Romancing the Stone - Page 3

Clive Fullagar · 11-25-2002, 01:40 AM

Interesting how this thread is developing!

Actually I am reassured at how most of you responded. Initially when the commission was discussed, I had not seen the source photo. When I eventually saw it my heart sank. Then the hubristic artist in me said, "Well if you are any good you should be able to turn this water into wine!" I think I would have been utterly intimidated if you had come back to me and said "Sure, easy as pie. Just do a little classical drawing of it first, slap in a little underpainting and using William Whitaker's palette you should, if you are any good, come up with something that is right up there with Bouguereau's finest pieces."

(By the way John, I am not sure how to take your comment that the photo "rather fits my way of painting" - as a compliment no doubt.)

However, this thread does have a very happy ending. Since joining this Forum I have noticed a strong need to improve and challenge my own art (something that the source photo could not achieve). It would have been very easy to do a painting that would have resembled the original source and I am sure the client would have been happy. But that is not what it is all about, is it? I would argue that the client is not the most important person in the portraiture process, it is the artist. Engage and challenge the artist and you are more likely to get a good portait. I think that portrait art would be in a sorry state if we catered to the artistic sensibilities of the client. And every time that I looked at that portrait I would have cringed. So, I have persuaded my client that although the photograph has tremendous sentimental value to him, and that I see that he has the potential to make an 'excellent photographer', it is not the stuff that good portraits are made from. I am in the process of convincing him that a portrait of his sons playing the Bass and the Cello would have the makings of an excellent painting. If he accepts this, oh my gosh, I will be back asking you about William Whitaker's palette.

11-25-2002, 04:22 AM

Mr. Mattelson,

Thank you for that post. It really exactly sums up what I was trying to get across. I can't think of anything else to say that you didn't cover right there.

John

11-25-2002, 04:36 AM

Quote:

By the way John, I am not sure how to take your comment that the photo "rather fits my way of painting" - as a compliment no doubt.

I maybe saw something in the paintings you posted that you didn't. I saw a lovely sense of strong, simplified shapes. I can almost see the painting that could have resulted from this reference, and it would have been good. I'm not trying to put pressure on you. You might want to check out the portraits of Louisa Matthiasdottir and David Hockney.

John

11-25-2002, 04:47 AM

Mr. 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.

John

11-25-2002, 05:04 AM

Mrs. Daniel,

I suggested the Studio Products site because I thought that Clive could benefit from searching through the forum there. I know that portraiture is big business and the atmosphere of this Forum reflects the heirarchy of the business. The SP forum is a much more hands-on, finding-solutions-to-problems type of place. They are two very different places, each with some value.

John

Margaret Port · 11-25-2002, 10:32 AM

To get back to the original question. Is this a good photo to use to paint a portrait from? I would have to reject it because the subjects do not interact therefore a painting done from it would not communicate anything.

The test of whether a painter is great or not probably doesn't happen in their lifetime so I would not presume to express an opinion on any living artist's work.

As for all the other discussions in this thread, all I can suggest to those who visit this Forum is that they read and read. I have spent years obsessively studying classical portraiture techniques and I have achieved a far greater understanding of the subject over the past few months since I have been visiting this site.

Cynthia, I have done many searches of the web and still haven't found a site which comes anywhere near this one for quality of information, classy appearance and ease of use. You may not paint portraits but you are an artist nevertheless!

Karin Wells · 11-25-2002, 10:47 AM

[quote]I don

Peggy Baumgaertner · 11-25-2002, 11:13 AM

In painting a portrait of one person you are painting that individual. If you are painting more than one person, you are painting a relationship. A child and a mother are no longer Joey and Sally, they are Madonna and Child. If there is no connection between separate individuals in a group portrait, I think the painting is flawed.

On the bad photograph brouhaha, in my classes, I find students going out of their way to make things difficult. I tell them there are enough challenges involved in doing a good painting without intentionally putting road blocks in your way.

It seems that every year I will have an excited student show me the reference material for their first commission. Invariably, it will be something like "...seven figures, full length, Grandma's in a wheelchair, and the finished product no bigger than 16x20." (I am not making this up, this was an actual "commission" a student brought to me. Oh, she would get $500.)

When I suggest the artist might be better served by turning down that commission and doing 10 noncommissioned 20x24 head and shoulders portraits, (which would take much less time than the 7 figure painting), they say they "like the challenge" (...see paragraph two....)

I'm glad you seem to have worked it out, Clive. Know that those of us who have cautioned you to, in the words of Steven Sweeney, "Put down the photograph, raise you hands over your head and slowly back away", that we are saying all this after learning the hard way that we only have so much time on this earth, and spending six months slaving over a bad painting that we will not be compensated for either monetarily, through knowledge gained, or by producing portfolio material, is not the best use of our time.

Peggy

Marvin Mattelson · 11-25-2002, 11:38 AM

I agree that this portrait forum is head and shoulders (pun intended) above the other forum sites and I too feel safe here. I appreciate the decorum and gentleness in which most of us conduct ourselves which is obviously a reflection of Cynthia's genteel demeanor. This is why I too choose to play here exclusively.

That said, I look for the meat of the message and not the packaging. I also am not offended in the least by being denigrated by someone I don't know from Adam, (after all, my work is on the site) even though, as I have previously stated, one of my goals is to be universally loved.

I may not agree with his assessments but I am always interested in hearing other viewpoints. I chalk up his lack of diplomacy to his unfamiliarity of

Karin Wells · 11-25-2002, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Sad to say I am no longer personally offended by a lack of civility. Living in New York for the last 30 years has more than anesthetized me in that respect.

Ahhhh, that is sad, but I am glad that you are here with us Marvin. I live in a small place where complete strangers smile and wave as they pass by. In my artsy little rural town we don't need our "deflector shields" raised, so an attack of any kind is a nasty jolt and sends us running for cover.

Anyhow, I find this Forum a breath of fresh air and so necessary for artists like me who live and work in isolation - yet want to be in the company of other artists. Incivility doesn't work for me.