Master Copies

[Strela]

On another forum, I saw the dumbest advice I think I've ever seen. Someone was telling experienced and very competent artists that they shouldn't do master copies because then they might end up painting like the masters they're copying, and not like themselves.

Personally, I'd settle for that. If I became a clone of Sargent, I would far rather have that than my own amateurish garbage.

If you're trying to go your own way you're taking the guidance of someone who doesn't know anything about painting, that is to say yourself-- reinventing the wheel as it were.

If you're copying Sargent-- aside from anything else-- what you are actually putting out is going to be work of a far higher standard. From a purely rote-learning standpoint, if you do a thousand Sargent copies paying strict attention to stroke economy, value, color selection etc, you'll very likely be able to produce portraits that somewhat resemble Sargent's.

I think the idea that there's a danger that you'd end up looking too much like Wyeth or Sargent or the like is just ridiculous hubris, like, you should BE so lucky because it's really not that easy. Not only that, differences in subject matter will erode any similarity that there might be and even when that's not the case-- like Royo-- differences in individual style emerge no matter what. Royo was heavily influenced by both Frazetta and Giger. You can see it in every single piece of art he ever did. His art looks amazing.

What do people think of master copies?

[Enydimon]

Well, I have no issue with master copies at all, but on the subject of turning out like the artist...

Being an exact copy can have it advantages and disadvantages. You can get hired for being able to produce someone's art 'style' simply because the other artist is unavailable or you're just the cheaper choice. On the other hand, you probably wont be first pick for someone who wants something a little more fresh to introduce.

There are a lot of people who will commission you to draw in say, Frank Frazetta's style and I once knew someone who got a job because he could draw like Joe Madeira.

But outside a professional perspective and into an idolization one, I do get a little annoyed when I see a lot of people who are into comics, draw in Joe Madeira's style. I've seen it so many times that it just seems rehashed if the person doesn't do anything exciting with it.
Then there are people who grew up with these comics or paintings and they admire these artists so much, they almost see them with rose coloured glasses, even later on. For example, Frank Frazetta is one of my favourites but I didn't grow up with his work, but some people did. And some (not all) of these people who grew up with his stuff think that he's untouchable. Frazetta has wonderful anatomy and he draws wonderful proportions on his male and female figures and I especially like how he makes his females look natural. However, despite his good composition, it's not the most exciting and his colour pallet seems to be really earthy all the time. The danger I could see with using these masters to study is idolizing them instead of learning from them. It's important to remember that even they had weaknesses or mistakes, and sometimes if we follow them too closely, we get into their mistakes. So I would be concerned if someone was idolizing an artist instead of learning from them because there is a difference.

Some people idolize artists who aren't necessarily the best, but some other part of their art appeals to them. I think as artists we should learn and take from many.

If I could paint as well as Sargent, you know what I'd do after I got that far? I would try to surpass him. Because these guys are not the bar, it's our job to raise it.