Thank you for such a thorough answer to my question. It was valuable because it put into words exactly what I had thought about painting, but couldn’t express. As I understood it, painting is valuable because of: 1.the technical skill required to render an image well in paint, and 2.the inclusion of only the details needed to express the theme. You explained these in better detail than I could have, and also pointed out the enhancement of color values to emphasize how the eye sees better than the camera. I had not realized that point. Your example of the hang gliders reminded me of the difference between naturalism (photo, with all distracting elements included) and romanticism (painting, with only elements adding to the theme included). Ultimately, though, I think I hear you saying that a photo could be a work of art, depending on the skill of the photographer, the setting, lighting, etc. and computer-aided touch up. Is that right?

Steven: Thanks for the compliment. Lucky for me I don’t have any angry gods looking to chain me to a rock and allow vultures to eternally devour my liver.

Michael: I am glad to hear you have enjoyed my work so far. I think the theme of a painting is its most important element. Without a theme, I think a painting is just a picture or a decoration and not a work of art.

Guinevere: You are asking a very big question and be forewarned, even this cursory answer is pretty long. It is a topic that I am sure every realistic painter has thought about since the invention of photography. I should mention I suppose, that what is to follow is my personal opinion and not necessarily that of every realistic painter or of the Cordair Gallery, and certainly not that of very many art schools. So if anything I say rubs you the wrong way, please focus your distain in my direction.

There are a lot of photorealistic paintings that are in no way different from a photograph other than as a show of technical skill on the part of the artist. While I admire that sort of skill and think it is a wonderful tool to have in your painting arsenal, a perfect copy of a photograph in paint does not a work of art make. Conversely, there are some photographs that are works of art (though not as many, in my opinion, as there are purported to be). I want to be clear that I am not discounting the validity of photography as an art form. I am explaining why I think realistic painting is still important and sometimes more effective than a photograph.

Prior to the invention of the camera, not every painting was considered Art. Painting was often used in the same capacity as photography is today; that is, to capture the likenesses of people and/or places and to record events. I personally do not consider most portraiture, landscape, or still-life to be Art today either. I do think they can make beautiful decorations, valuable learning tools for artists, and impressive displays of skill and craftsmanship, and are therefore of some value. What makes a painting more than just a picture is what the artist adds to the image in the way of mood, value judgment (does the painting suggest that what is depicted is a good thing or a bad thing…not to mention the automatic value judgment involved in choosing to spend the time and energy to paint the thing…it must be worth painting), and in the way of context. How does the image fit into the life and experience of the painter and the viewer? Why does it matter? When you look at a work of Art, you subconsciously evaluate all these elements automatically. When you respond to a work of Art emotionally, it is most likely one or more of these elements of the painting that is responsible. By the way, I am leaving out the argument that there are some scenes that could not feasibly be set up in the real world to photograph and are therefore only possible to visualize in a painting. Modern special effects and Photoshop have rendered that argument obsolete.

If you were to walk into a room containing a burning fire (in a fireplace….not a stop, drop and roll scenario,) a window looking out onto a city in a storm, and a girl reading in a chair, there are a myriad of elements other than the visual information gathered by your eyes that add to the mood. I will discount the elements that are specific to the viewer such as whether or not the girl is your daughter or your girlfriend or your evil twin, and whether or not you wish she would get out of your favorite chair. You would have a sense of the storm outside. You would feel the warmth of the fire. You would be able to see quite well in the dim orange light. You would have a sense of the scale of the room. Your awareness of the room around you would affect your evaluation of the scene before you. In a painting an artist can brighten a fire to give a sense of its warmth and the color of the light can also be adjusted. Detail can be painted into the figure (as in the case of this painting) that would not actually be visible in a photograph taken in the dim light of a fire. Scale can be exaggerated and perspective utilized to give either a sense of vastness or of coziness to the scene. By brightening the light outside the window and adding extra contrast to the city lights and the snow drifts, the storm can be seen outside the window while in a photo the window would be a flat gray square possibly containing a reflection of the photographer. Human eyes work much better in extreme light conditions than any camera, which means that atmospheric effects, dim light and high contrast compositions are almost always more effective when they are painted. The features of the figure can be adjusted to make what would actually be an uncomfortable but attractive pose feel natural. I realize that photographers can use photo-editing software or other tools to accomplish many of these effects. My argument is that by doing so a photographer is actually “painting” the photograph, by using a computer instead of brushes. Also of importance is what the painter can leave out of the painting that a camera cannot…but this falls more accurately under the next topic…value judgment.

When a photographer takes a picture, whatever is in front of the camera is recorded in the image produced. Every scar and pore on the model, every scratch on the hardwood floor, every smoke stain in the fireplace. In a painting, all you see are those things the artist thought were important enough to the theme and context of the painting to include. Every detail becomes important not because it happened to be there, but because it was put there. The artist made a value judgment and decided that, for example, it was not important for the title of the book to show, or that a reflection in the window would be distracting or creepy. If the painting is painted well (and I know there are examples of accidental or poorly chosen detail in my work…though I do work to minimize them) then every detail will add to the intended effect of the piece and no detail will detract from it. The image needs to be real enough to convey the intended theme, but not necessarily so photo-realistically exact as to contain vast amounts of unnecessary and potentially distracting information.

The third element I mentioned above is context: the way in which the image relates to the painter and the viewer. This third element is the main reason I don’t think that most portraits, landscapes, still life paintings, and photographs qualify as Art. ‘Winter Evening’ is technically only a picture of a girl reading a book by a fire, but it says something about the value of being able to sit and relax by the fire in the middle of a storm. It says it not only about the girl in the picture, but also about the viewer, by means of the viewer’s memories, experiences and imagination. This puts the theme of the painting into the context of the viewer’s life. It makes the image important. Not all people will react to the same Art, and not all viewers will react to a specific piece of Art in the same way, but the mechanism at work is the same: putting an image into the context of your own life and your own philosophy. It may be different for you, but I find it pretty hard to see how a bowl of fruit sitting on a table pertains in any way to my life unless I happen to be really hungry. Perhaps it says to some people that there is immense value in putting fruit into nice arrangements. Of course there are exceptions. A good photograph can have this element of Art…just look at any really good magazine ad.

There are also a few technical reasons why I think a painting can be more effective than a photograph. There is a particular mountain near my house that is an excellent spot for hang-gliding. I have often thought what an amazing and inspiring sight it is to see these people soaring, completely free, hundreds of feet in the air. It is really quite a sight. On several occasions I have attempted to photograph what I thought was a particularly stunning example, and on each occasion I have been enormously disappointed with the resulting pictures. The hang-gliders look like specs of dust in the sky. The sky doesn’t seem as vast, and the sense of height is completely lost. As I thought about this problem several things occurred to me. First, I have (as most of you do) binocular vision. It allows me to pick out a relatively small shape at a distance and judge its height off of the ground. I can focus my attention on it even though in comparison to the rest of my field of view it is a tiny spot. I can imagine, almost without meaning to, the sense of speed being experienced by the glider, the wind, the vertigo, the height, the excitement of it. None of those things will show up in a photo. In a painting an outline can be used to set an object apart from its background to simulate the effect of binocular vision. Perspective can be used to give a feeling of height. The sky can be made more blue and the clouds more dramatic to add a sense of excitement and a dreamlike quality to the image. The telephone wires and smog (which I didn’t notice at all while watching the glider but were really obvious in the photos) can be left out and the green expanse of the mountain and the vastness of the city at its base exaggerated to give a feel for how magnificent they must look while soaring over them. In short, I think a painting can capture much more accurately what I was seeing than could any photograph.

Finally, there is something to be said for the physical object of an original oil painting. The size can be impressive and there is a sense of it being hand-crafted. The rich texture of the paint and the brightness and luminosity of the pigments are such that they can’t be duplicated even with modern image reproduction processes. These are qualities that no photograph can ever have.

I could definitely go on about this subject, but I hope I have given you a satisfactory answer to your question. Feel free to comment.

Congratulations on finishing By The Fire. It is always exciting to see what you are working on and finishing. What I find particularly wonderful in your work are the themes—intense, thoughtful, benevolent and very much pro-active. In my recent lectures on today’s innovative representational artists I have enjoy presenting some of your pieces. Keep up the good work.

Your command of light is that of Prometheus. Magnificent job.

I also appreciate the feedback on the signature, Brian. As I look at the image on my screen, the signature does seem more noticeable than it does when I look at the original. It may have to do with the scale difference, but I think it may also have to do with the quality of the image. Many of the colors in the rest of the painting are bled out in this photo. I still don’t find it necessarily distracting, but it certainly does stand out. I will have to do some thinking on this issue before the completion of my next piece, and I still welcome any further comments.

I have been following the creation of this painting from the beginning. I must say I am very impressed. I think the best complement I can give you is that one day I will own at least one of your originals. Please keep them coming.

All the best to you and yours.

Wonderful to finally get to see the finished piece. I think it is your best work to date. You asked for comments on the fire logo- I’ve viewed the closeup and think it is pretty clever. However, in all honesty my first reaction was that it is a pretty big distraction to the corner of an otherwise perfect piece. A “B” made of stone may have been a better choice because the colors wouldn’t have contrasted so strongly. But — I’d like to hear your feedback here: Looking at the whole painting on a 15″ screen might be different from seeing the whole 4 foot painting in front of you. Perhaps it isn’t nearly the distraction that it seems. I went back and took a look at “Born With Wings”, and think you accomplished your goal with the logo quite well without making it a distraction in that painting. Regardless, this is merely an opinion and it wouldn’t stop me from owning this painting. I would definately be interested in a high quality print of this painting, and would hope it is a small series (maybe 45 or so.) Again, great work.

Artimus: If you are who I think you are, I am glad you like the piece. Obviously I am glad you like it even if you are not who I think you are…so either way…glad you liked the piece.

John: Likewise, thanks and enjoy.

Buddy: Very interesting suggestions. I can see exactly what you have in mind. I wanted the city to be more prominent in the composition because part of what makes the act of sitting by the fire comfortably reading important and worth painting (to me) is the fact that the girl is able to do it in the midst of a winter storm. As you look at the original compositional sketch for the piece, I did have the picture frame closed in a lot more with less of the city showing and more directional light. But I specifically chose to widen the frame to include more of the skyline and storm. In these small images it does look a little less cozy, but part of what makes the original vastly different from an image on a computer screen or post card is its size. When standing in front of the piece, which is four feet wide, the figure is quite large and feels much closer to the viewer. The fire and the window recede slightly into peripheral vision and it does seem much cozier. It feels much more like being in the room. Scale makes a difference. I definitely see her reading for pleasure…in casual defiance of the weather if not in complete indifference to it.

Martin: I get a lot of questions about every piece that surprise me. With this one it is the book. I have had at least six people ask about it, and am almost tempted to change the title of the piece to ‘Girl reading a mysteriously unmarked book by the fire during a storm’ although that does seem a bit too ominous. (By the way, ‘By the Fire’ is officially only a working title. The original sketch was actually titled ‘Winter Evening’ and I am still leaning in that direction as it points a little closer to the theme.)

Jason: It will be some time before I think about making prints. There are a lot of factors to consider including demand.

Bob: Without getting into a whole breast conversation, let me say that when I read your comment I immediately went upstairs to my studio and looked at the figure. Everything looks to be in just the right place to me. (You may note that there is a lot of reflected light from the book on the left side of the figure which lights not only the breast but also the left side of the face from the bottom. There are also anatomical considerations having directly to do with the position of the shoulders.) I won’t go into any further detail as I know both the model and her father read this feature regularly. Hi guys.

Again, thanks for the comments. Please feel free to keep them coming. Specifically if anyone wants to weigh in on the signature logo, I understand it is a matter of small controversy. Evidently a number of people find the logos distracting. I personally do not, but as I keep reminding myself, I am looking at my paintings from the relatively unique point of view of the artist. (And I happen to like a well-put-together logo.) I do think of art as a form of communication, and as such it involves both an artist and a viewer. So let me know what you, as the viewers, think. I can’t promise it will change my mind about the signatures, but I am curious.