[DarkGarden]

How horrid is it to paint your own head? Yikes.

Anyway, loose and fast, with a tiny reference from the webcam, but there's the first full Tablet piece.

C&C, I'm getting the preliminaries hopefully.

[madmouth]

very cool. looks like a blurred photo, but painterly. I've no doubt it looks much like you

[Dr. Bang]

W O W!

[Light]

Well, I imagine this painting to be "accurate".

However, this a good time to bring up up the lesson of why you should not draw you see.

The lighting isn't too good and the colors are not very exciting. The picture is blurry with no focus and not very interesting.

On the positive side the anatomy looks good, propertions are correct and form is revealed by shade.


A quick study is to re-inforce your paint strokes, light, add more colors, and contrast esp in the eys, nose, mouth area.

Study Sargent, Hals, Rubens..

I may do a paint over to see if I can make it more exciting.

[PixHortHiT]

For gods sake, its a selfportrait, and a very good one at that, so what if it is badly lit and colored, and why should it be more interesting, when it is a mere portrait of one self?

[Robert Ashley]

What the hell program did you use? I like the fact that ever stoke you did has three lines to it! (well some have four or five)

I use photoshop...is there some neat trick you did to get that effect?

Thanks for any info in the future!

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: Robert Ashley ]

[DarkGarden]

Actually Light, I studied Rubens at the same time as I got a bit more in depth with Caravaggio and Botticelli. I much prefer the brushstrokes and trompe l'oeil involved with the older painters, but I know what you're aiming at. Great suggestions on who to look for for a more refined composition and great subject matter and light structure.

PixHortHit nailed it when he (she?) said that it was just to be a study of self portraiture, making the lighting a touch more dynamic than the reference while working out the forms in what wasn't to be too in depth (rough strokes are a no no in finished work for me). I do appreciate the crits though.

I agree on the subject being less than exciting, though the composition and balance seems appropriate. Pretty boring head, but it's the only one I have Feel free to do a paint over, as it's public enough territory though. I'd be interested in how you view portraiture especially in this case

For the nice compliments, thanks guys, but I can handle some critiquing too...honest.

Robert: I used Painter Classic for this, still new to it, but some of the oil based brushes have a really nice texture and blend to them. It reminds me of actual painting at times. Too many years on canvas has made me soft to the ways of the tablet though

I love Photoshop, but Painter obviously excels for the medium.

As for looking like me, hopefully, though I find it a bit sickly looking (no..I'm not..really..no matter how long I work in front of this glowing box...honest) and the head seems stretched out somehow in a way I didn't notice until after it was mostly done.

[DarkGarden]

~lmao~

Not another discussion on what is, and what isn't art...

Nonetheless, yes a study, no not interested in changing it for that very reason. Improving the overall work, yes.

I'm sorry that you didn't manage to create anything of merit from this, I would have really enjoyed seeing your perspective. As for invention, well that's an inner monologue you have going, so I'd suggest an inner debate as well. Thanks for getting in on the thread, though Light.

I'm almost inspired to do a new piece based on this..but...it's my head, and I'm nowhere near that narcissistic.

heh

Keep tearing, and if someone could mention some of the finer points of Painter I'd be much appreciative, I'm just starting with it and it still feels a little odd after "airbrushing" for so long with PS and a mouse.

[Light]

I spent about 5-6 hours trying to do a nice portrait based on a sketch from this but I couldnt get anything that I was happy with -- but I learned quite a bit in working on it so it was worth it anyway.

I think this picture was just a sketch for a study so it is not all that important. But, the point that was made was that one should not draw exactly what they see -- rather they should make it a painting or work of art.

The artist should conceptualize the forms, invent the light sources, costume, colors, and forms.

This "portrait" would look a lot better if the head was drawn from another angle, the shoulder line was moved (it sucks), and the chair was either removed or made to be more interesting.

That is the different between art and just a picture.

Sargent makes it look easy but actually his style is very hard to get right.