Jon, I’m not telling you how to paint, of course. If you look at van Eyck’s painting (circa 1437), you would never call it realism. But I find it great.

This painting was likely made in two layers, an under painting and an over painting, in oil, in different sessions obviously. There would also likely have been an underdrawing. On various portraits, van Eyck did more or less work on the underdrawing.

I say this because, as an artist, I have seen paintings so real that any sign of the artist is missing; therefore, the artist has left nothing for the viewer of “themselves” to be shared. Furthermore, by painting “Too realistically” the artist becomes lost in the sea of others who have done the same. My case in point, is being recognizable more important than painting a perfect likeness? I find my greatest struggle as an artist is not actually painting a good portrait, but in fact, painting a portrait that others will see as mine. Does this make any sense? Should I attempt to paint exactly what I see, or should I exxagerate what I personally want others to see in my work? It is a paradox of sorts.

Painting from memory may help us to become aware of the “minutia of details” that makes a subject look believable; namely, the subtle planes of the mouth, eyes, and nose. Portrait #143 on my blog “themeworks” is such a portrait.

To me, this portrait is a good under-painting. I don’t see it as a finished work, or as an example of something that is going to make Jon rich or famous. It is a study, and a good one. But studies should be studies for something more substantial.

I really wanted to get back and comment on your comment sooner, but today was spent chasing the light with a lot of gardening. The plants, not being able to attend to their own needs like people can, could not wait. Now, every muscle in my body is marvelously sore, and I have some time for a note.

First, I cannot think that the painting a day thing is bad. Sure, you’ll have some duds. Van Gogh had a lot of duds too. But the fluency developed is worth it. Many others have commented that duds are sometimes more educating than successes. Yes, one has to often go with what one knows, but a lot of great artists have done countless variations on simple themes and produced great work. Trying to always be totally inspired and original is grueling and moreover, a completely unrealistic expectation.

Thanks for filling me in on your sitter. Here’s an interesting thing: Every thing you say about her and the session comes through in the work, so you were completely successful in capturing the moment and the spirit. Now I want to take back what I said; see, if I knew her, I would say, “That’s how Olivia is!”

Portraiture has always been my cash cow. It’s a great way to make a living. You make lots of friends, and the money is good. One of the main reasons I’ve been able to work without a gallery for years is the portrait commissions. You get enough of ‘em hanging in people’s homes and stay in touch with your customers, and the commissions just roll in. I’m sure you know how portraiture is a collaboration between the artist and the sitter, but not everyone understands that. The best portraits always come from the best models, and some people are naturals. The models can warm up. They get used to that disconcerting stare that artists have. They see how you portray them, and they have ideas of their own.When it gets to be a grind, you take a break, do some landscapes or some experimental work, or gardening… We all have our ways of refilling the well.

Regarding the fleeting moments, have you ever tried memory drawing? You know, you just take a glance and see if you can draw it without looking again? Yeah, you end up just making stuff up, but so what? If it looks good, it IS good.

Cheers,

Rex