Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell
But I think the well prepared portrait artist should be able to execute a commission from life.
|
It goes without saying. He/she
must be able to do that, otherwise he/she is not a portrait artist, he is (at best) just a renderer. The photos are necessary evil, but a
painter should avoid delivering painted photos. Or, when such references are inevitable, [I]the painters /I] should avoid photographic look in their works.
I mentioned Burt Silverman. He really knows his trade and does it nicely. He sometimes paints from photographs, but you don't
feel the photos in his portraits. In addition, Silverman's paintings are in tune with ouir time (they do not look like a 16th or 19th century work) and he has a unique artistic voice.
Majority of contemporary portrait renderers can not do better, but painstakingly copy the reference photos. The remind me on all those copysts in the Chinese sweatshops.
Is it art? No. Should they be regarded as artists? In my opinion, no.
I think that the paintings should have a unique feel, different from other media. It is not just wheather to pursue tight or loose style. There are numerous brilliant highly realistic portraits done before the advent of photography portrait. But they were genuine artists - they were gifted, they do their share of practice, developed high taste and acquired elite skills. And, yes, never stopped honing their craft.
That's why their artworks mean something to today's generation.
Threaded Mode
