Romancing the Stone

[Marvin Mattelson]

I'm glad to be here too!

Incivility doesn't work for me either but I deal with it. I've had contact with many crude exteriors that have housed hearts of gold. On the other hand I've dealt with gracious gentleman all too happy to stab in the back. I've learned to not judge books by their covers.

The day my youngest son graduates high school the moving van will be backed up to my front door. Meanwhile, my family and the wonderful people I am privileged to have in my classes provide me with a terrific core of nurturing.

Also the museums and the auction previews at Sotheby's and Christie's provide me with the greatest teachers that have ever lived.

And of course, the meditative and nurturing act of painting always soothes my soul.

[Michael Fournier]

Velazquez and Anders Zorn. Zorn worked from some truly awful black and white photos and made great paintings. It's no big secret how he did it.

Sure, I will agree that these are great artists, but how about someone still alive today that might be around to answer questions and give instruction?

Velazquez was dead long before film was invented so he would never have to deal with photographic reference of any kind. He would, however, ask the subject to pose as he wanted and in the lighting he wanted. You will not find a single Velazquez portrait with the poor lighting of a camera mounted flash unit.

As for Zorn's use of B/W photos - he took them himself with the subject in a pose and composition of his choosing, and these photos he used were supplemented by life. His photos were not flash photos, which flatten form. B/W film (even the glass plate negatives used by Zorn) has a greater value depth than does color film of today...and values are more important than the color. I am familiar with Anders Zorn's work and I do not recall seeing a poorly, flash lit portrait among them. And his best work was painted from life and not from photos at all. He did not even start to use the camera until late in his career. And, although he is dead so we can not ask him, I have doubts that he would create a portrait using a photo he did not take himself and without having the subject pose as he wanted.

I am sorry, but you have not convinced me that you are sharing practical knowledge that will help anyone here. If you think that a even a good portrait painting could be produced from this photo then kindly prove it to me - find a professional portrait artist that will take this commission based on this reference alone. I would love to see the painting. But since Anders Zorn is now dead I guess we can't have him do it; so who do you recommend one should hire for this portrait commission? Since you say "The great photo reference doesn't matter, and the ability of the artist does" who do you feel has this ability who is alive today to paint this?

My intention is not to have you prove anything about your ability to paint, since you may have a lot of training and knowledge beyond your ability to paint. But, please, I would like to know where you get the idea that good planning of composition and proper reference are not important.

Proper reference, unless you are going to have your subject pose and paint from life (which I highly recommend), along with good preliminary sketches, is of utmost importance to producing even a good portrait. Oh, and in case you feel that is a gutless way to work, I can back that statement up with quotes from some of today's most highly acclaimed portrait painters. But maybe that would not mean anything to you, since you name only 2 artists that are not alive today to ask their opinion on the subject. And the fact that a few of these artists actually have a page or a link on the SOG site which you so quickly discounted as not having the ability to produce a great portrait.

As for your advice:

Crop the photo a bit on the right, up to near that vertical fold of the shirt. You'll want to make the background a solid or near-solid dark value (like however you did it in the girl with the hat and the girl's back). Keep the picture to three or four values, the simpler the better. Bend the kid's right leg into the picture, resting it on the horse. Move the woman's right hand to the horse's mane, and point her left hand/arm towards the baby in a casual way.

This still will not solve the problems of the lighting which is most important in any painting, or the fact that the baby's leg is cut off. Also the fact that pulling off the changes you suggest without any new reference and without doing some sketches of the subject from life would be incredibly difficult. In the end, it would still, even with the most skilled artist, produce a less then desirable painting.

A great artist might be able to produce a well- executed painting from this but it would not be a great painting. And they would have to make up most of it from their head since the reference does not offer the information needed to make the changes you suggest. The artist who is posting this photo is not even close to the skill of Zorn yet you would have him go ahead with this painting that even a artist as skilled as Zorn would have a hard time pulling off. And you think that is good advice?

I'm glad you took the time to write, Michael.

As for Zorn's use of B/W photos - he took them himself with the subject in a pose and composition of his choosing, and these photos he used were supplemented by life.

Yes, he often supplemented them by painting from life, but to my knowledge, he always edited and composed to the canvas. He used photos to get perfect values in his paintings, and a general layout, not to mechanically transfer the subject

And his best work was painted from life and not from photos at all.

It's a matter of taste, I guess. I, and many others up here, think his best paintings were his bathers, where he did use photos.

If you think that a even a good portrait painting could be produced from this photo then kindly prove it to me - find a professional portrait artist that will take this commission based on this reference alone. I would love to see the painting.

You'll never find any initials after my name, but I would do it for $500, 16" x 18" or so. It's really only a two day job.

I would like to know where you get the idea that good planning of composition and proper reference are not important.

The composition is handed to you in the photo, and it's a dynamic one (I spelled out the minor adjustments). There are three main values in the picture, which is all you need for a succesful picture. If you need a photo to come up with a decent flesh tone, you shouldn't be a portrait painter.

This still will not solve the problems of the lighting which is most important in any painting, or the fact that the baby's leg is cut off. Also the fact that pulling off the changes you suggest without any new reference and without doing some sketches of the subject from life would be incredibly difficult. In the end, it would still, even with the most skilled artist, produce a less then desirable painting.

This is very, very simple stuff. Anyone that claims to be a portrait artist can do those changes I mentioned in their sleep. The only hard part would be painting those enormous glasses... seriously.

The artist who is posting this photo is not even close to the skill of Zorn yet you would have him go ahead with this painting that even a artist as skilled as Zorn would have a hard time pulling off.

I saw the painting of the girl in an orange hat. He would do fine (I'm not trying to embarrass the guy). Best of all, the commission giver would be thrilled, and the world would be spared another painting of a cello.

I'm sorry for the eye strain, I can't figure out the proper quote function.

John

[Leslie Ficcaglia]

I wonder how many people, excellent portrait artists or no, could actually extrapolate a baby's leg or a woman's arm where none existed in the reference material. In a recent post someone mentioned needing to begin drawing as soon as the model left so that the memory of the features would still be clear enough to obtain a likeness. People have varying degrees of visual memory; I could no more sketch in those details that make a person's face unique from memory alone than I could fly. Nor could I fabricate a leg where none was present in my material. When I painted the governor and his wife I changed the length of the shirtsleeve that the client requested because my reference photo didn't reveal that part of the subject's arm, and I didn't want to paint something that would not ring true. There is often a distinctive quality even to an individual's upper arm which I would be loath to ignore. So although I felt that Clive's reference photo provided him with some good information, I would definitely have needed more photos of the subjects to give me everything else I needed to make the necessary changes, were I to have embarked on that commission.

This is an interesting thread which is taking on a life of its own. Glad to hear that you've resolved the issue for yourself, Clive! Please share whatever comes of it.

[Clive Fullagar]

I saw the painting of the girl in an orange hat. He would do fine (I'm not trying to embarrass the guy). Best of all, the commission giver would be thrilled, and the world would be spared another painting of a cello.

John,

Far from being embarrassed, I am flattered at your perceptions of my ability based on a few photographs of my work posted on this Forum.

Do you have any specific references to all of those "cello paintings"?

Clive,

No, I was just kidding about the cello. I've noticed that one of the first things a painter (and parents) will stick in a kids hands are instruments and pets. There are probably more creative solutions.

John

[Sharon Knettell]

Mr. Finnegan, I would agree with Marvin that it can be of benefit to us to get criticism that sometimes disturbs the sense and security that we have about our work. It is even more important that we are familiar with the source of that critcism so we can judge its value.

It is easy to take potshots at us, we have our work up to review. I have asked you before to post your work as to be able to better weigh your advice and observations of our failings.

Sincerely,

[Michael Fournier]

Quote: I would like to know where you get the idea that good planning of composition and proper reference are not important.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The composition is handed to you in the photo, and it's a dynamic one (I spelled out the minor adjustments). There are three main values in the picture, which is all you need for a succesful picture. If you need a photo to come up with a decent flesh tone, you shouldn't be a portrait painter.

The composition in this photo is unexecutible to me as a painting, so, no, I think it is not handed to me. And who said anything about the flesh tones? And three main values? What does this mean? Personally, I would want a complete value range in my reference. The face in this reference is reduced to just features with out good modeling light by the flash.

This still will not solve the problems of the lighting which is most important in any painting, or the fact that the baby's leg is cut off. Also the fact that pulling off the changes you suggest without any new reference and without doing some sketches of the subject from life would be incredibly difficult. In the end, it would still, even with the most skilled artist, produce a less then desirable painting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very, very simple stuff. Anyone that claims to be a portrait artist can do those changes I mentioned in their sleep. The only hard part would be painting those enormous glasses... seriously.

Oh, I would like to see this simple stuff pulled off well. Even the great Sargent struggled with parts of paintings, and that was with what he was painting sitting right in front of him. You seem to have a rather strange view of what is simple and or your idea of a finish is different from mine. Although a slight change in a pose can be done easily, even the best of artist will have a stand-in pose in the new position or use their own hand or use part of another photo as reference when making a big change - and the changes you note are big changes, since the right hand is not visible at all in the reference photo.

Since you insist that it is easy, and that this photo has such great information, I must ask please post some of your work. I really would like to see it, since you have to be one of the best artists I have ever had the chance to meet. I say this because I have had instruction from some very, very talented artists who would still not make the kinds of changes without reference of some kind to guide them, even if it was just to do a sketch of someone else in the position they wanted.

The instructor I most admired would have refused to paint any commission from any photo (except maybe a if the person was dead, but in that case he would want many photos of the person so he could see their features from different views) since he only worked from life. Although he could paint from memory after his subject left he would never make changes like you suggest from memory. He would have the person pose again in the new position. Why? Because it is not easy, as you say, to pull off the changes as you say and not have it look contrived or unnatural in some way. Moving a arm more than 1 inch affects everything else, not just that arm.

[Sharon Knettell]

Marvin, would you paint a comissioned portrait from the photograph referenced in this thread?

Sincerely

[Marvin Mattelson]

Short answer: I would.

Long answer: I would have to be reimbursed for the amount of time it would take due to the fact that this would involve a great degree of difficulty.

In my previous life, as an illustrator, I frequently had to deal with creating believable paintings around mediocre head reference. I did a number of movie posters that utilized the following strategy. I would find models who looked similar to the subjects needed to be depicted. At the photo shoot I would recreate the lighting set up and arrange a composition around the original head positions. It's a heck of a lot more work.

Not all paintings have to be in form lighting (this is the most ideal lighting) to be effective. Norman Rockwell created some beautiful paintings in a front lighting condition (like the photo that started this discussion). So did the Pre-Raphaelites.

The bottom line is, I feel that I could indeed create a painting that would be beautiful and satisfying for the client. If people have an emotional attachment to an image and they are looking to have it manifested as a painting, they can be very happy with less than my greatest painting. Would this be as good a painting as one I had carte blanche on? Probably not, but sometimes great achievements can be manifested in spite of cumbersome restrictions.

I feel as a portrait artist, my first obligation is to please the client and prepare them for what I feel I can best do under the circumstances. Forewarned is forearmed!

I wouldn't recommend that anyone not in full command of their artistic faculties try to do what I just described. DON