What do we capture when we paint a portrait?

Michael Fournier · 10-31-2002, 05:42 PM

Oh, no, here I go again. At the risk of beating a dead horse I would like to again clarify my feelings on painting from life vs. painting from photos.

First off, I do and will continue to use photographic reference. But I must add that I do this because it is more practical to do so, not more accurate. IMO a photograph is a poor substitute for real live objects, be it a person, props for an illustration or objects in a still life.

I much prefer to make the transition from 3D objects to 2D representation of those objects with my own eyes, mind and hands. I would much rather have a person return 20 times to pose than to work at all from photos. But, most often it is not possible for the person to return more then once, if that. And when they do sit they often do not want to sit for more than a hour or two (with breaks of course).

So it is necessary to use photographs so that I can continue to work when the person is not there or when it is impossible to get an actual reference in my studio to work from. I did a painting with a tiger in it once and although it might have been cool to have a tiger brought over from the zoo it sure would not have been very practical or very safe for the young model also in the painting.

I paint as much as I can from life and personally I feel that I get a much better result from life than from photos. Now that is my opinion and the goal I strive for in my work may not be what another artist is after in their own work.

Now, many of you might look at my work and say well this guy's work is not the most accurate or most skilled so why listen to him? What I say next might sound to some like an excuse but I don't care, since it is only my opinion and you are free to differ from it. IMO it is not important that the drawing be accurate to the millimeter. It is about the mental image you have for the painting that matters.

I ask, have I captured the person, their character? Have I created a mood and is the image pleasing to look at? If so then I feel I have created a good portrait. If not, even if I have a exact duplication of a photo, I failed.

Sure, the camera is a marvelous tool. It can stop motion, capture a fleeting moment, and bring objects from far off lands into my studio as well as give me reference of a person's likeness when they are too busy to be there in front of me, or when they are unable to pose at all.

But personally I feel I can better capture the essence of a person when they are sitting in front of me than when I have a photo of them. You just do not get that personal connection with a photo you get from a live human being. That is what we as portrait painters have over the camera: personal interpretation of the 3D form in 2D. A camera has already taken and converted the form to 2D shapes and for me that removes much of the information and interpretation I enjoy. But I will not deny the value the camera has as tool for the artist.

It is not more accurate than your own eye. It may be more accurate than your ability to capture what your eye sees with your hand and brush, but unless you are vision impaired you see much better than any camera.

Another benefit I find that live objects and live people have over a photo is that I can change the position of my objects at anytime to make my composition better. If a hand in a photo is poorly defined or in a awkward position then you have to try and draw it as is, change it yourself, or take more photos.

I can just ask the model who is still sitting in front of me to reposition their hand. And these things are not always apparent at the time of a photo shoot, for what looks fine in a photo can look strange in a painting.

I will always prefer to have a person sit for a painting than to paint them from a photo. And lastly, a studio can be a lonely place working every day from 8-12 hours or more alone with only photos as company. But a live person you can talk to as you paint, you can get to know them, and that I feel can help your peace of mind as well as help you capture the personality of that person. Things that just do not come out in a short photo session.

When a person sits for a long time over a few days they settle in, they become more comfortable and sometimes you get something that you might have missed if all you were interested in was capturing the shapes of their face from a photo.

I have mentioned before Everett Raymond Kinstler's commission to paint Katherine Hepburn in which he had done many sketches and studies and false starts of the actress before arriving at the final painting. A quote from this section of his book comes to mind.
[QUOTE]Above all, the artist tries to understand the person beyond the appearance

Lon Haverly · 11-02-2002, 03:16 AM

I do not paint from life, but I draw from life, and I can say that no drawing is a "perfect" likeness. I sometimes draw the same person several times in different poses. Each drawing is different. Sometimes the likeness improves in the second or third drawing. Sometimes I will see a drawing that I drew the day before, and I do not agree with the drawing anymore.

The people I draw I do not know from Adam. I am totally and utterly dependent on what I see, not what I know about the person. Usually I can get a little bit out of the person during my ten minutes, but for the most part the drawing is very subconscious, and I chat and let the fingers do the walking.

What can be captured in ten minutes? Perhaps it is that person in MY style. Perhaps that is what the customer wants; they want to see themselves as I see them with my lines. When a person sees their image in a mirror, they really are not objective about what they see. They are captives of their personal prejudice. It is the same with a photo to a lesser extent. A drawing or painting from life, however, by someone whom they respect, is indeed a curious thing.

People buy my drawings because they see the results of the person before them, and are persuaded to try it. As a matter of fact, rarely does a person sit down for a portrait unless they have watched me draw someone else. (A portrait of someone else on my display is not very compelling.) They know that I will achieve a reasonable likeness based upon the drawing they just saw. However, sometimes the person is surprised at what I draw, in spite of the fact that they have perhaps seen several good likenesses before them. That is because I see them differently than they do. Perhaps I see something that they don't see at all. It is MY perception.

Perhaps, too, they want to see if I catch the same charm that THEY see in their child or friend. That experience is so much more dramatic when drawing from life than from a photo.

I am sure that most artists here are not like me, a "public" artist. It probably is not a good direction for an art career if you want to make it in the art world. Be that as it may, I tell you, there is nothing like drawing sketches in public. The support, the excitement, the drama is very rewarding. And sometimes, it pays!

Michele Rushworth · 11-02-2002, 11:12 PM

I used to be a "public artist", like you, Lon.

I did hundreds of pastel portraits from life, at festivals, for several summers when I was in college. These were full color pastel portraits that each took about 90 minutes.

It was fun, challenging, and yes, could be quite lucrative. I do remember that I'd get a lot more business if I was actually drawing someone. That would "draw a crowd", so to speak!

Cynthia Daniel · 11-03-2002, 01:58 PM

There are a couple of artists on my site who started that way. Three now-traditional artists I know did street portraits in Gatlinburg (sp?), Tennessee, which I understand is very touristy. They are John de la Vega, Tom Nash and Gordon Wetmore.

Lon Haverly · 11-03-2002, 08:29 PM

Interesting, Cynthia. My brother calls me a "street artist." I am not fond of the term. Sounds like a pan handler. I consider myself a very traditional artist, paying for high traffic mall space for twenty yeas. No offense taken, just don't like being called a street artist.

Cynthia Daniel · 11-03-2002, 09:06 PM

Lon,

Hope you didn't think I meant anything derogatory. In fact, I think "on the street" was a term John de la Vega used when he told me about it. He said they all did quite well.

Elizabeth Schott · 11-03-2002, 09:10 PM

Lon, don't you earn a living with courtroom drawing too?

Denise Hall · 11-03-2002, 10:52 PM

Hello Lon and all,

I am a knitter as well as a painter and belong to another list - the knitlist. On the knitlist often much is talked about KIP (knitting in public). Many times the knitters plan outtings to generate interest in the dying art of knitting by KIP-ing. Sometimes I knit in public and - like Michelle said about painting in public, Lon - drawing in public, it draws a crowd. Knitting won't draw a crowd the way and artist can draw a crowd (no pun intended) but the fact that someone is creating something beautiful or interesting is drawing attention to the "art".

I have personally always been completely in awe of the artist who has the ability, quickness, accuracy and raw nerve (for me it is raw nerve) to draw portraits in public. All through my life when I have encountered the portrait artist drawing in a surprising spot usually, without expecting to see them around that corner, I have stopped, been amazed at their talent and watched. One of the most talented artists I have ever seen was a portrait artist in my home town whom I was always too shy to even go up and talk to - even though I was "an artist too" and in school at the time. He worked in the mall, completed a portrait in under 2 hours it seems like, and many lucky people now have portraits of themselves in their homes drawn in pencil and pastel by this talented man.

I wish I had asked him to draw me! At the time I'm sure I didn't have an income at all!

I guess what I am saying is working from life in that way has to make any artist more skilled. It is like life drawing class all day long!! I would think transferring to canvas is much easier because of it. To me -- the drawing is everything -- and I prefer to work from life to begin a painting, whether it be portrait, landscape or still life. Working from a photo to finish is ok -- but of course, I would prefer life.

Sincerely,
Denise

Lon Haverly · 11-03-2002, 11:10 PM

Cynthia, it is not derogatory coming from you. It WAS when coming from my brother. I just like to clarify my identity for my own ego.

Sketching is for me not just a beginning, it is the ultimate fun of art.

But I never work outside, or at fairs. I don't do caricatures. I don't like insulting the human likeness. I leave that for Don Rickles.

Lon Haverly · 11-04-2002, 12:55 AM

Yes, Beth, I am a courtroom artist. I just finished a series in Portland of the Al Qaida cell arrested there. I can't make a living at it, though. There are not enough nasty cases for that. But, I work for all the networks (ABC, CBS, CNN) when I do work, which can be very lucrative.

I agree, Denise. I charge extra when working from photos! I lose the crowd when I have to work from a photo.

Keeping on the subject, though, it is surprising what you can capture in ten minutes. Here is a sketch that took less than that.