I follow Anthony on instagram and have found my way here in my thirst for knowledge!
I am looking for resources on trompe l’oeil painting, and specifically, the technical process of replicating highly detailed patterns on visually complex items such as currency, postage stamps, musical notation, and etc. As these are mechanically made items, I struggle to understand how it is possible to render them with perfect accuracy without the aid of a mechanical device.
Browsing through articles on this site it looks like Anthony transfers a cartoon drawing onto the surface of the panel, which is derived from a photograph (I think?). But it looks like the drawing only captures the general contours of the composition, and not the nitty gritty details. This leads me to believe that very fine details, such as the engraved patterning around the edges of the bills in the below work, are being painted from sight - which seems impossible!
Even diverging from the pattern slightly betrays the artist’s hand. So how is it being done? I cannot for the life of me figure it out. Good old practice and skill is undoubtedly a key element, but there has to be a specific technique as well.
I’d be greatly appreciative if anyone has any insight into the actual process, as I cannot for the life of me find any information in libraries or online.
I can’t comment too much on the trompe l’oeil approach as it’s way out of my remit and I’m nowhere near that proficient (or patient) but I know there’s no magic bullet or trick to it. It simply does take hours of meticulous attention to detail and good technique. There are some tiny brushes and even magnifying glasses used now and again for super detailed stuff. A careful underdrawing isn’t going to hurt either.
The Language of Drawing and Language of Painting programmes Anthony has put together give an excellent foundation for reaching this level of control and accuracy - there is a lot of work in it to get there. But if it was easy, everyone would be doing it, right!?
Tony Curanaj has a tutorial available too, where he’ll walk you through producing a still life to a high level of resolution too so you can see his process and some of the techniques you can use to get certain effects/textures to look correct. Might give you some ideas.
Hope this gives you something to go on, and no doubt @AWaichulis will drop a knowledge bomb or two if he’s not still busy painting up some leather glove so real that you can actually put your hand in it.
Welcome to our community of practicing artists. The challenge to find good resources for high-resolution painting processes can be almost as challenging as creating such works. We do have a good number of issues related to such endeavors throughout this site and there are many more resources on the way.
It is true that my cartoons are somewhat general. Early on in my career I had a tendency to try and plot out every “relevant” detail—but that practice ultimately felt extremely limiting as my process evolved. I enjoy the process of an organic,direct painting/drawing approach that combines descriptions of volume and surface texture simultaneously. It is true that I am doing what I do via sight but I do not see “more accurately” than anyone else—in fact no painter or draftsperson will ever learn to see more accurately. What can happen is that certain types of practice in the realm of observational representationalism CAN lead to the establishment and reinforcement of specific visuomotor responses to specific types of visual information that are conducive to representational efforts. These associations can be strengthened in a number of ways—including something as simple as reserving measurements for mark evaluation instead of mark establishment. That’s really it. There’s no tricks or hidden secrets of past or contemporary masters that only a select few can know. There is really only practice that improves performance.
Now it is true that I have adaptive processes that can be heavily influenced by subject (like the currency graphics you mention) and I am happy to share any of my processes with you. I love talking shop and the more specific you can get—the more help I can be. Just start tossing out the questions. I’ll answer each and every one to the best of my ability.
Hi there. So I posted this thread early in 2020, and then… got rather distracted by what happened next.
I’m glad to see this site is still up and running, and that you are still active Anthony (I still follow you on Instagram).
Apologies for resurrecting a very dead topic, but the subject of mechanical reproduction is still interesting to me. I appreciate the answers that were posted here already, and am both surprised and amazed that my initial suspicion (that you are copying the the source image largely freehand) was correct.
Anthony, would it be possible for you to explain, in detail, how you would paint a piece of currency as an example, or a postage stamp? Do you really get every single one of those printing lines correct, freehand, without the use of measurement or guidelines? I am speaking for instance about the repeating patterns that border the piece of monopoly money or the word ‘five’ on the leftmost five dollar bill in the above ‘Caps and Robbers’ piece.
The best I can guess is that you are painting a block of flat colour and then extracting away using a stylus or thinner or some such – am I on the money (pun unintended)?
It is nice to hear from you. I must apologize for my delay in responding, but I have been swamped with a good number of projects and events recently. Also I should mention that I am happy to see practitioners kicking up some of these older topics─I wish more people did. So often, people come here with the same questions, and I am sure that having these older topics resurface into the recent category is helpful to somebody who might also be looking for the info.
As to your questions: While a good bit of what I paint in terms of items like stamps, currency, and other similar ephemera is “freehand” for practical reasons. I almost always have general graphite guidelines and cartoons established prior. The trick is finding the right resolution of “guide.” If the guide or cartoon is too detailed or complex—it may become more of a hindrance than an advantage. Without a doubt, some patterns that I do are not accurate in size or number. However, it’s as close as it needs to be in service of the overall image. Sometimes, chasing the exact number of lines, let’s say, in something like that monopoly money might not be in the best interest of what my overall goals might be for a specific piece. For me, it’s all about balancing the macro and the micro.
In addition, I do try to take advantage of some “closure” dynamics in which elements are initiated with great accuracy, but I move into suggestions that elicit greater viewer contribution during observation (but that’s a bit more of a complicated topic).
Specifically, as you correctly suspect, I often apply a flat color and use subtractive measures to achieve greater resolutions, especially with fine lines and sharp, complex pattern work. There are resources here on Smartermarx that explain both the specific tools I use and actual usage. Just do a search for “stylus.”
I just wanted to take a moment for your thoughtful response, after all this time! It is somewhat of a relief to learn that you are okay with there being a certain degree of interpretation with regards to the original source composition, i.e. you are not slavishly copying the pattern one to one. It feels liberating. As I progress in my own painter’s journey I learn that more and more of what gets subsumed under photorealism, trompe l’oeil and etc. is actually quite organic, and involves a great deal of creative decision-making on the part of the artist–it’s not purely mechanical.
And I am particularly drawn to your notion that the viewer contributes to the work, I feel I have some understanding of what you are talking about–that the brain ‘completes’ the pattern, as it is disposed to do, and that leaving some parts less resolved actually contributes to the overall harmony of the image.
