There've been some interesting observations made on this subject and I feel, as someone else mentioned, that in order to be successful in all three categories one must have the desire to paint the subject matter. However, I also feel that any accomplished artist with the "want to" can successfully render a portrait, still-life, or landscape.
I looked at the web site (the artist who paints all three genres) that Michael Fournier posted. There are artists who are not classical realists who are quite capable of producing fine landscapes, portraits, and still-lifes. Richard Schmid has been cited as one.
I'd like to mention some other artists who are noteworthy for their versatility: Quang Ho, Scott Burdick, Mark Daily, and Everett Raymond Kinstler are a few of the living artists who are extremely accomplished in all areas. Among non-living artists are Boldini, Sargent, and Fechin.
Kinstler in his book "Painting Portraits" begins the foreword with this quote from Sargent:
"You say you are studying to become a portrait painter and I think you'd be making a great mistake if you kept that only in view during the time you intend to work in a life class, for the object of the student should be to acquire sufficient command over his materials and do whatever nature presents him. The conventaionalities of portrait painting are only tolerable in one who is a good painter. If he is only a good portrait painter, he is nobody. Try to become a painter first and then apply your knowledge to a special branch. But do not begin by learning what is required for a special branch or you will become a mannerist."
|
Threaded Mode
