Stylistically speaking

[Mike McCarty]

I would like to address a question to my up north buddy Marvin M., and of course to anyone else who might wish to comment.

Marvin, it

[Stacey McEwen]

I'm not Marvin (obviously) but I just wanted to jump in and point out that the buying public pays VERY handsomely to obtain the works of more "painterly" painters such as Richard Schmid and Morgan Weistling. If either of these men offered commissioned portraits, I think they would easily take their places among the most sought after portrait painters in the country.

I don't think visible brushwork necessarily equates to a non-flattering portrait - this is highly dependant on the skill of the artist. Traditional portraiture is by nature very refined and realistic, but I think the buying public would also support a market for more "loose" work if there were a large number of highly capable portrait artists working in that manner.

Then again, maybe I think differently because I live out West where I gather high society is a bit less "sophisticated" than on the East coast and in the South

[Mike McCarty]

.

(save for the very successful and established practitioners)

Stacey,

My question is more to the artist lower down the food chain, that have not arleady established their credentials. Those looking for work.

[Michele Rushworth]

When my clients and prospects wish to pay what they feel is the highest compliment to my work they say "Oh, it looks just like a photograph!" Of course, that's not what I like to hear, (I was aiming for something better than a photograph, actually) but that style seems to be what they like to see, and what impresses them most.

I like a painterly style, though it doesn't show much in my portraits. I think the style I am gravitating toward is having fine precision in faces and hands, and more painterly backgrounds and clothing.

[Stacey McEwen]

Sorry Mike, I guess I missed that line But the thing I was trying to get at is that a number of people who have approached me about doing portraits for them have actually requested a more impressionistic style - especially for portraits of children. These people have seen the looser works of some of these well-known painters, and also admire the likes of Monet, Renoir etc. They often want exactly what Michele described - fine precision in hands and faces with a more painterly background and clothing. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of professional portrait artists out there who choose to paint in that style, and I guess that's what you're getting at with this post (i.e. are there few because the market does not support those who try it?). So I'd love to hear Marvin's experienced opinion on that, as you requested!

I am a very BOTTOM of the food chain artist, and I personally find it tough to blend the tight drawing required to get a likeness with a looser style. I think if I were skilled enough right now to do more "painterly" portraits, they would sell, but my inexperience limits me.

[Mike Dodson]

When it comes to artist's who use a combination of what we call a "painterly" style coupled with realism, John Howard Sanden comes to mind. If there ever was a stylistic approach I'm reaching for it would certaily be his.

[Michele Rushworth]

Yes, Sanden, Sargent (for his commissioned work, not his "studies") and Velazquez' children's portraits are what I'm aiming for too.

[Marvin Mattelson]

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.

[Mike McCarty]

Thanks Marvin, I think I get your drift.

[Michele Rushworth]

Perhaps I should clarify: I paint the way I do because I love it. I study with people like Tony Ryder and Bill Whitaker because their very tight work stops me in my tracks. I also find Sargent's looseness as well as the work of Claude Monet to be quite breathtaking. Painting tightly detailed faces with more painterly backgrounds and clothing covers both bases for me, and makes my clients happy too.