Go for excellence in portraiture

[Claudemir Bonfim]

I always listen carefully to what Bill says, I think I've read everything he's written in the forum.
I cannot always hire a model to sit for me, so I follow Caravaggio's example on exercising with a mirror. I love to work from life, it gives me a pleasure that I cannot explain in words, I take advantage of every single opportunity to work from life.

[Steven Sweeney]

I have drafted and now deleted three pretty long posts for this thread, because I have some strong feelings about the wisdom that Mr. Whitaker has offered. What the heck, here goes.

My opportunity to receive the training in the classical fundamentals was so far beyond my means and experience and ability that I worked in embarrassment, albeit very earnestly so, for years and yet will simply always feel blessed by it, even if I have made less of it than I might have. I paid a very high price for that opportunity, and only in retrospect can I say "gladly."

Fact is, most of the reference photographs I've seen on the Forum have been awful, sorry to have to say, though I don't often assume the role of curmudgeon here. And though those photos provided convenient excuses for the resultant flaws in the paintings, the fact is that the reference photographs revealed the (lack of) artistic sensibilities of the artist, not an aesthetic failure of the subject. If the artist had known what he or she was after, in terms of fundamentals, the photo would not only have likely been perfect, but it would have been unnecessary.

When I came on board the Forum many years ago, it was the case that even to admit you'd copied a photo was something you protected from disclosure. Now, a few competitive years later, we're proudly displaying our photography skills and our ability to copy those intermediary renderings.

I work for a publishing company whose competitor stole our editorial stuff for years, in the early Internet anything-goes days -- let's call that competitor the Smith Corp. -- and it happened that we produced a t-shirt with an image of a photocopy machine with the legend, "The Smith Editorial Department."

Sadly, that's the level that we're working at when giving up on life, on the real thing, and just copying an intermediate rendering already produced in another flawed, however instrinsically beautiful, medium. Nothing wrong with photographs, but you can't train your eye that way.

If one simply cannot find models -- family members, paid street urchins, kaffeeklatsch sipping buddies -- and, so, cannot proceed save by artifice . . . it may be best to stop. Many schools continue to offer degrees in accounting and archaeology, as well as studio art.

Or continue in portraiture, for the self-fulfillment of it. But don't wonder why your fiddle doesn't play Bach, while you go to book club. Or why the absence of a photograph leaves you completely unable to work.

[Kimberly Dow]

Originally Posted by Steven Sweeney

cannot proceed save by artifice . . . it may be best to stop. Many schools continue to offer degrees in accounting and archaeology, as well as studio art.

This subject comes up every so often here - with great passion. And certainly no one would dare take on the esteemed artists here on this thread about this issue. Those who work mostly from photos and have reached a certain level of sucess with them stay off these threads and don't participate.

Who can possibly argue that working from photos is better? Of course not - every artist that isnt still in diapers knows this.

What Bill said above at the begining of this thread was a call to arms for artists to get better. It is not only noble - but highly prized advice from a well-respected, talented, kind and generous artist as well as teacher.

Some of the comments that follow are not so kind.

What some of you may call 'excuses' - I call Jamie, Dailey & Jacob.
Or...mouths to feed.

I will not accept that not having the means to hire live models for every painting session will result in poor paintings. Nor will I listen to nonsense from artists who want to say that if you cant do that - you should pick another career.

Those of you speaking about sacrifices... How many of you would take grocery money from your family to pay a model? How many of you have painted 12 hours a day or more for years and years? Or gone without meals to be able to afford to take a workshop with a master painter?

I wont argue the 'from life' is better - no doubt about it. We should all be encouraged and reminded of this from time to time.

I will argue though that with enough study, skill and hard work...even without a live model - great paintings can be made. Maybe not as often - but it can be done. With enough determination - many many obstacles can be overcome. And working from photos is an obstacle.

I also refuse to be ashamed of the way I work. Am I working under the best possible conditions? No. Nor am I using the best easel, or best brushes...or had the best training. I would go so far as to say that hard-core determination will beat out the best circumstances any day.

In honor of myself and others here who work from photos for the most part - for whatever reasons....I would just like to say that professional respect for colleagues went a little south in this thread. When disparging others working methods it might be wise to use words carefully..... or some things could be construed as disrespectful. Im sure none of us wants that.

[Steven Sweeney]

Actually, during much of the three years that I spent going back for intensive instruction in the fundamentals, I had two school kids at home and I was the only parent around. All I did during that time was take care of the kids, transport them around to school and Scouts, band and sports, and whatever else, and go to the studio, an hour

[Patricia Joyce]

[Dennis Miller] was like most artists, quite poor. When he could not afford a model he would buy a single rose and paint that.

Check out Paul Foxton, a new member here, and what he is doing on a daily basis http://www.learning-to-see.co.uk .

I greatly admire his daily cafe sketches and the approach he is taking to re-learning color in his series of single pieces of fruits or vegetables.

[Geary Wootten]

Bill,

What a great thing you have posted. It's a much needed spark for me. I need to hear this because I use photographs in about 90% of my illustration work and in my brand spankin new portrait commission work. But, here it is! Your statement for us to grab something really special. We are now admonished to reach and strive for that one-in-a-million prize of having the skill to completely do portraiture that captures a striking likenes of the subject without the use of photos - at all. This is obviously a gem to dig for with great lust and fervor that includes many hundreds and thousands of painstaking practice hours.

But, I perceive an already mentioned dilemma with regard to doing what has been laid before us. For instance, nearly 100% of the full time professionals I see use photo references to get the work done. In fact, I see all but one here in this thread (so far) that states quite clearly in their websites and on posted works in the other sections, that specifically use photos in their portraits. And I believe we all would know why. It's as Sharon just stated. "It's what the client wanted."

So, my question to myself is, what do I do....use the photos for my "day job" then, practice like a maniac at every other spare moment for the true prize of mastering a pure free hand?

~Gear

[Patricia Joyce]

I have taken two Marvin Mattelson workshops and painted from life, twice. What an incredible experience, what beautiful colors to observe under good lighting, FROM LIFE.

Having made the decison to seriously begin my studies in portrait painting, I am moving to Gainesville, GA, to live as cheaply as one can. And I am not taking a computer. And I only own a small cheap digital camera, so in essence will not have a camera to use.

There will be no laptop next to my easel.

I hope I will find models to pose for me, or at least a good mirror! Why wouldn't any serious student want to learn as the masters she so admires? I think it will be absolutely necessary to learn from life before thinking of learning how to use reference photography.

I have read about many artists' studio set ups and practices here over the years. The system that makes the most sense to me is to have the client sit intitially, mainly to learn the subject and then to have a strong color study. Then one can utilize photography as an aid in executing the painting (few clients can or are willing carve out time for several live sittings). Towards the end of the painting call back the client for one more sitting, to review and readjust any color discrepancies.

I am a relative babe in the woods with painting, but I do not believe I am being too idealistic. I have seen paintings receive oohs and ahhs that simply look like copied photographs, right down to some obnoxious chotsky on a table in the background just because it was in the photo. Where is the breath of life, one searches for and hopes to find in a work of art?

[Tito Champena]

"Reference photo" is the name for an excuse for painting from a flat surface to another flat surface and then wonder if one has achieved the "likeness". I believe that to achieve a 100% likeness is better to leave the photo alone. Rembrandt had some of his portraits rejected because of not having sufficient "likeness" . Singer Sargent would care less about an absolute "likeness", he painted his sitters taller and beautiful and no sitter got mad at him for not getting the "likeness". If you had seen the actual photos of some of the famous people he painted, you will notice how different they were from his portraits. I do agree that nobody should try to paint realistically if one is not sufficiently skilled with drawing, but this skill should be used to make an artistically beautiful painting and not as a substitute for the camera. Rembrandt and Sargent were skillful enough to have rendered photo-realistic pictures and yet they refused to do so. The goal or objective of a painter should be only one: to get better. To me, the search for perfection had nothing to do with the artist's professional or commercial goals. Whether a painting is beautiful or ugly does not depend on having achieved a likeness or not, but on whether the painting as a whole, inspires emotions on the onlooker or not. Nobody knows how the real Gioconda's wife used to look, because there are no photographs of her, but Leonardo's famous Mona Lisa still overwhelms me.

[Jeff Fuchs]

Okay, I have to admit, this is a subject that

[Tito Champena]

Some portrait painters of renown have told me that after you have mastered the skill of painting from life, you may use photos because by that time, you will be able to edit the photo and not copy it. When you can paint from life, you will discover that a photography carries many errors that you have to discard and screen out, such as wrong values and distortions from the lens. Besides, a photo reproduces only one single and brief look of the sitter that may or may not be characteristic of his personality. Painters who are only interested in getting a likeness can certainly get it quickly from a photo, but a portrait is supposed to represent more than a likeness.
Frequently they ask you to reproduce your "photo reference" along with your painting before they can give you a critique. Jeff is right when he says that most of the critiques center on pointing out "errors" of drawing, by comparing your painting with the photo, as if the "likeness" is the only thing important in a portrait. I said before that some of the most famous portraits in the museums are considered masterpieces, even though there are no photographs of the sitters, available to compare. To me, a portrait has to be looked in its totality, no piecemeal. A portrait does not only represent the sitter but also the painter, a photo only represents the surface appearance of the sitter and leaves out the person and also the painter. Finally, I want to say that before painting, one has to master drawing, just like writers who have to know their grammar before attempting to write.