Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Why worse? Someone might have an opinion!
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
Interesting question - not for me to provide an answer, but - I'd guess that spontaneity may be easier to achieve without using a grid; although, I can't help feeling that if you want accuracy, you will inevitably use a grid - I've painted only a few portraits, and prefer to go straight in without guidelines.... but I really doubt that there is ever going to be a definitive answer to this. I've used a grid, and still missed; I've just got in there and had a go, and succeeded - but not always. Well - make of that what you can - I just don't think there's one sure way to achieve the results you want.
Posted
Russell I don’t do portraits as I honestly find them incredibly difficult, if it can look something like a human then Ok with that if it resembles the person well I’m over the moon . I never set out for it to look accurate as long as the important features are in the right place and fit the rest in regards to size etc then I think it’s a good piece, I suppose it down to me not really finding portraiture interesting enough to work at it . I do enjoy looking at portraits especially sketched portraits they are fascinating and I must admit a think of wonder to me , those of you who do portraits are in a class of your own in my book bit like magicians with a pencil, brush or whatever medium you use. Doesn’t matter how it’s achieved with or without a grid , it’s the magic spell you add that makes it so clever.
Posted
I tried to use a grid a very long while back, suggested by a local artist when I was first learning to paint, he used them to set out and plot out his landscapes and just about everything. Took far to long to set up , even after almost rubbing it out the lines were still visible through the watercolour, it also looked too contrived, no life to it needless to say I never repeated the exercise. I very rarely do a figure of portrait and even then I much prefer freehand , the little mistakes, bits hanging over into what would be the next square make the whole thing look more natural, vive la odd mistakes and wrong colour.I agree too Paul, and your landscapes have a very enjoyable spontineity.
Posted
Russell, to me a portrait should capture the character of the person, look like them but look as if they are alive, not like some pre Raphaelite paintings that are so detailed they lose all sense of humanity. Perfection for me is early Renoir; look at 'Dance at the Moulin Galette', you can hear the laughter! If I can capture that in a portrait then I'll be happy.
Exactly like Sandra has so well expressed.
Edited
by Peter Smith
Posted
Hi Peter thanks for replying. 'Capturing the character' is a phrase often bandied about re portrait painting but I've never understood how to capture it! Are you saying that you must paint 'unrealistically' to capture character or personality? A portrait can't 'look alive' if painted in detail? I think 'Dance at the Moulin Galette' is a beautiful painting but the faces don't exude 'character' to me, in fact they all look rather similar and dare I say bland. All very well looking for character, personality, humanity or whatever in a portrait but drawing the basics well, even with the aid of a grid, is vital if a good portrait is to be achieved.
Posted
Yes, an interesting painting but, to me, not one of “ portraits”. More the bustle and atmosphere of a crowd. The “ zeitgeist” of the time. The faces aren’t important here, to me. A portrait has to be “considered” - what makes this face different from another face, what might this person be feeling etc? What are my thoughts when I look at the portait?
Edited
by Marjorie Firth
Posted
As someone who doesn’t paint portraits tend to think of a portrait as being the head face and shoulders of a person sitting for the artist, those that are the full body and posing are to me a full portrait. Paintings and sketches with people moving , sitting in groups etc are figure paintings or sketches , simple I know but that’s my way of categorising them .
The above painting is a superb piece and for me an example of figures in different poses doing everyday things , I tend to look at the figures and how they are shaped not the faces as to me they are less important in this setting. A portrait I do believe should have more detail than shown here, I think if you look at Russell’s pencil portraits they have all the essential elements to give the face the look of the sitter. Painted portraits tend to have less detail but by using shadow, and highlighting areas the person is very recognisable. Wrongly or rightly I differentiate between the painting and drawn portraits, my preference is for the draw style and would choose a sketched portrait over a painted one as I thin more of the character cones through , that could be influenced by not having painted a portrait myself but I have attempted sketches .