Here are two fairly quick studies I did last week. Not terrible, but they bear no resemblance to the actual people I’m trying to paint.
Here are the actual people.
And Then today I painted this, which again bears little resemblance to the actual people, or even my drawing. I’m having a hard time translating values to skin colors and I’m having a hard time translating shapes into features. I guess the process (and progress) is one step forward, two steps back….
I don't know...I am seeing a resemblance. And I really like how each iteration explores a different element of art and builds on the last ones. I just love the sketch!
ReplyDeleteHow about this? If you are painting somebody you know and you come to a point where you could put in a certain brush stroke that would make it a better painting (we can discuss what makes a good and a better painting later) but it would look less like your friend, or vice versa, what path should the artist choose?
ReplyDeleteNot something we generally think of while painting, and I don't know if it's useful in painting, but something you can discuss over a pot of coffee in the morning, or a pitcher of beer in the evening. Or I could anyway I could.
You’ve definitely gotten closer. I keep looking for a miracle with skin tones but so far no luck.
ReplyDeleteI’m with Ken. I’m torn between making it look like a photo and making it look like art. I’m leaning towards art.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to see the series of work altogether and how it changes as you see and/or respond to different things, Sara. In terms of Ken's remark. I don't think it's an either/or question. I know when I paint/draw a portrait I just look and do it. I don't think about if it looks like anything (them, an eye, or whatever). I get in a zone and paint what I'm seeing and the relationships between things and how it feels. I don't paint from a photo but from life and I paint life-size. It doesn't look photographic, but it does look and feel like the person I've painted.
ReplyDelete