Picture in your mind - Page 4

Michael Fournier · 12-30-2003, 10:07 PM

Since we are on the subject of painting from memory or imagination and who did and who did not do it.

Let

Celeste McCall · 12-30-2003, 10:39 PM

WOW! Great points Michael!

That was a very powerful and logical message. You are very intelligent and a great artist as well. And a very articulate writer. I sat there stunned. I had never thought about those things. Thanks for the really interesting posts.

Marvin Mattelson · 12-30-2003, 11:39 PM

Bougureau used statuary for his cherubs. Many of Rembrandt's paintings and etchings are less than realistic. Many multi-figured paintings have no shadows cast from one figure to the next since multiple model set-ups were impractical.

Artists were trained to do accurate drawings, indicating highlights with white chalk, in preparation for portrait paintings. The VIP subjects would come in for the subtle complexion notes. Hand models were used as well as lay-figures (manikins) for consistent clothing folds.

As I stated previously, most often the best realistic painters were the ones who were most clever at getting the best visual information to work from.

Timothy C. Tyler · 12-31-2003, 12:05 AM

Marvin's right again...just because it looked like magic or imagination doesn't mean some clever painter didn't rig harnesses for his models.

Celeste McCall · 12-31-2003, 12:58 PM

Illustrative work does very often appear from imaginative or memory paintings. Illustrations also appear in paintings that were executed in real life situations by some of the greatest of artists.

The illustrative images of Sargent

Celeste McCall · 12-31-2003, 07:01 PM

Here is another interesting quote about Sargent's art and his advice:

Celeste McCall · 01-02-2004, 01:40 PM

Dear Tim,
I think that the more that I think about this, then the more that I think something like the picture below is an illustration, even though it is painted from life. And therefore it's not really the fine art of portraiture that we all strive to attain. I think we all understand that getting a real likeness for our clients usually means traditional realistic paintings.

This was painted from life several years ago when I first started painting portraits in oils, so it's pretty bad. Rather crudely done. But I'm not going to fix it, it was a learning experience. I see a lot wrong with it now.

Thanks for all the input from all of you wonderful artists. I really enjoyed your information.

Michele Rushworth · 01-02-2004, 01:53 PM

I think the difference between what constitutes a "portrait", a "figurative painting", and an "illustration" is mostly a matter of the intention of the artist and client.

If a painting is meant to show that "this is Harry", it's a portrait. If the intention is "this is some guy fishing" then it's a figurative painting. If the art is meant to sell the brand of fishing gear the guy is using, it's an illustration.

On that basis, I think your painting, Celeste, is still a portrait, regardless of style.

Celeste McCall · 01-02-2004, 02:18 PM

Dear Michelle,
I probably misunderstood what was being said about memory or imagination portraits being more illustrative (which I thought meant a more crude type of painting). Thanks to you I found a wonderful site that explains this better.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/illustration.html

Thanks for the information. I haven't had the time to do any portraits in oils for quite a while. Almost always teaching, schools, conventions, etc. But one day, I'm going to post an oil painting on SOG that is realistically painted in the traditional manner.

I love everyone's painting no matter the technique or application. All art is beautiful in my book. But especially all of your art. I'm really impressed with the quality of work that is exhibited on the SOG forum. Thanks go to Cynthia Daniel for creating this website.