Cynthia can correct me if I'm wrong, but I treat the term "traditional" (and its cousin, "classical") as describing an approach and methodology rather than a restriction on subject matter or fashion. I consider myself a painter very much in the "traditional" manner, but you'll never see anything by me in which a portrait subject has been window-dressed in period costume, unless there's a very good reason -- related to the person, not to me -- for it. I'm about to start a portrait of my 13-year-old son. The only issue is whether the motif will be computers, skateboards, or electric guitars. The clothing issue isn't even on the table (if I want him to cooperate) -- it's t-shirt and jeans. That's who he is. Obviously I'm going to lobby (possibly vigorously, and in any event, I'll prevail) for the *right* t-shirt, and fortunately he has the world's most complete t-shirt wardrobe, but to put this kid in anything else would completely defeat my purpose: capturing who he is, right now, in paint. As for jeans, well, jeans are jeans -- but I am going to draw the line (no pun) at painting them with the belt south of the hips and the crotch between his knees. I don't care how they're doin' it on MTV.
Gosh, don't be depressed -- be delighted that you're capitalizing on your unique perception and perspective on what it is that you want to accomplish with your portraiture. It's going to be evident in and enrich your results.
Best wishes,
Steven
|
Hybrid Mode
