, and she has a blue gingham dress and she's playing with a ball on an auburn wood floor. The view is floor level and she is leaning over with one arm outstretched toward the red and white sailor ball. She's very cute. And this may be rather uncomfortable for some artists to understand, but I can move around her with the camera in my head and see her from every direction. She's very animated and moving about and looking up and smiling and then looking at the ball and then she's concentrating on getting the ball.

Am I the only one that does this? Surely not.

This is really important for me when painting florals, fruit etc. It forces me to use my imagination and my life experiences with light and shadows. I never use photographs when painting these. Just my mind's pictures. That way I can twist a leaf the way that I want it to, so that it can point to something else or back up to the focal area.

The best way to get a likeness in portrait painting is to see it in reality without a photograph and then paint it right then and there as we all know, of course. But using the pictures in your mind are also fun.

I once painted a cardinal (priest dressed in red) with the hood over his face almost to the bottom of his nose, and he was playing a clarinet and he was walking down a brownish green architectural hallway. I loved it. His hands were beautiful. Don't know where it came from as I'd never seen it before, but it was vivid enough to paint it.

And no, I don't do drugs, or alcohol, and I'm not mentally impaired. :) Just so you know. I just consider it a gift from God.

I need reference
 

I have tried several times to paint in the way that you describe, by just using my imagination. My attempts at painting and drawing without reference, or observing a subject have always left me feeling short changed. I have never been satisfied with the results. Although I think it may be very beneficial to practice drawing from your imagination without looking at a subject. This method probably helps a person dig deeper, possibly developing and increasing ones concentration level. Maybe improve your skills somewhat, sort of like stepping out of the box for a moment.

I once knew a young man from quite a few years ago. He was a classmate of mine who could draw strictly from his imagination with fantastic results. His work was quite amazing, he had a special gift, his ability to work from his mind's eye just seemed natural for him, he worked very rapidly, everything for him just seemed to flow without hesitation.

Dear Henry,

That is great that he can do that. It's also great even if an artist uses only photos to paint from. I hope that no one would think that I am saying that photographs are not necessary for portraiture.

I'm just saying that there are alternatives that will help one get completely original pictures by not using photographs.

We were discussing the legal issues in another forum about using pictures that were not our own and I was just trying to say that our minds are so full of original pictures that I really don't see a need for pictures to use for reference, unless you are painting to get a likeness for a client, of course.

I understand that when painting for the public then it is very important to have photos for reference. I would prefer to get to know the client. Use pictures that they like and also take some pictures of them as well. Then go home and formulate a plan. Then see what's in my minds eye about them, then present the ideas to them. Then have the clothing, background, props etc. ready for live painting with the person. That to me is the ultimate creative experience.

Using photographs entirely is, to me anyway, so limiting. Some photographs feel like they need a bicycle air pump inserted into the picture to put some life into them. Maybe it's the skill of the photographer that makes a great reference photograph? But even then, sometimes, I think that photographs "lie" when it comes to form and the correct colors and values.

Also, it's most important to use reference materials and I don't mean to say that this is not as good as any other way to paint. I'm only trying to say that there are alternative ways to paint any subject.

I'm most impressed with Henry Casselli's portraits. And I love the images of Carole Katchen. Perhaps both of them think a lot about mood and relationships in their paintings.

And I realize also that sometimes artists just don't have the time to get to know the people. They are just sent a photograph and told, "Could you paint Uncle Billy with a red smoking jacket and ascot instead of that fishing vest that he's wearing in this picture?" That's okay and nothing wrong with it. We all have to work with what we have available to us.

Thanks for your input on the subject, Henry. I really enjoyed reading it.

The mind's eye
 

Well I feel I must agree with both Celeste and Henry.

First I must side with Henry that the key to a good painting is good reference.

Back in college I was studying illustration and we would have assignments from story illustration to technical illustration. And the number one reason for a less than convincing illustration was poor, or a complete lack of, reference. Now most of us can draw and paint a recognizable object from memory and some of us can even paint a half decent portrait of a person we know well from memory. But it is a very rare person to near genius that can paint completely from memory and pull off a completely convincing painting of a person only from a image in their mind.

Now on the side of Celeste I have to say the former is no reason why we can

Dear Michael,

Thanks for the post. It was very thought provoking and philosophical. I agree with all that you said and Henry's as well. Both posts provided a lot of insight.

Here is a link to an (most of the experts that we have contacted agree) Franz Aulich painting on porcelain. His paintings were from his minds eye after he was familiar with the subject that he was painting.

This is the kind of thing that very few of us porcelain artists do. But we must do it to create original art. Otherwise, we would be painting photos on vases. Nothing wrong with that, but this type of painting has a bit of 'spirit' in it. Be sure to scroll down the page to see the other side of the vase.

http://porcelainartist.proboards25.c...num=1071497755

I also agree that painting from memory is like muscle building does for a muscle.

However, like I also said, when we are painting Uncle Billy then we might do whatever it takes to get a real likeness or Uncle Billy might reject the painting.:)

He probably won't like the smoking jacket and ascot that Aunt Myrtle wanted in the portrait either, but he'll probably put up with it as long as it looks like him and if it's not placed anywhere near his area of the house.

I'll try to find a portrait to post here. :)

Memory painting is a great skill and quite admirable. I think there are many pitfalls from working entirely from memory. When working from nature there are always little nuances that one could never imagine and quite often that by including these in our paintings we can capture the tiny but quintessential aspects that bring something to life.

By working from one's mind one faces the distinct possibility of being mechanical or repetitious. This may be sufficient in certain types of decorative applications but for maximizing realistic illusion I believe it falls short.

The great master's mantra was always work from nature (life) as opposed to making things up. Nature, however is merely the starting point, for the true artist reveals himself in the interpretation of and the selection within her subject matter. Nature creates and the artist perfects.

Photography is a great tool for capturing information, but most artists don't have the patience or the understanding necessary to master it and use it to it's best advantage. Sadly, there is an implied and intrinsic bias against photography by far too many artists.

Great painters have always sought to employ any advantage possible for their betterment of their pictures. To limit one's horizon by eschewing any potential avenue is ultimately self limiting.

Dear Marvin,
I agree 100%. Use the entire toolbox. Not just a few favorite tools.

And also, certain photographs are some of the most beautiful of all things visual. So they are a very valuable tool in that toolbox.

I think that painting from life is the absolute best thing to do. But those other tools are always there if we need them.

Your message was very wise and also shed some additional light on the subject. Thanks so much for your input. I enjoyed and learned much from reading all the messages that are posted.

I would never advocate painting only from your imagination no more than merely copying photos.

Marvin, yes photographs are a great tool. I do not deny that. But if the goal is to paint only what the camera can capture why not just sell the photos? After all an original is better than a copy, no?

I have no bias against photography. I use it often. I am also not a portrait photographer. The goal for me is not the photo. For me the photo is only a tool to help my mind remember what it saw, like a sketch. But what captures the intangible details that make a painting more than a representation of its subject?

I also feel that reference is essential. And I also do not deny the importance of working from life. After all how can you paint from memory if you have not first observed from life?

This is not a debate about should you use a photo or not or paint from life or not.

I stand by my statements that the camera has limitations and I will defend its strengths as well. I have always been crazy about getting the best reference I can. But I feel even the best reference is not enough. Something must come from within the artist for a painting to be more than just a good rendition in paint of the subject.

Ah, but painting likenesses, regardless of how, is what we are about here on the Portrait Artist Forum.

The challenge, and at least to me, the reward, in portriat painting is working to try to capture all the many subleties that make a person an individual, not a generic illustration. I would never dream of painting a person from my imagination. Perhaps there are painters who can estimate a direction of light of the subject, but I haven't ever seen it done with any accuracy of likeness.

Certainly generic grapes and fruit can be painted just fine for decorative purposes, but you wouldn't see still life painters like Sherrie McGraw or David Leffel or anyone else of that calibre just inventing light and shadow. It's quite common to see portrait painters who focus on accuracy in the person, then just paint in some generic flowers or bushes, or whatever in the background; some work, some don't. I am a big proponent of backgrounds that support the focal point, but I think that the degree of finish and accuracy the painter uses for the person needs to be compatible with the finish used in the background and other supporting elements.

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.

Dear All,
Here is the rest of the interview.

http://www.asopa.com/publications/19...ichardlack.htm

I think that all of us agree that it's the interpretation of the reference and the skill, the creative abilities, and the talent of the artist that makes the art great.

Also, that real life is probably the best reference, but that photos, memory, creative ideas, etc, are also useful and maybe even necessary to the artist?

Simple test
 

For any artists that believes in the worth and power of memory in painting it's simple; paint someone you know well from memory -- then paint that person while looking at them -- see which painting you like best.

Surely no one thinks Mr. Lack painted that clock or that man featured in the painting (included in the interview) from memory? It's important that artists understand where the important stuff lies. The painting from memory or the painting of souls is best left to the poets.

There is a big difference between painting from memory and painting from imagination.

I too do as Mr. Lack sugests after a life painting session. When the model leaves I adjust things to make them look right without being biased by the model. I remember what I have been looking at and proceed based on my recollections. This would involve mostly manipulation of values, edges and subtlties to get the spacial aspects more in tune with what I'm trying to present to my viewer. My intention would be to make the painting read better. I consider this memory painting.

However if I were to paint a portrait from my recollection of an old friend I would consider this to be painting from my imagination and not my memory.

I have an exercise I give my students after thev've been working from the model all day (5+ hours). I tell them to do a drawing of the model when they get home from their memory. Invariably, the areas of the painting they had trouble with would be the parts that were unclear or troublesome in the drawing.

One's lack of understanding, which is most essential aspect of drawing I believe, is always the culprit. It's a great exercise.

It was my understanding that the point of the original post was to try a painting from memory as an exercise to better improve one

Dear All,

For getting a likeness, there is probably nothing like real life and reference photos and improving on what we see. At least for most of us.

However, the Mexican artist, Gregorio, painted my grandparents from life and he painted them from memory and both looked exactly like them so I know that the feat can be done successfully. (He painted a lot of stamps for the Mexican government back in the 70's. Mostly airplane stamps. He was an illustrator also for a Mexican book about the Indian history of Mexico).

Would we want a genuine J. S. Sargent portrait that he painted strictly from memory or imagination? Would it be equal to some of his other great paintings? Surely no one would value it less because he painted it from memory or his imagination. His genius would transcend the process, wouldn't it?

I think Mike had a good point. Quote: 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 think you are right Michael, the ship changed course somewhere along the line. :) But it surely is interesting to see all the different insights. Very delightful.

I read the interview with Richard F. Lack and I like a lot of Mr. Lack

Dear Michael,
I agree with you on that for sure. I find that as we age our memories become fonder of the old days. And I have heard this so many times while teaching from some of the older artists. So, I sort of smiled when I read it.

Hummm
 

Well, the point remains that Sargent NEVER painted from memory, nor imagination (apart from what he could see or set-up) and seldom any photos. Life life life!-working from life for lively paintings.

I don't want my work to look like those artists who have painted from memory. The list of artists who never did is a far better list I think and is comprised mostly of illustrators. I'd prefer to been one the list with Hals, Rembrandt and Sargent.

What!

You better go back and check your knowledge of Sargent

I think it was the paintings of Santa Fe that have tripped me up. I loved the uneducated, unskilled Indian and Hispanic portraits. The portraits that they painted were from the reality of their imaginations, memories, and dreams. They are beautiful to me.

Memory or imagination
 

Since we are on the subject of painting from memory or imagination and who did and who did not do it.

Let

WOW! Great points Michael!

That was a very powerful and logical message. You are very intelligent and a great artist as well. And a very articulate writer. I sat there stunned. I had never thought about those things. Thanks for the really interesting posts.

Bougureau used statuary for his cherubs. Many of Rembrandt's paintings and etchings are less than realistic. Many multi-figured paintings have no shadows cast from one figure to the next since multiple model set-ups were impractical.

Artists were trained to do accurate drawings, indicating highlights with white chalk, in preparation for portrait paintings. The VIP subjects would come in for the subtle complexion notes. Hand models were used as well as lay-figures (manikins) for consistent clothing folds.

As I stated previously, most often the best realistic painters were the ones who were most clever at getting the best visual information to work from.

Yep!
 

Marvin's right again...just because it looked like magic or imagination doesn't mean some clever painter didn't rig harnesses for his models.

Illustrative work does very often appear from imaginative or memory paintings. Illustrations also appear in paintings that were executed in real life situations by some of the greatest of artists.

The illustrative images of Sargent

Here is another interesting quote about Sargent's art and his advice:

Dear Tim,
I think that the more that I think about this, then the more that I think something like the picture below is an illustration, even though it is painted from life. And therefore it's not really the fine art of portraiture that we all strive to attain. I think we all understand that getting a real likeness for our clients usually means traditional realistic paintings.

This was painted from life several years ago when I first started painting portraits in oils, so it's pretty bad. Rather crudely done. But I'm not going to fix it, it was a learning experience. I see a lot wrong with it now. :)

Thanks for all the input from all of you wonderful artists. I really enjoyed your information.

I think the difference between what constitutes a "portrait", a "figurative painting", and an "illustration" is mostly a matter of the intention of the artist and client.

If a painting is meant to show that "this is Harry", it's a portrait. If the intention is "this is some guy fishing" then it's a figurative painting. If the art is meant to sell the brand of fishing gear the guy is using, it's an illustration.

On that basis, I think your painting, Celeste, is still a portrait, regardless of style.

Dear Michelle,
I probably misunderstood what was being said about memory or imagination portraits being more illustrative (which I thought meant a more crude type of painting). Thanks to you I found a wonderful site that explains this better.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/illustration.html

Thanks for the information. I haven't had the time to do any portraits in oils for quite a while. Almost always teaching, schools, conventions, etc. But one day, I'm going to post an oil painting on SOG that is realistically painted in the traditional manner.

I love everyone's painting no matter the technique or application. All art is beautiful in my book. But especially all of your art. I'm really impressed with the quality of work that is exhibited on the SOG forum. Thanks go to Cynthia Daniel for creating this website.