"This much is true: dogs and cats and horses don't care what their portrait looks like, which is very liberating! Also, people rarely notice if you make their noses more attractive, their eyes prettier, and their pose more graceful. And this is how I switched from painting portraits of people, to painting people in poses that I find interesting. And, if I wish to exaggerate a feature, or the position of an arm or a leg, or if I wish to add another figure or to adjust a setting ... that's my choice! I find such freedom in that!

 

However, I am a strong believer that an artist must first develop the skills to paint people exactly as they are, with proper proportion and color and detail. I understand that many art schools no longer emphasize this kind of accuracy, which would be a real loss to an art student. After mastering the actual "facts" of what he is painting, the artist can then make decisions as to his personal expression of what he sees. What is really pathetic is when the artist himself does not know his work is varying from accuracy. That is not artistic - that is just a drawing error!

Purposeful exaggeration can be wonderful; errors and inaccuracies are not. I remember as a child seeing paintings by George Bellows of boxers in a boxing ring, with leg positions stretched and exaggerated, showing strength and power...
and I strive in my paintings to depict that feeling of power and movement. Sometimes it works better than other times, of course. My "Flamenco Fury" painting has some of this strong movement, I think."

Jose's response to me:

"I am currently experiencing first-hand what you refer to as lack of technical training in (some of ) today's art schools. Personally I feel they're pressuring us to think more about having a message or concept to work with right away rather than developing skills. At first it may sound thrilling to a young student, I guess, but I was personally expecting something different."

I wonder how many students feel this way.