11-25-2023, 01:46 PM
[quote pid="137521" dateline="1700875658"]
Portraits never get old indeed - except maybe those from past centuries in which everybody looked impossibly stiff. I especially like your gray scale ones where you can play with contrasts more. Thank you for posting the steps.
I think that landscape and architecture can have some personality when capturing the general impression and omitting or suggesting the boring parts. I'm not sure how to express this, so I'll wait for the next steps of your WIPs to see if I can put that into words.
[/quote]
What I struggle with is the overall design of the composition--not in the sense that's typical to what people think of like placement of shapes and arrangement of contrast, but more nuanced like where to have selective detail, where to get looser with the brushwork, how busy or abstract or contrasty to make the background, etc. I love impressionist-influenced realist painters like Sargent, Zorn, Schmid, etc., and all the digital painters who were also influenced by them like Craig Mullins and everyone else that came after him. I find my own sensibility when I don't reign in myself, tend to veer into over-rendering stuff, and that's because I grew up with illustrators like Boris Vallejo, Michael Whelan, Jim Burns, and old masters like Bouguereau. My taste changed as I got older, but those habits are extremely hard to shake.
I agree about landscapes and architecture, and when I look at the work of artists I love, those are the things I admire. When I paint them myself, I find I don't have the same amount of patience as I do for portraits. Maybe it's just that I paint almost exclusively portraits of attractive females, and in comparison, landscapes and architecture just can't compete for my lizard brain's attention.
Portraits never get old indeed - except maybe those from past centuries in which everybody looked impossibly stiff. I especially like your gray scale ones where you can play with contrasts more. Thank you for posting the steps.
I think that landscape and architecture can have some personality when capturing the general impression and omitting or suggesting the boring parts. I'm not sure how to express this, so I'll wait for the next steps of your WIPs to see if I can put that into words.
[/quote]
What I struggle with is the overall design of the composition--not in the sense that's typical to what people think of like placement of shapes and arrangement of contrast, but more nuanced like where to have selective detail, where to get looser with the brushwork, how busy or abstract or contrasty to make the background, etc. I love impressionist-influenced realist painters like Sargent, Zorn, Schmid, etc., and all the digital painters who were also influenced by them like Craig Mullins and everyone else that came after him. I find my own sensibility when I don't reign in myself, tend to veer into over-rendering stuff, and that's because I grew up with illustrators like Boris Vallejo, Michael Whelan, Jim Burns, and old masters like Bouguereau. My taste changed as I got older, but those habits are extremely hard to shake.
I agree about landscapes and architecture, and when I look at the work of artists I love, those are the things I admire. When I paint them myself, I find I don't have the same amount of patience as I do for portraits. Maybe it's just that I paint almost exclusively portraits of attractive females, and in comparison, landscapes and architecture just can't compete for my lizard brain's attention.
