Recently I mentioned in a post that the idea had crossed my mind that I might attempt a portrait, and indeed that I had made a sketch of my wife. The other day, giving a lift to a colleague, I also mentioned this possibility. Promptly he loaned me a couple of DVDs about portrait painting. This is a bit premature, and I’m still not sure that I want to go down this route, but so as to express my appreciation I did look at them. The differences were quite remarkable.
Both of these productions are by obviously experienced painters whose main line of business is portraiture. Evidently they are also experienced teachers. The first one I looked at made the interesting point that painting a portrait is still based upon the skills of drawing. His approach, not surprisingly, prioritised observation, at least with respect to the representation of form: evidently he works with a very standardised and fairly restricted palette. The second seemed to emphasise the importance of an accurate knowledge of anatomy. You have to know how the skull is constructed, providing the foundation for the eye-sockets, for example. This was an approach (it seemed to me) based upon theory. The choice of a palette, however, in her case appeared to be almost entirely intuitive.
The experience certainly gave me material for thought. Reflecting on the way I go about things it seems to me that I naturally tend to combine elements of these approaches. I am a devotee of the drawing/observation approach to painting, certainly, but when it comes to a working method I have to confess that I do tend to be undisciplined and intuitive.
I guess that whether or not we are painting a portrait, the benefit of this kind of educational experience is that not does make us more self-aware in relation to what we do, and perhaps why we do it.