Is it possible to draw portrait like realistic faces from the imagination?

[Bowlin]

But as Howard Pyle and Harvey Dunn would often say, until you are independent of the model, you don't really know how to draw. And if you don't really know how to draw, you won't really know how to compose.

But that seems kind of vague about how WELL one has to be able to draw independent of the model. Could it mean being able to use mannikins like in Loomis's book?

The above picture was done by NC Wyeth in less than a days time without reference, with the possible exception of the gun, which he may have had in his studio. I think the quality of the image speaks for itself. There is no reference that can make this composition happen.

Yeah, but still... Wyeth did use models as well back then. I have no doubt that painting from models consistently for years, one could paint from memory.

[Line]

There's a difference between 'realistic' and 'believable'.
I wouldn't call Leyendecker or Loomis's faces 'realistic', they are in fact subtle caricatures, which is exactly what makes them great.

Hmm, I think the semantics of the issue is getting in the way. Let me show what 'realistic' means to me.



Sure, Loomis has idealized and simplified the model, but if you superimpose the painting over the picture, it's quite accurate, all that needs to be there is there. He's done the same in the previous drawings I posted. Leyendecker may be a caricature of sorts, but ok let's call it and the others "believable".

The point, I think, is getting to an image that has a personalized aesthetic that is compatible with the general aesthetic as well, or at least that of the niche market you are interested in working in. But, that must go through the route of obtaining the skill to understand reality and paint it, because ultimately, that's where we get out sense of beauty from.

It's a cool feat to be able to draw very well from memory, but its also cooler to have that "thing" in your art that gives it interest and life. If you get to it through reference, little or lot it doesn't matter.

I agree with Kev Ferrara's view by the way. The work of us beginners is stiff, but so is the work of guys who are too close to their photographic reference, sometimes.

[kev ferrara]

But that seems kind of vague about how WELL one has to be able to draw independent of the model. Could it mean being able to use mannikins like in Loomis's book?

Mannequins won't get you anywhere close. Loomis used reference extensively because his work, 99 percent of the time, did not require anything that couldn't be photographed. In looking at your work, Bowlin, you should be using reference extensively and drawing from the imagination in your spare time. I think you are going along fine in your studies. Although I think you should worry less, and draw more, imho.

Yeah, but still... Wyeth did use models as well back then. I have no doubt that painting from models consistently for years, one could paint from memory.

No, it is by painting and drawing from memory for years... the constant exercise of one's knowledge of lighting, form, anatomy, and gesture... that leads to one being able to work from the imagination. Working from reference and models is part of the education of one's imagination, as well as a method of helping to get accuracy in one's work.

[Bowlin]

Kev - Well, I posted that pic to show that he did indirectly reference from models to some extent. That painting you posted was done from sketches at Gill Ranch, then painted in Denever. It's listed on "N.C. Wyeth a biography" page 123. The book also talks about how he referenced from Remington for these pictures too. Exactly what and how much he referenced from Remington, I don't know. How many sketches he did at the ranch seems impossible to know, also.

[Elwell]

One has to be very, very careful using photographs of artists working as evidence of process, since a large percentage of them are staged.

[Aly Fell]

You mean artists don't always tell the truth about their process?! I'm... I'm... speechless! Shocked and speechless! And stunned... and maybe a little... dumbfounded too...

[Andrew Sonea]

Staged? I doubt it...

[Chris Bennett]

Extreme watercolour painting...

[HunterKiller_]

My previous comment was isolated to achieving photorealism, which is what I thought the original discussion was about.
I have no resentment towards creating pictures entirely without reference. Just for the record.

This doesn't help the discussion at all as again realistic is not defined and believable is another thing altogether. Tell us what realistic is and why drawing realistically without reference is wank. Wank is a cool word though isn't it.

My point was that it doesn't matter how a picture is created. If it's good then it's good.
One guys paints a scene from his dome, another guys paints an equally good one with reference aid. The viewer doesn't know the process and in the end it doesn't mean anything, except that the guy who painted from memory can brag about it.

Staged? I doubt it...

Wow... That's the dictionary definition of dedication.

[Kamber Parrk]

But. . . but. . .

N.C. Wyeth was a "mere illustrator."

[dodges brick and flees from Art Discussion. . .]

[kev ferrara]

Kev - Well, I posted that pic to show that he did indirectly reference from models to some extent.

Yes, but who doesn't know that? You seem hell bent on making the same points over and over... yes, great artists use reference... all the time. And the point is that less great artists get used by their reference because they know less than the photo can show them. And since photos are lifeless and suck at capturing the aesthetic reality of experience, if one isn't a better artist than the camera, one's art is going to partake of the same suck as photography.

I painted from the model all day today at Garin Baker's studio and he said something interesting about reference during a break. Garin is a strong illustrator and muralist who does not believe in working from the imagination. He studied with Leffel, Greenberg, Silverman, and Ginsburg, and was trained to always use reference, because the work will not have integrity unless it comes from life, more or less directly. He said you simply can't make a good work of art from a single photograph of the subject. You need way more information than is available in a single shot to make a painting that works.

And, for me, the reason for this goes to what I was just saying. The reference photographs are there to educate you about the subject. They aren't there to supply you directly with the visual content of your picture. Because your goal as an artist is not to educate somebody about the subject in turn, but to make a work of art of the subject.

Even leaving aside gesture... you can't even get the form of an object from a single photo. Because the depiction of form in art is a metaphoric response to the sculptural presence of a volume, it is not about what the object looks like per se. It takes us artists a very long time to get our heads around this concept because it is so through the looking glass compared to what we think we're doing when we first set out to learn our craft. (In fact, most "realists" don't even realize this is what's really going on.)

Anyway... Stanley Meltzoff was a funny guy, but that joke sort of backfired on him. Because after that photo was published, he received letters for years asking him about the truth of it. I highly recommend Meltzoff's recent monograph. He was one of the last of the truly great illustrators.

[Elwell]

Anyway... Stanley Meltzoff was a funny guy, but that joke sort of backfired on him. Because after that photo was published, he received letters for years asking him about the truth of it. I highly recommend Meltzoff's recent monograph. He was one of the last of the truly great illustrators.

True enough, but...
I read an article in an old (1930s) Natural History magazine about when the AMNH was designing the coral reef exhibit in the Hall of Ocean Life. Because there wasn't accurate underwater color photography back then, and because specimens quickly lost their color when collected, museum artists in diving helmets actually did do underwater color studies in oil paint on metal plates.

[kev ferrara]

Yep...

http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/20...nderwater.html

[Conniekat8]

my figure drawing teacher does this sort of portrait sketch for class demos, out of his head all the time... he also has about 35 or 40 years of experience drawing and painting figures.
(I googled a similar image - I'll take a photo of what he does next time he does it)
Sometimes he does things from a model, sometimes from his head, kind of depends on the lecture and focus of the demo.

Part of the class we are learning observation, and part of the class we are learning construction, so that you can draw 'from your head' too.

Even in beginning drawing and beginning figure drawing I'm already noticing what Kev is talking about, how you just don;t get the same information from the photo as you do from the observation. I think for one, our stereo vision plays a big part. Photo seems to give us a flattened view of what we may see out of one eye. When we draw from life, we sort of process what we see with both, and draw our impression of it. Something that my teacher often tells us is 'don't be afraid to exaggerate a bit' (he corrects us if we do too much too). Sometimes you need to be there and see the model from other subtly different points of view in order to exaggerate what seems important, or what we want to accent.

[Conniekat8]

Staged? I doubt it...

Is that the Wet-in-wet painting technique?

[Elwell]

Yep...

http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/20...nderwater.html

That shot of Chris Olsen in the helmet is awesome.

[kev ferrara]

That shot of Chris Olsen in the helmet is awesome.

Agreed. I was going to say its very Robot Monster. But really its more...

[kev ferrara]

my figure drawing teacher does this sort of portrait sketch for class demos, out of his head all the time... he also has about 35 or 40 years of experience drawing and painting figures.
(I googled a similar image - I'll take a photo of what he does next time he does it)
Sometimes he does things from a model, sometimes from his head, kind of depends on the lecture and focus of the demo.

Part of the class we are learning observation, and part of the class we are learning construction, so that you can draw 'from your head' too.

Bloody hell, that is wretched. If that's the level of understanding your teacher holds, get out the door as quickly as possible. That is pig-ignorant, deluded amateurism at its worst. Can't you tell that?

[JFierce]

The photo above or the drawing from out of your head part?
Pretty sure she said similar image as in not the teacher if it's about the issues with the picture itself which has quite a few mistakes abundant.

[JeffX99]

Space Happy is awesome happy! I feel a caption contest coming on:
"Let's just get back to the ship where we can get out of these glass jars and you can slip off that cape."

[Conniekat8]

Bloody hell, that is wretched. If that's the level of understanding your teacher holds, get out the door as quickly as possible. That is pig-ignorant, deluded amateurism at its worst. Can't you tell that?

??? I'm not sure I follow what you mean?

Don't most books people about around here do the same thing, you don't just draw figure contours, you learn how the volumes and shapes and anatomical construction and all kinds of elements (I'm not sure what they're all called off the top of my head, because I'm a beginner) work?

Or are you talking about the picture I posted? The picture is a quick google I did, of a sketch that looks like it may have taken similar amount of time as the 15-20 min demos our teacher does. I don't have any of his work handy, and being just a beginner, I don't have the refined observational or technique skills to tell really good stuff from what I posted. Actually I was looking for something that vaguely resembles what you drew. LOL

And, no I can't tell much differece, two hour face drawing lecture and one drawing session is the sum total experience I have drawing and observing faces, I'm not expected to know the difference at this stage. After I start learning how to do it... it'll be a different story.

You can find his work here: http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/view...%204-large.jpg

however, that's one of his finished works, and I would guess it was observational - I think he was telling us that's a portrait of his daughter at two slightly different ages. Mirror reflection is meant to be a year younger, IIRC.

And more here: http://www.saddleback.edu/faculty/rl...age002_002.gif He's pretty accomplished artist in addition to teaching. It's his 'out of your head' drawings that I don't have handy.

[Chris Bennett]

my figure drawing teacher does this sort of portrait sketch for class demos, out of his head all the time... he also has about 35 or 40 years of experience drawing and painting figures.
(I googled a similar image - I'll take a photo of what he does next time he does it)
Sometimes he does things from a model, sometimes from his head, kind of depends on the lecture and focus of the demo.

Part of the class we are learning observation, and part of the class we are learning construction, so that you can draw 'from your head' too.

Even in beginning drawing and beginning figure drawing I'm already noticing what Kev is talking about, how you just don;t get the same information from the photo as you do from the observation. I think for one, our stereo vision plays a big part. Photo seems to give us a flattened view of what we may see out of one eye. When we draw from life, we sort of process what we see with both, and draw our impression of it. Something that my teacher often tells us is 'don't be afraid to exaggerate a bit' (he corrects us if we do too much too). Sometimes you need to be there and see the model from other subtly different points of view in order to exaggerate what seems important, or what we want to accent.

His demonstration shows he knows nothing about what he is talking about. He's a fake.
From what you posted of his 'finished work' it only furthers my opinion on the matter. Lacking imaginative focus or direction, he props up a technique based on a passive mapping of photos by hyping it up with salacious subject matter.
Likewise, he hypes up the drawing in a similar way with all those meaningless, flashy gestures thrown over what he's done in a attempt disguise the lifelessness of his dishonest work.

As Kev said, get yourself another teacher.

[Conniekat8]

His demonstration shows he knows nothing about what he is talking about.

ROFL, that's not my teachers sketch.

EPIC Reading comprehension FAIL.

By the way, he's been featured in that magazine long before you, so neener neener neener

by hyping it up with salacious subject matter.

Oh, I know, he should have put still life of a flower vase on the cover of a figure drawing from a model class handout so it wouldn't look salacious. *bad teacher...baaaad* I bet you teach figure drawing using clothed models.
Oh, wait, you don't teach figure drawing. What is it that your pal DP and few others like to say, don't go on about stuff you don't do.



ok, back on ignore you go...

[kev ferrara]

Or are you talking about the picture I posted? The picture is a quick google I did, of a sketch that looks like it may have taken similar amount of time as the 15-20 min demos our teacher does. I don't have any of his work handy, and being just a beginner, I don't have the refined observational or technique skills to tell really good stuff from what I posted. Actually I was looking for something that vaguely resembles what you drew. LOL

And, no I can't tell much differece...

That's not a good sign for your future as an artist.

[dpaint]

ROFL, that's not my teachers sketch.

EPIC Reading comprehension FAIL.

By the way, he's been featured in that magazine long before you, so neener neener neener ...

Why are you even commenting in here Clueless, since you can't actually draw or paint to any reasonable degree and you just regurgitate what you've heard or read and obviously don't understand? Have you ever had an original thought or opinion about anything? Something you learned all by yourself from hard work and application?
Chris and Kev are professionals; the fact you sit in a class and listen to an art teacher doesn’t give you his understanding or abilities (if he has any); you have to earn those through more than just class assignments where all the creativity is thought out for you.

[JFierce]

Good lord, people are being a bit. Well..... mean. It's turning into just insult throwing.


Even worse unless someone can correct me.
Was this all because people didn't read it was from google images or what?
That sounds like why Kev attacked it, then it seems like what Chris was attacking as well, then moving on to attack the finished post as well.

Of course someone gets defensive if you basically say hey your wasting your money this teacher is shit. When people aren't even reading what you wrote and attacking a random picture.


The guys finished work, besides the one full size, even the thumbnails it looks like the guys pretty good. I dunno. You can say that's shit, but besides the perspective on the plant to the left that bugs me a tad it seems better than a lot of teachers I've seen even at some fancy art school like MICA which is supposed to be oh so amazing. Not based on imagination or anything fantastic but definitely shows skill to me. *Shrugs*, teachers aren't going to be at the pinnacle of art skill and a world famous 'my god that's genius' artist. They just need to teach what a beginner (or whatever skill level they're teaching) wouldn't know.

Then until the beginner does learn and know of course they're going to say what their teacher does. If your in the middle of an art class feel your learning and respect the teacher. Then suddenly there's a thread that relates to something in class the teacher does, however apparently your only supposed to share your opinion if your a professional in the field?

[dpaint]

Its not about the picture, its about Clueless commenting on someone elses experience, trying to be the bigshot through someone else, as usual.

In her own words
I don't have the refined observational or technique skills to tell really good stuff from what I posted.

but yet she feels the need to blather on, adding nothing to the discussion.

[Chris Bennett]

I bet you teach figure drawing using clothed models.
Oh, wait, you don't teach figure drawing. What is it that your pal DP and few others like to say, don't go on about stuff you don't do.

Figure drawing from the naked model is exactly what I teach, once a month to an open class whose numbers have grown so much I have had to hire a gym to fit everybody in.

Your anger and spite is only matched by the size and weight of the chip on your shoulder. Presumably it's directly responsible for it.

[Elwell]

Enough.
Everybody, go to your rooms.
The person who started this thread hasn't even logged in since August 15th, 2010.