Paul Ingbretson Talks About Richard Schmid’s vs Boston School Painting - No. 27

Concepts of popular Schmid and proximity to Boston School impressionism.

[@jmmacb03]

I have been enjoying your videos and have learned a great deal that doesn't seem to be "common knowledge". I was strongly discouraged to pursue art or (even carpentry). Zero art on our refrigerator. We didn't even have crayons… And Dad said, "How many paintings can you paint in a day?" So, I am pursuing drawing/painting with relish at 63 yrs old! We are blessed to have the internet (and you) to document so much of this disappearing knowledge. Cheers, from Toronto Stay safe and sane America. ☮

[@PaulIngbretson]

I was raised the same way BUT we had table puzzles constantly in the house, old ones, usually of paintings. My mom wouIdn't let us pick up a piece (there were usually quite a number of kids around the table) until you KNEW where it went. Think that is where I first learned to memorize a shape or a color relation. .

[@janroach1852]

Richard Schmidt is an illustrator? Hardly. Schmidt paints in large masses of color, regardless of whether he uses large or small brushes. I do suspect he lays it in with a large brush and finishes with a small one. Is that not standard? The large brushes and broad start? Many do that. I'm curious about the Boston School method, though, particularly since there is not much information out there. You would have to study with a teacher a good five years. Which is as it should be but the teachers are not in New York but Boston area and Minnesota. Ted Jacobs does color notes all the time. In his poster and in his work. He analyzes value, hue and chroma down to the brush stroke. I have ordered the only Boston School teaching video I could find, by Gayle Levee who studied with Mr. Douglass-Hunter. On KZbin saw a demonstration of a still life and part of a portrait demo. Her still life underpainting is very similar to what Ted taught many years ago. And the colored wash in is put in with large brushes, varying the color, according to what you see by eye, not keeping it flat. As does Ted. The brushes get smaller as you finish the painting. Gayle's portrait demo, I have seen that technique before, though it is not labeled "Boston School." I also have used the same palette years ago. Did not see the final finish of the portrait. When I receive her program, I look forward to learning more.

[@paulingbretson4394]

Great hearing from you Jan and great how you are thinking this through. All I know of Schmid is from watching his demos. Big washes at the start is a different use of the big brush. How the 'Boston School' approach differs as you can see in the image of the Tarbell 'start' next to Schmids in this video is in their deliberate pursuit of the rightness of the color and light right from the start and 'All over the place at once and not finishing in a small area and working out. In Talk No. 33 I talk specifically about how underpainting as Lack used in in painting from life wasn't employed by the Boston Painters. Actually I don't think Gammell even used it where it would have made more sense. It is important to remember that the methods make the school per Gammell and is simply so, of course.

[@paulingbretson4394]

Also view No. 14 on direct vs indirect painting

[@friedricengravy6646]

Mr. Ingbretson, I certainly understand ur points...that u r not critiquing value of the finished work, only discussing how the process differs. I am very familiar with David Leffel’s process or what he teaches as ‘massing’......no linear drawing involved, certainly not at the beginning, but even in general, he sees linear drawing & the act of painting as 2 completely separate processes. Anyway, if u r familiar with Leffel & his approach, is this similar to the Boston approach? With the focus on large shapes & considering the entire composition from start to finish? Thank u, stay well 😷

[@janroach1852]

Hmmm, so you are saying Gammel used the same method of starting a painting as the Boston School painters use? Lack often used a broad color wash in and the image was carefully drawn even during the painting process or an umber wash. I have a book written by one of the Lack students, very similar to Ted's way of starting a painting. Yes, they seem to be using smaller and smaller round brushes. We used filberts at the time in various sizes and you would go down to fours, then twos and a round only for details. A lot are windowshading now. But Ted did analyze and change the color hue, chroma and value every stroke. What you do is amazing but I think impossible for most students. You can study color with color studies and small posters. I find it fascinating the way you start out with color spots and pull in the drawing at the end..@@paulingbretson4394

[@ShawnValesStudio]

I really appreciate this video and in particular, your closing thoughts in the final 3 minutes. Thanks for sharing.

[@StefanBaumann]

Hi, Paul, This is Stefan Baumann Gald to have found your video!

[@friedricengravy6646]

Mr. Baumann, ur contributions to art/painting education & instruction demand much appreciation, thank u! I hope u r staying well during these difficult times. Wonderful art as well, thank u for sharing.

[@StefanBaumann]

@@friedricengravy6646 Thanks for the kind words and how that someday we can talk or meet

[@musean]

I spent a year studying with Richard Lack near the end of his teaching career, and I was always fascinated by the sort of crossroads of academic and impressionist ideas that existed within his artistic philosophy. Day to day, it seemed that the emphasis was on the academic (with real observation from life). I always loved Gammell's work--even more than I did Mr. Lack's. But it was the very things you seem to degrade in your comments--his drawing of the figure, his narrative subjects, and the "meaning" behind his pictures that drew me in. They were proudly connected to Paxton and through him to Gerome. But Gerome certainly painted with extremely fine detail in the pursuit of story-telling. So what do you think of that aspect of Gammell's work, and of Gerome's work? Honestly, that's what I was after at Atelier Lack, not becoming another Monet or Boston school impressionist.

[@PaulIngbretson]

I was trying to limit myself to pointing out the difference between actual Boston School methods and those of Gammell and Lack and Paxton. My point about subject in painting is that if you cannot bring forth the music in the color and other purely visual elements you have failed at mission number one. I do quote Gammell himself saying right in my face: "Subject is nothing." I do not wish to degrade, just to clarify differences. I always thought Gammell 'degraded' the men of the Boston School but I think, after all, he meant well.

[@PaulIngbretson]

I am still pondering with interest the last part of your kindly put point, about the fine detail and story telling. What is not to love?

[@spacerayb]

Thank you for your videos. I have really enjoyed listening to your thoughts on the ideas and philosophies of the Boston School. Schmidt’s training from the Chicago Art Institute ( undoubtedly an illustration based training to support the need for trained commercial artists) definitely plays a role in his approach. He like many “painterly representational” artists are a synthesized product of classical illustration training and a search to rediscover the knowledge lost from late 19th and early 20th century painting. It’s an interesting conversation to have and proof ( as you have wonderfully stated in your videos) that “realism” is not a monolith concept.

[@anthonyfilipowski7066]

Schmidt went to American Academy of Art

[@JackPaulssen]

A lot of comments here appear to have taken offence on Schmids behalf, needlessly if you ask me. The video was insightful and interesting. And you don’t have to agree with everything you hear to get value from being exposed to new, and sometimes challenging, ideas. Keep up the good work Paul. These videos are a good example of the service to art in which you close the discussion.

[@PaulIngbretson]

Jack, I really appreciate these comments. Thanks!

[@martinvestergaardportraits5654]

This Santa Claus is a true party animal 😂😆🎸🥁📯🎷😋🧨🎈🌋

[@richardgiedd2062]

Paul, thanks again for another interesting talk I would love to have and read a copy of your book, published or not.

[@RonToto555]

Ya looking forward to seeing it publicly

[@lynnhock-napoli7117]

Always learning. Thank you.

[@sketchartist1964]

I'm a "self taught" painter with years of painting hoping to learn more about the methods of the Boston school. I have always felt drawn to Sargent and that style of painting. What would you say are the main differences between Sargent and Sorolla? Were they not pretty much working along the same lines?

[@PaulIngbretson]

They were on significantly the same page.. with the Boston School, too, and others. I get the sense that, outdoors, at least, Sorolla incorporated more of the wholistic search for the color while Sargent relied more on values - more as a tone based painter might. Both incorporated the Monet information. Prefer the color ane light of Sargent indoors over Sorolla. Not sure I want to pursue this as a video...but I'm thinking.

[@sketchartist1964]

@@PaulIngbretson That is interesting. In his book "Twilight of Painting", Gammell somewhat criticized Sargent's work saying it indicated a decline in academic standards, or something along those lines. Was he referring to the looseness of his style?

[@1dddave]

could you say more about the differences between the RHI Gammel and Henry Hensche approaches to impressionism?

[@PaulIngbretson]

I am no expert on Hensche, only say what I see mostly, but Gammell's idea of impressionism include Paxton, miles from Hensche. Easy to see how the Boston School trio of Benson, Tarbell and DeCamp landed in key ways closer to Hensche. Gammell really didn't teach Boston School methods, just talked about the men and quoted them. Admitted he couldn't do what Tarbell was doing. Never got it. I will think about your request, and maybe do a follow-up.

[@devinmichaelroberts9954]

@@PaulIngbretson you aren't an expert on schmid and that didnt stop ya hahah

[@Ronney-Aragundi]

super awesome videos Paul I Love this and subscribed

[@jimqartworks]

thanks, a big help!

[@lorriepriddle8604]

Wow.....have you seen a Richard Schmid painting? That guy has won every single award you can get!

[@PaulIngbretson]

Sure and as I said I rather like it. But it isn't impressionism in any Boston School way. That was the question and my point. Nothing more. The approach is significantly and so are the intentions from the start.

[@gjlgjl]

The description of painting as a contemplation of light and shape notes, as visual poetry without personal stylistic flair (e.g. mark making or allegories) is new to me. I gather that the real "design" of Boston school paintings is in the composition and configuration of still life elements, figures (if any), landscape framing, interior scenes and the coordinating note harmonies. Even in my art school days the Impressionists and Realists were taught with the implicit idea that they were for making statements and imparting personal flair. Is this visual poetry mindset of the Boston School the same thing as Classical Realism? Classical Realism seems to imply a bit more of the artist's hand. I have Richard Lack's catalog and the term Classical Realism is mentioned there. In Lack's other work as with others in the Boston lineage there is a bit of symbolist painting here and there, are these departures from normal Boston school thought? I like Schmid's work too, and in my opinion, like Zorn or Sargent he used brushtroke bravado tastefully.

[@PaulIngbretson]

My sense is that this is a visual art first, at its base. It can be true to that base without being otherwise limited. It must be true to that, however, or risk the dustbin over time.

[@gjlgjl]

@@PaulIngbretson This sounds like formalism to me. What kind of paintings lack the visual base? Abstract expressionism is purely visual but not necessarily truthful to anything in the outside world

[@KEP1983]

Okay, so after watching the video again I think I get what you're talking about.You're saying the Boston School impressionist's highest aim was painting nature faithfully, seeing the broad notes and how they all play off of each other (i.e. how green is that tree against how blue is a sky against how red is that car, down to the individual color notes within those large masses, etc). One does this by working the whole painting and referencing each color note off of each other. You're saying Schmid is more of an illustrator because he's not trying to capture that broad truth of nature but spends more effort on flashy brushwork and beautiful technique. Do I have that right? If so, I'd say to look at his Alla Prima book and see his discussion about this. His older work from when he was younger was more along the lines of what you're talking about; working the whole painting and seeing all the broad masses in context of each other. But he said eventually he realized he was capable of getting the truth accurately as he went if he slowed down, and didn't need to throw everything in and go back and fix previous color notes later. Idk, I can see how you'd say it can be about flashiness and technique, since you made similar comments about Sargent, but I think he's also pursuing accurate representation of nature as well.

[@PaulIngbretson]

Yes, I followed his thinking there, too. I know he is trying to portray accurately what he sees. He does exactly what I found I must do, ie, settle in and make a better statement from the start in each spot you work on. Going back and fixing the color note for us is less fixing and more continuous resort to even more fully establishing the beauty of the relations so it isn;t a correcting of error as much as a building on first notes..

[@duantorruellas716]

Thx Paul very interesting insight on impressionism. 🤔

[@MakhdoomSadiqKhan]

Very nice Sir

[@lonemapper]

I have watched Richard Schmid paint and he uses very large brushes, big scoops of paint on a palette knife and he does use small brushes in the end but they are heavily loaded and he just drags the paint off. Never seen him paint as meticulous as you describe, not saying that he doesn't at times but I think all painters do whatever it takes to get what they want.

[@PaulIngbretson]

Would you send me a video with the big brush, etc, and I will correct myself. Thanks

[@lonemapper]

@@PaulIngbretson The two demonstrations of Richard Schmids painting that I have are digital downloads and I am unable to give you these. As you may imagine it would violate copyright issues. However, I would be able to screen shot images of him but I have no idea how to send you that through youtube. I could send it through e-mail if you want to give me your address. I didn't comment here to "set you strait" or convince you to "correct" yourself and I certainly have nothing invested in Mr. Schmid, other than I like his work. As you mention here, Sargents famous quote "use a larger brush than necessary" maybe more of an attempt on his part to keep his students from using a double zero round on the whole painting. I am quite sure Sargent wasn't using a massive brush to paint the face, it is very obvious that the flashy bravura style slowed down in this area. So too does Mr. Schmid.

[@PaulIngbretson]

If there is a video online, LoneM, you can copy the url from the top of the page and just include it in one of these. No infringement, they want to have them seen. Or just tell me what you type in when you go to get them. Thanks

[@lonemapper]

@@PaulIngbretson The videos I refer to that i own have been purchased from Mr. Schmid, they are not a video online to promote his art. I doubt Richard Scmid needs any promotion at all now at his age and his level of success. If you go to Scmid's website they are there for sale, I think Scott Burdick maybe where I bought the last one.

[@lonemapper]

@@BonRain8734 Bob Ross painted with a house brush. Are you implying that only the greatest use gigantic brushes?

[@jazw4649]

The Noam Chomsky of art

[@PaulIngbretson]

Linguist, like that.

[@joetanner1521]

don't like his comparison of a landscape scene and Schmidt architecturel detail drawing .schmid starts with big brush too

[@PaulIngbretson]

Just trying to show the difference between the thinking and methods of Boston School impressionists and what Schmid appears to be doing per the query of the viewer. Nothing more. No judgement positive or negative of anything Schmid, who I like, does, was intended..

[@joetanner1521]

@@PaulIngbretsonjust yeah ! me too !just saying ! I watched that again and still hating that comparison as u starting at 6:37 and wow ing you're Boston school by blocking in big brush, shape . But Richard Schmid starts also with that block in technik you can watch another video of him or show the beginning .(also it depends when an artist stops ) and an architectural building needs maybe small brush for small things .take the right tool for what u want express .Again JUST saying to me this comparison is dumb.

[@robmeyer7985]

First, my apologies for being rude in my comment. You're ten time the painter I'll ever be and it was uncalled for. The impersonal nature of the internet encourages people to be obnoxious. I think they call it trolling or some such thing. As to point one, I was impatient and frustrated by the length of the video It got to the point where I was trying to finish your sentences for you. As to point two, I don't think artists seek truth, at least in any objective sense. If anything they search for THEIR truth, an entirely subjective effort, Architects are called to express the "parti" of their design, the underlying rationale of the aesthetics, or at least an emotional basis for the design. Painters present for all to see their truth, if it can be called that, but not the truth. In most cases they are unable to express what it was they were seeing or expressing. We are just supposed to look at a Rothko work and devine his innermost, presumably deep, concept. As to the fourth point, one can't blame the artist for the world's reaction. And as to the fifth point, related to the third I find the distinction between fine art and illustration meaningless. I suppose the definition of illustration is the production of a work for a particular commercial purpose. This would classify Michelangelo as an illustrator of the Sistine Chapel, One should watch some of Peter Beard's "Unsung Heroes of Illustration" or review N.C. Wyeth's paintings and say these are not also fine artists. Again my apologies for my brusqueness.

[@PaulIngbretson]

Many thanks, Rob, as I really like the conversation in general, of everyone who is sincere. Food for thought. I may try to talk about some of these in a video along here somewhere. The "truth" point particularly interests me. In other places (videos) I have made the same point as you that most of the Renaissance painters were illustrators after all and I haven't been of a mind to simply disparag those painters except to point out their necessarily different focus say, from an impressionist.

[@robmeyer7985]

@@PaulIngbretson Thanks to you Paul. Keep up the good work!

[@israeldiegoriveragenius2th164]

Agree with you Paul, his work is illustration, most contemporary American figurative painting is illustration, with an over use of photos. Their work lacks drawing too. In these so called new classical academies the work is horrible , looks like third rate illustration. Formulaic is the right description . What i like about you Paul is your integrity in expressing yourself, truth is what it is about. This is one of you best videos.

[@robmeyer7985]

1 - Please gather your thoughts before speaking. 2 - Pursuit of "truth" in painting is a conceit. 3 - ALL paintings tell a story. No difference between representational illustration and "fine art." Just a different story. 4 - Iconization of an artist, e.g., Sargent, is the fault of the beholder, not the artist. 5 - Modern art stinks. (Pardon the brusque tenor. ;-)

[@PaulIngbretson]

I agree with you and promote the idea that all representation has a 'narrative' - inevitably. Disagree on most of your other un-nuanced points.

[@elisabethseeger5837]

Interesting- I’m sort of tired of artists copying Sargent, Sorolla, Zorn and others as though you can’t paint with expression, style and passion for your subject that is your own or even that if different artists.. (Granted we all mostly start out learning from and even copying famous artists and teachers). It’s almost tribal, like wearing the same clothes - you have to say you do plein air painting ( not usually ”I paint outside, on location or outdoors.”) You have to have a certain popular easel, a particular brand of paints and brushes, and frame your work in dark “plein air” frames. After a while, to me, many of the paintings begin to look alike or identifiably like their teacher!s work. What do people care about, what do they love so much that they just have to capture it in spirit and truth in paint- like many musicians, writers in their own way?

[@PaulIngbretson]

Yes, first a language, though, then expression. No?

[@grrromit]

I'm sorry but I'm just hearing a lot of jealousy in this talk.

[@PaulIngbretson]

Not no or have ever been jealous of Richard Scmid. Wholly different goals and ambitions.

[@danhelgemo429]

I’m hearing a lot of small brush envy...😜

[@rdnzl401]

I didn't detect the slightest hint of jealousy.

[@dannistor7294]

how does one detect jealousy in a speech of this kind? (I didn't watch the video, not yet)

[@ams9449]

I prefer Mr.Schmid's edge control better, way better. The examples you brought on screen in this video are rather poor in my opinion, let alone 'real'. If one wants to pursue life-like experience then Christian Seybold is a better shot at it than Monet. As for the brush size, just watch at minute 3.00 of kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZerfpJqoJaSnKs , you'll see a handful of big brushes.

[@PaulIngbretson]

Sebyold gives me the heebie-jeebies, I am afraid, Artin. Will have to review what I said to make you want to compare the two.

[@friedricengravy6646]

Remember, his statements r never critical.....always analytical. No need to defend any artist mentioned. Art lectures typically have no pursuit in deciding value or merit of a piece or artist. He’s simply comparing process & explaining how some vary when compared to the Boston approach. Most of all we continue to learn that impressionism is not a final look alone.....its a complete process, one that includes ‘seeing’ in a certain way as well.

[@PaulIngbretson]

That's much appreciated, your reiteration of that, Gravy.

[@planetwarrior9980]

You seem like a nice fellow but I must say it is odd that you speak and are in alignment with exactly what Gammell fought against. Gammell thrived on the nourishment of the classical traditions, but found himself in a time where such traditions and values were being denigrated and treated as passé due to Modernist ideologies which were mainly the Impressionists, who Gammell himself blamed for the destruction of traditions and rightly so. You're spewing intellectual masturbatory theories discussing Schmid as an Illustrator where Gammell himself Illustrated Large Biblical and Mythological monumental works of art which could easily be deemed Illustration but in turn are quite beautiful and superb works of art. My own criticism of Schimd has been just that, he needed a large monumental work of art like a Madame X or Oyster Gatheres to be a true master but he was hardly an Illustrator because In reality this Century old Illustration vs Fine Art talk are really labels of separation and art warfare actually created by Modernist ideologies who used this exact language to diminish traditional Art to elevate themselves and the minimal works they chose to illuminate as the pinnacle of painting in both execution, and concept. That is a fact. You in turn in this video are adopting 'their' Language of artistic warfare, not Gammells who you speak so highly of. There are Millions of Artists roaming in Ateliers and Universities filled with Avant-Garde modernist dogmatic doctrines who use cerebral psychological language coupled with obfuscation to elevate their own works of art. It is a frequency of Modernist brainwashing that has proliferated into the Traditional Painting establishment like a virus, and you're spreading it unknowingly.There is no shame in making videos to garnish students/followers for income because the sad truth is Classical painting in any form has been destroyed and bastardized and systematically dismantled by the same Avant-Garde Modernist gatekeepers who again use language to elevate their minimal work with cliche artistic intellect. Instead of railing against Schmid perhaps railing against the establishment who hate you, Schmid, and Gammell and they way you get back at them is not by talking Fine Art vs Illustration, you get back at them by creating a painting as monumental and powerful as Gammells The Dream of the Shulamite. Do it.

[@PaulIngbretson]

The purpose of my videos is to differentiate the methods of the Boston School from Gammell's and earlier academic traditions. I celebrate all representational art from illustration to decoration to symbolism to impressionism when it's good, beautiful and true. Listen longer.

[@planetwarrior9980]

@@PaulIngbretson The purpose of your videos is primarily to help you with supplementing your income as an artist. That is your ultimate goal to garnish students/followers. Showcasing yourself as an authority on painting or attaching any philosophical mantras on Art/painting to the goal is really just a balm to assuage your artistic conscious.

[@Hadoken.]

I’m sorry to say that excuses such as brush size and where one holds the brush to sort of insinuate a difference in quality and intellectuality (the ever present bane of artists to appear as such and impress a smug elite class of academics and their patrons who buy their way into a high IQ status cult) is beyond uninformed. First off illustrators who work traditionally for the most part have the skill level to create paintings using anything and at any size. The stereotypical ad photo in an art book showing an illustrator supposedly touching up a finished piece or drawing with pencils isn’t representative of the process. Most illustrators work in sizes larger than the printing size of the work and use their whole arm gesture, large brushes, rakes or paper to lay on or wipe off paint. The images are just for show. So using those is misinformed. And the second, most illustrators who retire from illustration go into fine art, doing landscapes, country life, abstract art, mythological or religious themes, you name it. And they are thwarting most of those who began as “fine artists” in these spaces because of the amount of skill as well as absorption, creation and distillation of ideas that they have been forced to develop in order to eat, opposed to fine artists who just sit around and do nothing waiting for “inspiration” or just paint a random still life and sell it for a few bucks, no thought process needed. Of course it’s a straw man I described, but the distance between fine artists and illustrators in their understanding and application of art within a fine art space is miles apart with illustrators blowing fine artists away. Hell, illustrators don’t even accept the distinction, an indication of a wider scope of thought. So I find it very very disingenuous to criticize the effect of a picture based on such grounds especially when it’s totally false. An illustrator can do a fine artists job and none would be the wiser, but the opposite just is not the case.

[@PaulIngbretson]

I don't have an answer to that but that all my comments were referring to differences in training I have experienced between the two. No judgement intended not dismissiveness. Hope that didn;t come through. Don't agree with your dismissiveness toward those who work from life since it includes Sargent, Zorn, Sorolla and all other artists who paint what they see.

[@Hadoken.]

@@PaulIngbretson You misunderstood what i was saying with painting from life. What i was saying the pressure, preparations stages and process to produce a final are many for an illustrator, painting from life is but one of them (tho practically few have the time to set up models for more than preliminaries for their finals instead of painting their final directly from life as 80 or 100 years ago). As such this produces more energetic problem solvers with high skill, control and level of finish or abstraction plus they study everone including people like zorn etc. By contrast a fine artist (and i really hate the seperation of terms) can, if all else fails, paint what he sees with gusto. Many fine artists are as.i see it, the experimental theoriticians illustrators as well as other fine artists, spring from tho many illustrators are also such as a result of temperament at least. I wasnt comparing methods or putting any down, i was pointing out the difference in workload, work ethic and choices which tends to produce different results that may make it seem there is no relation as to method from afar, when indeed the illustrator overlaps completely with the fine artist, which is why illustrators easily can move into that field. I hope i am more clear now.

[@KEP1983]

@@Hadoken. most illustrators can't paint from observation to the level of a highly trained fine artist. Illustrators are trained to simplify and paint conceptions rather than direct observations. Go ask illustrators at Marvel or Disney to match a Nelson Shanks or Pietro Annigoni and they'll admit they can't. Ask Shanks or Annigoni to paint Thor attacking Thanos and they'll say they're not interested 😅

[@Hadoken.]

@@KEP1983 You're conflating illustrators and comicbook artists. The caliber of people I work with are classically trained from life first (especially some disney artists) and versed in many methods and levels of finish because of the demands of the profession. What changes is subject matter and purpose. You can't say that say, Boris Vallejo or Drew Struzan are not artists of the highest caliber. And there are many more. They just prefer other ways to make their living and many eventually teeter off into fine art after a while. Also, simplification many times gives the greatest breadth of expression, effect, attraction, purity of color and essence of the subject. Minute detail after a point of technical skill is just a matter of putting in the time, and even then there are smart ways to achieve it.

[@KEP1983]

@@Hadoken. I was actually referring to concept art for the MCU movies, not comics. I know concept artists, but not any comic artists. I'd be interested to know what your experience is in the illustration field? I worked for 11 years in the fine arts (sort of a workshop system, like Andy Warhol). I never had interest in doing illustration, though I've had many friends go that way. The best ones I know of have worked on things like Star Wars, MCU, Disney, some big AAA gaming companies, etc. Mostly concept art, illustration, book covers, things like that. Some of them get classical training. I'm thinking of people like Morgan Weistling, who got classical training, worked as an illustrator, then went into fine art. Personally, my teacher studied with Frank Reilly (big name illustration teacher) and Dumond (fine art), and another teacher of mine studied for years with Reilly. I'm very familiar with the mindset of both schools. Completely different aims. But anyways, most illustration programs teach a constructed method of drawing and not high level observational painting. I love Vallejo and Bell, but if you asked them themselves, they'd probably admit they can't paint as well as, say, Antonio Lopez Garcia. I'd love to see them work from observation. I'm sure they're capable, but I'll bet the drawing is a lot more constructed and not truly observed as a classically trained realist like, say, Shanks, Schmid, or Garcia. I'm not saying either is superior to the others, just saying that illustrators have completely different aims than realist fine artists, and the constructive training that most of them receive doesn't achieve super high levels of observation. That's not the point of it. Also, realism isn't about obtaining a high degree of finish, regardless of how quickly it's achieved. Schmid doesn't achieve high levels of polish, yet I personally know illustrators from Star Wars and Disney who idolize him.

[@paulingbretson4394]

Thanks to Ronney. I hope all can be patient. We have had to pause but will be back online soon.