|
Mike,
Excellent question. Style is what people see first. Tight, loose, soft, edgy. I could go on and on.
When I was a fledgling illustrator in art school, style was the most identifiable aspect of the works of the big boys. So there was a lot of pressure to have one.
There are two paths to finding style, evolutionary and contrived. Contrived is the much shorter route. Problem is once you do your imitation of someone else it's very hard to evolve. I know because this is how I broke into the illustration scene.
After about six years I had to leave the business for a year because it was so unsatisfying for me. I was totally confined by the stylistic cell I built around myself.
When I came back, I just started drawing realistically and what you see now is the ultimate evolution of my longer, but far more satisfying path.
This route, unfortunately, involves great patience but it results in real growth.
Many teachers teach style, because that is all they know. They produce watered down versions of themselves. Those that approach art through style tend to produce works that look the same year after year. I'm not going to name names here (sorry) but there are many out there whose work has virtually shown no change in twenty five or thirty years. This is a result of self imitation. They find something that produces results but it's a dead end street, artistically.
Bouguereau, Paxton, Rembrandt and Lawrence on the other hand, are great examples of artists whose art evolved during the course of their lives.
I do what I do because of the way I am. I don't choose to paint in a more controlled manner, it chose me. I can't let things be. Be thankful you're not my wife! When I hold back, which I often do, it's the equivalent of most people getting tight.
Some artists state that after several hours they have to stop because they'll ruin it. I'm just getting started. I like to develop things to a greater extent. In addition my work is always changing because I look at each new painting as an opportunity for growth. Sylvia at seventeen departs greatly from what came before. My current portrait of Pia has a completely different look.
I teach my students the mindset, as I see it, that all great painters used to approach their work. The style and ultimate look of their paintings are of little consequence to me. My goal is to have each student find their own voice and develop that.
I think Beth Schott's painting of her daughter Gwen is a perfect illustration of the student finding their own path.
Just draw and paint and your style will discover you. You have to be patient, though.
I don't worry about what trends the market calls for because trends change. The vast majority of portraits today are what I would term as the Sargent-wanna-bees. If I chose to work this way I could do two paintings a week and rake in the dough. I did the equivalent of that one before and have no interest repeating the errors of my ways, thank you.
There seems to be an underlying bias against the tighter style of painting. People are made to feel guilty for creating polished paintings. This is the Impressionist back lash. For some people Impressionism strikes a chord. For me it strikes out.
I think Michele is a great example. I mention her because she brings this up herself. She has a great gift but wishes she could be different. Ricky Nelson said, "You can't please everyone so you've got to please yourself."
I do paintings that satisfy me.
|