The reason for portrait work as opposed to merely taking a photograph of a person is the whole mystery of art. It is done by a human hand and processed through a human personality, including perceptions, emotions, etc. One might just as well ask, why paint a landscape when you can far more easily take a photograph?
And, as Naisbitt pointed out ("Megatrends"), in this time of massively increased technology, we're learning all over again to value art and craft and the handwritten note.

I'd like to see Bill's website, to give it all a little context, you know. Can you give us the link? I appreciate the proverbial and vicarious kick in the ass as well.

The correspondence was thought provoking. I have always hated portraits because I am not a camera. AND I have never met someone that looks at a picture of themselves and says they look great in a picture. Photo or otherwise. If someone is asking you for a portrait, they must like your style and know what to expect. If someone says, "that doesn't look like me.." say, "thank you." You, the ARTIST must have CREATED a terrific piece! Your style will develop, merge and change as you work and practice new techniques . I think we will always feel like whores... as you say because some techniques come so easy for us but other styles and tools are new to us, forever challenging us to growl But we are not whores. It did not take 4 hours to paint that piece, or that portrait, it took me 30 years. Maybe it took you 15 years. It just comes easy now.

I love that red! How do you have the nerve to use such a wonderful and strong color in a face. I want to learn to do it too.

Since the exchange I had with Danny afew weeks back I have really begun thinking about the direction my art is heading in. I have been working a bit more on my experimental approach to drawing. I have been completing my portrait orders (christmas is crazy) and just going crazy sketching and painting as much as I can. I have had very long days but I am happy with the direction I am going now. As for the duality I feel between my illustrations and portraits, well I guess I am trying not to think about it as much. As Danny suggested I am just moving forward. I have to admit the advice I received was extremely direct but it was definitely the kick in the pants I needed. As a matter of fact I am placing an ad in Picturebook this year and a few samples will be portrait of celebrities. Thanks again for the kick in the ass Danny.

Lydia psed an interesting observation regarding how folks view themselves and their photos/portraits. I did some prtrait work some years ago and learned very quickly to add or subtract hair as needed, eliminate wrinkles, and give the patron what they really wanted, which was an illustration of their own internal vision of themselves. My own husband thnks I am a great portait artist because I had gifted him with a pencil portrait of himself in a fedora with a pencil mustache and a cigarette in his hand. The man has a very bushy mustache, has never smoked and seldom wears any kind of hat, but I had figured out very early on that he another, romanric vision of himself and that was what I gave him.
A photo can never do that, which is why most folks do not like their own photos. it takes an artist to figure out what that person really sees themselves as. The fellow this column was adressed to who had a hard time seeing the connection between portraiture and illustration needs to listen to his patrons, ask questions and ILLUSTRATE that individual.

Danny wrote:

"Just take it day-by-day, make art for those who want it and keep moving."

Danny, thanks for this kick ass post. All of it resonated with me, but this line in particular hit home. Sometimes I think we all have that Woody Allen attitude about our work - "why would I join a club that would want me for a member?"

The Golden Artist Apple is always just out of reach.

Thanks for saying it so succinctly: do what you can do when you can do it and keep on truckin'!

To Kathleen. I learned a long time ago patrons do not want a poison pen portrait of themselves. That has always been one of my hang-ups concerning my portraits. My illustrated portraits hold nothing back in the way of detail. I have found most of the editors I deal with would rather have my vision and not some Homogenized version. That is one of the reasons I feel such a duality between my illustrations and my portraits. It is two totally different client bases with two seperate sets of rules. I learned that the hard way. One year I donated my portrait service to a local PBS telethon. The high bidder came to my studio with a picture of his wife. I drew what I saw with every detail intact. When the man came to pick up the portrait he was amazed. He could not say enough nice things about the drawing. He gave the portrait to his wife as a present at Christmas. Well She opened it and upon viewing began to cry. The man thought she was crying because it was so beautiful. She turned to him and said: "I have a space between my teeth and a mole." "Do I really look that old?" "My hair looks like a school marm." Well needless to say the man returned the portrait to me and asked me to eliminate all the details that made the woman who she was. And ever since that day my illustrated world has been seperate from my portrait world.

Good advice.

My advice, Bill, is to keep making the jam. Sooner or later you'll figure out how to sell it. But if there's no jam to sell...

This is the advice I give myself, too. I'm at that 'keeping my feet wet' point you describe, holding things together with a day job while I complete my studies. Good luck with the illustration work.

Bill's dilemma reminded me so much of The Portrait by Nikolai Gogol.