Other than Liberace, Burdick,and Ryder I don't know the others.
I will say that the range is interesting as are the abilities of all posted from very professional to amateur.
For me Liberace, Burdick, Ying-He Liu, Carducci and Nash in that order are the most successful and solid portraits.
Ying-He Liu is someone I have never heard of and his work stood out for energy and freshness. I get the feeling that there is life in her eyes. Some of the others do not do this at all, they are nice heads with nothing going on, no personality.
The Ryder is disappointing and I'm surprised by how muddy it looks here.
What I find interesting is that not everybody nailed their subject, since there is such a difference between the paintings - I wish there were photographs of all the models to compare!
Thanks for taking the time to post about the conference, it is greatly appreciated by those who could not attend!
As I look at the images I posted, I'd say they all look a bit washed out compared to the originals. I think that the face-off was three hours including breaks. I was impressed with how quickly the artists caught the initial likenesses. For Tony, who isn't an alla prima artist like Burdick, I was impressed with how he adapted to the situation. I wasn't familiar with Ying-He Liu before the conference, but I thought hers was very nice.
Ryder is solid with shape and consistant with tone. It's not terribly busy and I see virtue in it. Whereas Ryder's head holds together as one intergral piece, Liberace's piece is all over the place and falling apart, probably due to that he was too ambitious. I only see some eys, a nose, lips but not one complete face. Liu is pretty good, very sharp, smart... omit others and just go for the eyes.
5 comments:
Other than Liberace, Burdick,and Ryder I don't know the others.
I will say that the range is interesting as are the abilities of all posted from very professional to amateur.
For me Liberace, Burdick, Ying-He Liu, Carducci and Nash in that order are the most successful and solid portraits.
Ying-He Liu is someone I have never heard of and his work stood out for energy and freshness. I get the feeling that there is life in her eyes. Some of the others do not do this at all, they are nice heads with nothing going on, no personality.
The Ryder is disappointing and I'm surprised by how muddy it looks here.
What I find interesting is that not everybody nailed their subject, since there is such a difference between the paintings - I wish there were photographs of all the models to compare!
Thanks for taking the time to post about the conference, it is greatly appreciated by those who could not attend!
As I look at the images I posted, I'd say they all look a bit washed out compared to the originals. I think that the face-off was three hours including breaks. I was impressed with how quickly the artists caught the initial likenesses. For Tony, who isn't an alla prima artist like Burdick, I was impressed with how he adapted to the situation. I wasn't familiar with Ying-He Liu before the conference, but I thought hers was very nice.
Sorry I thought Ying was a guy.
That's interesting, I guess there is something to say for Burdick's methodology as it worked in this situation.
I was wondering if the photo was part of the problem with the Ryder.
Ryder is solid with shape and consistant with tone. It's not terribly busy and I see virtue in it. Whereas Ryder's head holds together as one intergral piece, Liberace's piece is all over the place and falling apart, probably due to that he was too ambitious. I only see some eys, a nose, lips but not one complete face. Liu is pretty good, very sharp, smart... omit others and just go for the eyes.
Post a Comment