
I'm starting to focus on trying to get my work into galleries, cafes, salons, wherever to attempt to get some exposure. In focusing on this, I realize that I have a very tiny body of themed work...certainly not enough to go in a gallery (maybe a group show, but certainly not a solo exhibition, well anywhere, be it a gallery or coffeehouse.). I'm always trying to do new work for L'Elizabeth R., so I thought I could kill two peasants with one stone. This is another painting based on a series of beautiful photos I found from Kentwell Hall. The lighting at that place (and consequently in the photos) is so pristine, so Vermeer, that I just had to paint it after I was done drooling.
I have a question for you all, now. How close is too close to photo reference? This painting uses the same pose as my reference photo, and the same lighting obviously...do I somehow lose artistic integrity by painting from someone else's photo? Do I need to buy a good camera and take my own photos to paint from, and will that then make it okay? Or is there nothing wrong with it at all? In school, we were downright scolded for not getting good reference, but we were also not to be slaves to our reference. I don't feel like I was slaving, just maybe relying...is that bad? I love the painting, and it seems very much independent of its reference photo....what do you all think?





The verdict on the portraits drawn for last faire, Sonora, was that they were too light...too hard to see from afar. I decided to get some practice in, this time using my actual materials, and keeping in mind a couple inspirations I've run across. The first was a portrait of a Black man (a celebrity, but I can't remember who it was now, darn!), that was drawn with passion. The marks were bold and sure. The second inspiration was the movie "Goya's Ghost," which presented Francisco Goya as a kind, effusive, and moral sort, despite his darkly disturbing images we in the present have come to judge his character by. I have no idea how Francisco Goya really was, as a person, but the actor played him as a very likeable fellow. More importantly, the way he drew and painted--bold, passionate, dark, and uniquely. His portraits, I would either say lacked glow (as we find it in human complexion), or contained darkness. His technique was loose, but detailed. He was a master in every sense, but seemed to have gone his own way. And if we have any doubt to his success, remember his portrayal of the Spanish royal family, and that that painting was accepted, paid for, and exists today. Anyway, here are some of my practice drawing, with bolder strokes:
And then there's Rubens:





