Maybe other art schools and studios focused on getting perfect figure models, but wherever I went, there was such a range of humanity: from the young and curvaceous and gorgeous, to grizzled and wrinkled guys who have modeled for decades.
-
-
Show this thread
-
You had to work to find the charisma in every face and body. Surprisingly enough, it was always there to be revealed, no matter how unconventional or humble someone appeared at first.
Show this thread -
This may sound like pure sentimentality, claiming that "everyone's beautiful on the inside," but it's more that you take human perception and symbolism as the object of your studies instead of individual people.
Show this thread -
At a certain point in trying to figure out how to make things look pretty, there is this leap from the exact content (canons of proportion, shapely anatomy, etc.) to abstractions of shape, light, and color.
Show this thread -
When I look at the works of some of my favorite artists, it is as if they became *incapable* of conveying perception that is without beauty—or if not beauty, some form of aesthetic appeal beyond the literal vision of a camera.pic.twitter.com/nOA4R2dHqg
Show this thread -
It's true that many people will prefer to just look at traditional representations of beauty. I definitely enjoy glamorous portraits by artists like Sargent or Mucha as well, and in a sense, starting with a beautiful subject means that half of your work is done for you.
Show this thread -
But it isn't the only way to see other people, or to see yourself. (It helps that I disconnected the need to render / understand beauty from the need to embody it within myself, at least.)
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.