 |
| Hart-Cohen Family Posthumous Portrait of Arielle Hart oil on linen 49 X 68 in. |
A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the unveiling of Marvin Mattelson's latest portrait painting at his home studio in New York. The four foot by six foot painting was commissioned as a tribute to Dr. Arielle Hart, a young wife and mother who tragically passed away far too early in her life. After discussing with her family the fond memories they shared of Arielle, Mattelson set to work painstakingly planning every portion of the portrait, leaving nothing to chance.
Painting a posthumous portrait can be a very demanding task. Often the artist has only candid photographs from which to work, and such images, when clear, usually feature figures lit in a way not acceptable for painting reference. For a work like this, where the deceased person is incorporated into a scene filled with living subjects, the difficulty of making the tableau believable is even more arduous.
 |
| Dr. Arielle Hart, the late wife of Michael T. Cohen |
To achieve the proper lighting for the figure of Arielle – that which would offer clear form and atmosphere – Mattelson needed to create his own reference. Working from hundreds of family photographs, Mattelson sculpted a bust of the late Dr. Hart, which he then lit to match the reference he already had acquired of the other family members. He then gathered clothing that matched the items Dr. Hart was seen to have been wearing in some photographs, and used a body double to obtain the last of his reference.
What resulted was a very time consuming commission lasting several years, but Mattelson's added effort was certainly well merited, and appreciated by his client. For Mattelson, who takes extreme pride in all the work he does, putting in any less industry into a painting would be unthinkable.
 |
| By using a more painterly approach to objects in the background, and reducing their chroma, Mattelson was able to convincingly establish the figures on a closer plane within the picture. |
To see more images of Marvin Mattelson's portrait of the Hart-Cohen Family, please visit his website, where he has posted an interactive image of the painting. By clicking on certain key parts of the image, viewers can see detailed close-ups of the painting.
10 comments:
wow!!!! look at the details!
yet another slavish rendering of a photograph... this is crap!
Eric ,if you read the post, you would learn that there was a death. so there is no live model. he had to work from a photograph. to mimic a picture is a hard thing to do. i see what you mean though. it just looks like a blow up of a photograph...but this is just the artist's style....we all have out own style. some ugly some not....what kind of art do you cherish Eric? the style i mean....any particular arts you love?
I agree with Eric.
The story behind the portrait is not relevant to the finished result. And the finished result is a bad photocopy with oils, and close-up details only confirm it. The surface of the painting is flat and depthless, the expressions are snapshot-like. Paintings like that really show how far we still are from reviving the art of painting.
BoholstWife, sorry to answer what was not addressed to me, but do you really think that any artist HAS to work from a photo if no model is available? I mean, what about the way the old masters worked? From sketches and their own vision? No King or Duke ever posed for hundreds of hours and paintings were not created alla prima, so artist did sketches with notes and executed paintings from those humble materials. I think that the way realist artists today can only copy either a live model or a photo shows great weakness and lack of true skill. Pietro Annigoni, mentioned in that blog earlier was the last artist I've seen who had that real skill I'm talking about, who "got it".
Must we?
One of the great things about working now is that there isn't this division between approaches to representational art that there were in the 19th century. I know many artists who work in a painterly manner who are respectful of the work of people who work tightly, and vice versa. Representational artists, no matter their approach, who are confident in their own ability tend not to hash out this harsh criticism against other representational artists.
I could go into a hypothetical argument about yesteryear's artists embracing the camera if they had it, but what's the point? Many artists we admire today did use the camera (granted, there reference was often horrible, but they made the most of it).
There is no photograph that exists of the scene Mattelson painted. This is a compilation of much reference, including a sculpted head Mattelson made himself. He made multiple trips to the family garden, made color alterations, scoured New York to find flowers from which to paint, etc.. In the end, he still had to answer to his client, and people who commission portraits tend to want them to look like the subject - that sort of makes it hard to depart from reality.
I get greatly frustrated by the people who want to talk about this "magical something" that artists should aspire to, but can never provide examples. Atana did mention Annigoni, but there are just as many people who would level the same criticism of his work, as is being leveled at today's artists with tight rendering skills and inclinations (Annigoni had to fight against such criticism all the time).
In the end, if you don't like something, that's fine. But must we level belligerent insults at another artist or his work?
If you can't say something nice, then say nothing at all. Or better yet, paint something better then the piece you want to criticize, and put it out there for the rest of the world to witness and comment upon.
It's not about "tight" vs. "loose" painting, I never once suggested it. And my example of Annigoni should indicate that it's not about the style. It's about creating vs. copying. Leonardo was creating, Giorgione was creating, Titian was creating, Bosch, Rubens, Rembrandt drop any name. All of them worked in different styles, but never copied anything. Even in portraits. Titian faces are Titian's faces and a Rubens' head can so easily be distinguished from Rembrand's head, Annigoni is always himself. Even in portraits. Among today's artist only Odd Nerdrum comes close in that regard.
If we only say nice things all the time we will never move anywhere. Sure criticism can be discouraging at times, but there is nothing more poisonous than being afraid of being honest. People who told me what I do wrong and why (that part distinguishes criticism from insult), were the people who helped me the most. I don't care if any particular artist does something bad, but I do care for the new generation of young artist, to which I belong, who are being trained that way and are clueless of so many things. I've been there.
@Atana
Mattelson's figures are always Mattelson's figures. I never mistake his work for that of someone else. You make the distinction about Annigoni's work that it always looks to be done by his hand. Why don't you carry that same view over to Mattelson?
As much as this work relied on photo reference, it is not a copy of a photograph. There are artists whom I also respect whose main goal is duplicate a photograph, and there is a vast difference between the two results. There is decision making throughout the creation of this entire work - it is not mere copying.
"Sure criticism can be discouraging at times..." I doubt Mattelson would be discouraged by your words. I'm discouraged by the negativity. No one is asking you not to have an opinion - everyone has at least one - but this isn't constructive.
Where are your paintings?
I'm sorry that you feel you are not getting enough from your training. It sounds as if you feel you are being asked to lose your individuality. I view it as you being at a point now when you are learning a language. It will make the "poems" you create later in life all the better (i.e.. the rote skills you learn now will free you up for greater personal expression and interpretation later).
"When you paint, try to put down exactly what you see. Whatever else you have to offer will come out anyway". (Winslow Homer)
Surely criticism's only validation is argument, not a portfolio review.
In my view, the reaction against this painting is not about working from a photograph or tight versus loose handling, or any deeper aesthetic reasons (color, line or sprezzatura). It is simply a matter of taste. There's a strain in the contemporary figurative movement that seems less inspired by the great painters of old and more by the peddler of family photographs at your local shopping mall with his poor lighting, big hair, and ugly sweaters.
Well said Matthew!
Leave the insults for the media....
We, as representational artists have a right to like and dislike, but with respect. If this new attack on each other is any indication of the direction of modern realism, we will be phased out by the modernist crap again! There is a definite divide between people that paint from life and the use of photography. I know for a fact that marvin paints from life all the time and uses photography as a tool. whether you like the finished rendering r the looseness of an artist is a matter of taste. No matter what tool you use, we need to have truthfulness and dignity to what works for us personally and no one has the right to disrespect anyone.
In this composition, I believe the client was very happy and that is who signs the check. Commissioned portraits are very different from gallery work..one is not better than the other. let's all get on that page and we will all be happy and not insulted by our individual creative choices!
Post a Comment