Dear Chris,
Great post! Good ideas and opinions.
I agree with Michael, too. I think that just rendering a portrait that looks exactly like a photograph or even exactly as they look in life is maybe great for the client. Most seem to like that. But without the creative input, it doesn't seem to have the mood or relationship magic that is in Henri Casseli's paintings for instance. Or Carol Katchens' paintings.
Also, I think that everyone is agreeing that using photographs, real life, and the creativity of the mind can produce more than a realist painting.
For instance, I love Marvin's little girl on his home page. She is done in lilac and yellows/golds. The entire little oval is mostly lilac as the shadows on the little girls face are almost the same as the color of the background. Now, that probably would not happen in a photograph or in real life. But his masterful knowledge has transformed the image in front of him to that super portrait. That's genius in my opinion. He used his mind's eye as well as his eyes.
Also, on Michaels's homepage portrait, there is a wonderful red that permeates the image. What vigor and sizzle that adds. Again, I don't think that the human eye can detect that without using the mind's eye as well.
One little note. Have any of you ever seen the art work of the savant that sculpts bulls in clay? They are picture perfect. And he isn't using anything except memory. So it doesn't take genius...just using that part of the brain.
The only thing that they don't have is the creative ability to make something that they haven't 'seen'. So they are repetitive. But there are a few artists that can render exactly as seen and be creative about it as well. But, they have just had a lot of years of practice at it. No genius involved..just work.
|
Threaded Mode
