The tight finish vs......

[Julie Deane]

I've been hanging around the SOG for a while now, as well as perusing numerous magazines having to do with portraits, and I'm intrigued by something. It appears that the most popular portraits by far are the ultra-finished pieces. They usually win the big prizes. Yet, go back a generation or so, and less finished pieces were "in". I

[Michele Rushworth]

My clients seem to prefer a high level of finish. The highest compliment (in their minds) is, "Ooooh, it looks just like a photograph.' Actually I'm trying for something better than a photograph, but that's another story.

[David Bottoni]

I believe the pendulum swings in accordance to society's weariness of a particular style of painting that has overstayed its welcome and it then becomes the appreciation of an art style that differs from the style at the time. Eventually, every style becomes 'passe', but realism or high realism, will always come in and out of fashion due to its aesthetic and technical appeal as well as the indelible truth found in most works of art. I personally prefer a 'tight finish', but as Michelle mentioned, the client is always impressed with high realism, and who can argue with a paying client? If you are talking about art critics, well, that's a whole other topic.

David

[Stanka Kordic]

I am hired for my looseness. My tendency is to cringe when I'm told "it looks like a photograph" (out comes more paint). The important thing I've learned is that when you follow your heart, the clients will come...

~stanka

[Marvin Mattelson]

I think the point of debating tight vs loose is missing the boat entirely. Far too many are seduced by the finish when the underlying structure is what makes a painting good is immensely more critical. I see far to many aspiring painters trying to copy the surface effects of artists they want to emulate with no understanding as to why those particular paintings work.

To me, it is like trying to pick out an umbrella according to the color of the fabric.

I believe that good painting will always outsell trendiness, in the long run. We should therefore be true to ourselves and not try to second guess the fashion of the moment.

[Julie Deane]

Hi Marvin -

This is certainly not meant to be a debate. I just think the style shift that appears to be happening is interesting and thought I would open it up to comment. I agree that it is the content of a painting that makes it or breaks it, whatever the style.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Julie,

I'm not talking about content. I'm referring to the structure of a painting, which is then overlaid with technique. By structure, I mean the modeling of form, the soundness of the drawing, the value patterning, the color harmony, the edge handling and the compositional arrangement.

I think that when a painting is successful, all too often other artists try to emulate what they see and unfortunately few look beyond the surface. I see many wannabes emulating the brushstrokes without considering much else. If the structure is sound it is so regardless of the technique. Technique is like the color of an umbrella, the siding on a house, and the icing on a cake. These may enhance the effectiveness to a degree but are never responsible for the ultimate success or failure of a painting.

It is my experience that people respond to good painting. My painting heroes, Bouguereau, Paxton, Raeburn, Kramskoy, Ingres, Lawrence, and VanDyke, ranged from tight to painterly but when I look at their work this is entirely beside the point. They were superb picture makers who understood the limitations of painting on a flat surface and succeeded at the highest levels possible, capturing life.

This is what I feel should be emulated. Not style.

[Julie Deane]

Marvin -

I agree, I agree. I just don't always use the correct wording. By content, I meant visual content, as in structure, etc. But you state things much more eloquently than I ever could. Thanks for your thoughts. It's a treat hearing thoughts on painting written out well.

[Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco]

Dear all,
this is a painting by one of my tutors in school, I bought it to keep it in my studio and give it a look when I need a little reminder of what Marvin just wrote.
Ilaria

[Michele Rushworth]

There are many things for an artist to like about Ilaria's example painting (the feeling of volume, the color, the masses of form, etc).

However, to get back to what Julie asked at the start of this thread, I don't believe that a painting as loosely handled as this one would fly as a commissioned portrait, except with a small number of the most artistically sophisticated of clients.

Yes, we should paint in the style in which we love to paint, but as portrait artists we are also all "commercial artists" and there is still a client to please. Even the more impressionistically painted commissioned works I've seen have fairly tightly rendered faces.