Picture in your mind

[Celeste McCall]

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.

[Henry Wienhold]

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.

[Celeste McCall]

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.

[Michael Fournier]

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

[Celeste McCall]

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.

[Celeste McCall]

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

[Marvin Mattelson]

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.

[Celeste McCall]

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.

[Michael Fournier]

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.

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

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.s short.

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.

[Chris Saper]

don't see a need for pictures to use for reference, unless you are painting to get a likeness for a client, of course.

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.