The Science of Poetical Portraiture: An Interview with Lesley Thiel

By Elizah Leigh

 

Bet you didn’t know that Lesley Thiel, conjurer of realistically rendered yet decidedly surrealistic eco-feminism nuanced oil paintings, is a PhD-educated scientist with a decade of immunological research under her belt?!

Pretty fabulous, ey?

We’ll chalk that somewhat under-the-radar factoid up to the fact that she is an “essentially shy” person who apparently prefers to shine without making a big fuss about it. However, given the number of feathers studding her artist’s beret, it’s apparent that doing a bit of pro-Lesley cockledoodledooing is an absolute must.

Creative expression captured the imagination of the England-born, Ireland-based oil painter in her earlier years equally as much as ecological and science-based topics, but the latter - widely perceived as a more sensible and sustainable pursuit - was given further credence by a former teacher’s claim that she “would be a waste of space at art school”.

Imagine that!

Dedicating herself to immunological research for a full decade, Lesley found herself – like so many other laser-focused individuals who are (at least on paper) successful in their chosen field – far too frequently still questioning what the missing link in her life was.

A little over two decades ago – upon realizing that resurrecting her art dream would do wonders for her emotional wellness – the British painter hit the ground running. Her unwavering commitment to her entirely self-taught painterly craft has quite impressively yielded her myriad international awards (the Portrait Society of America, Art Renewal Center, and International Artist Magazine among many others), multi-gallery representation, inclusion in numerous high profile museum exhibitions, and press from such esteemed publications as The Guide Artists, American Art Collector, Realism Today, International Artist Magazine, and Hyperrealism Magazine.

Saying, “Oh, that’s nice…” seems to vastly understate what Lesley Thiel has managed to achieve in a relatively short period of time. Furthermore, sharing her story serves as a much-needed reminder that - despite what the naysayers may have artist-hopefuls believing – coupling intent with a plan of action (and, of course, committing oneself to practicing, refining, and increasingly rising to new heights of artistic excellence) really can result in seemingly lofty creative dreams coming true.

For gosh sakes…please don’t believe everything that your teachers say.

 

 

Interview with Lesley Thiel

In spite of demonstrating interest and ability as a naturalistic artist in your younger years, why did you end up pursuing science instead?

From an early age, I enjoyed painting and drawing. I have strong memories of being enchanted by fairy tale and nursery rhyme illustrations as well as the work of classical artists such as Gainsborough, Constable, Rembrandt, and Lawrence.

My mother was a talented artist (and frustrated scientist) who only allowed herself to delve into the world of painting for a few years. She thought that my nature-themed works of art were wonderful - but we never actually talked about art - and when the time for me to identify a viable career path finally arrived, I was encouraged to pursue a more stable life choice.

 

It's interesting to note that your early interest in expressing yourself through art seems just as strong as your fascination with biology and wildlife.

Prior to making a formal decision about my career path, I voraciously consumed books about plants, animals, and ecology. Jane Goodall was my absolute hero, and I treasured my copy of David Attenborough’s ‘Life on Earth’. I even used the photos in his book as references for my own paintings.

 

 

Did releasing your art dream so that you could focus solely on science feel somewhat like a loss?

When I became a scientist, I consciously put art aside. Between the rigors of my science degree, post-graduate and post-doctorate research, I had very little time for anything but my work. Even though there was no reason for me to be unhappy, for years I felt a sort of sadness…as if there was something I was meant to be doing yet wasn’t. I just couldn’t put my finger on exactly what it was.

  

Was working for a decade as an autoimmune disease researcher intellectually fulfilling?

I focused primarily on multiple sclerosis, which was initially interesting, but I increasingly became disillusioned by the fact that I was spending just as much time writing grant applications as I was conducting actual research.

 

 

Can you pinpoint exactly what revived your interest in art and how you took your first few steps down that path?

I needed to move on from medical research.

While exploring the tools of my second career path in multimedia creation, I began experimenting with digital painting software in my spare time.

Eight years later - when a rough patch in the economy made it challenging for me to find new freelance opportunities in that field - I began drawing with Prismacolor pencils on Strathmore paper.

Reconnecting with art (and noticing that the sadness I had felt for years finally disappeared) made deciding what I needed to do with my life moving forward quite obvious.

 

 

The pop-psychology concept of left-brained ‘logical/analytical thinkers’ and right-brained ‘creative thinkers’ generally has us believing that never the twain shall meet. Was shifting over from science to art sort of like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, or did it feel as natural to you as breathing?

I am equally left and right-brained, so shifting over to art felt perfectly natural to me. Scientific theories are actually born of the creative mind, whereas testing hypotheses is a left-brained activity. The same applies to the type of art that I create.

Initially, my ephemeral concept is very much right-brained, yet my layout is more left-brained. I come up with my concept and map it out in detail (which includes manifesting and fully developing preparatory drawings). The painting itself is then a bit like doing experiments to test a hypothesis. There is creativity in the problem solving, but for me, it’s more of a left rather than a right-brained activity.

 

 

In terms of familial support and pursuing an art path, you’ve experienced both extremes. Decades later, bolstered by your husband’s encouragement, you navigated a two year ‘do or die trying’ path!

Neither of us had any idea how the art world works - I just knew that I wanted to create art – so in March 2003, I fully committed to that journey.

Knowing what I now know, I broke all the rules without realizing it.

I was at the one year and 11-month mark when I initially showed my work to a gallery. Not only did they offer to take me on – they even secured me a publishing contract.

 

 

Despite a fair amount of creative experimentation with colored pencils, pastels, and watercolors throughout the years, you rendered your early equine-themed paintings with acrylics. What prompted your initial choice of subject matter, and then why did you end up working exclusively with oil paints?

I focused on equine-themed acrylic paintings in the first 8 years of my professional art career because at the time, I had an Arabian colt of my own. Bearing witness to how horses in motion convey so much beauty, freedom, and life really made an impact on me. Regarding my transition to oils, I was represented by a gallerist who felt that it was a more widely accepted medium, and since I didn’t know any better, I made the switch.

 

 

Your equine paintings look quite realistic, but upon deciding to focus solely on classical figurative paintings, did you find yourself taking your ‘A-game’ to an even higher level?

I was able to paint horses through simple trial and error, but transitioning to human subjects and more complex concepts definitely required amplifying my painting knowledge and techniques.

I look back on my earlier works and cringe, but learning about color theory, edges, skin tones and the softness of the human form really did advance my skills.

It took me a good five years of practice and frustration to get anywhere close to painting in the classical manner.

 

 

Whether or not it’s true that working with oils is best suited for those with higher artistic ambitions, mastering them requires sustained effort and lots of practice. At what point did you step over the threshold into professional oil paint slinging territory?

Oil paints are surprisingly malleable and quite forgiving. What really speaks to me is the way in which light passes through them.

I think I achieved my artistic breakthrough in 2017, because that’s when I finally felt like I had control over the way in which I used that art medium.

I’ve reached such a level of familiarity with oils that - at this point - it’s almost as if they are my home. Learning and improving within the realm of oils will continue to be an ongoing process for me, though, since I am chasing mastery.

 

 

What painting strategies have enabled you to achieve your signature level of portraiture realism?

I’ve learned that it’s helpful to consider how certain elements fit the palette of a painting, rather than painting them as they are in real life.

With respect to rendering, I’ve found that it’s important to alternate between warm and cold (which is affected by the color of light). I also regularly mix and tube my own skin tones so I can ensure that my portraits have color consistency.

 

 

Have you ever identified the ‘certain something’ that compels you to use art as a tool for more substantive narratives?

I’ve come to understand that I don’t necessarily think the way a lot of other people do. Art allows me to express ideas sort of in a shorthand manner, and then beholders are free to interpret those concepts in whatever manner they choose.

 

 

Is coupling beauty with the brains of underlying pro-eco/pro-feminist narratives a non-negotiable aspect of your art practice?

The dual themes conveyed in my work are the environment and women as leaders. While beauty is essential to creating art, I’m interested in leveraging the aesthetically pleasing details in my paintings so that the viewer’s emotions are awakened, which may lead to meaningful dialogue and personal action.

Outside of the pro-eco/feminism narratives that I am presently known for, I am open to creating portraits that explore the complexities of real individuals.

 

 

Climate change tends to elicit ‘head in the sand’ passivity, but your art addresses the reality of what is happening to our planet head-on. Why are you continually compelled to create visual narratives in which mother nature is your key muse?

Choosing to ignore the threat that climate change poses to life on our planet doesn’t mean that it’s not happening. I feel deeply frustrated about humanity’s inaction and am compelled through my art to spread awareness.

 

 

Does it matter to you that your preferred subject matter – which is often politicized – may potentially limit your audience?

It would be so much easier to just paint something with mass appeal that doesn’t challenge people, but I feel that it’s important to speak my truth since that’s where my passion lies.

Planet earth - this beautiful, magical, wonderful miracle that we call home - is more important to me than winning a popularity contest with a nebulous group of gatekeepers.

Do I wish it didn’t have to be like this? Absolutely - just like Greta Thunberg wishes that she could just have been another kid in school - but here we are.

 

 

Many art lovers aren’t yet aware of why traditional artists like yourself are vehemently opposed to artificial intelligence image generating tools (which you have repeatedly stated are not nor will ever be a part of your artistic process). Please explain why many creatives perceive it as a highly problematic technology.

Art is a profound and universal form of communication about the human condition. AI computers, which have no creative vision nor the ability to conjure anything original, merely just mimic the ideas of human creators simply by just predicting what the next pixel should be.

Unfortunately, the internet is now flooded with anodyne images, creating noise that edges out traditional artists. The AI user can create dozens of images in hours, generated from the stolen work of other artists. I think it’s sad that we continue to allow this to happen.

 

 

Some professional artists with many years of formal training argue that using photographic reference material (whether obtained from stock images or via AI image generation tools) is one beneficial aspect of their creative process, much in the same way that other people’s literature, films, fashions, etc. can positively impact their ideas or visual aesthetics. What is your take on that?

I recognize that all art is derivative to a greater or lesser extent.

In the development of a creative concept, I don’t think it’s problematic to use photos as a visual reference - I consistently use my own camera shots for the ideas that I commit to canvas.

What I take issue with is when artists use AI tools to generate pictures which they then copy - using their preferred artistic medium(s) - onto canvas.

AI models are only able to produce images because they are trained on countless human artist-created works that are obtained without the permission of the original creators. If it’s not acceptable to paint a copy of another artist’s photo and sell it as your own, the same should apply to AI-generated imagery.

I imagine that this is going to be legally problematic. Due to the way that AI images are generated, they cannot be copyrighted, so if an artist then copies that image in paint, how can that painting be copyrighted?

 

 

When it comes to obtaining creative inspiration, do you ever mine unconventional sources?

Aside from my insanity, I don’t think so. I’ve often wondered if psychoactive substances might spark interesting ideas, but I don’t use drugs…and I don’t even see the point in doing so since my mind is already firmly planted in fantasy territory!

 

 

 

Which ‘artist myth’ drives you batty?

There’s a common misconception that the path of an artist is easy - you’re just born with ‘talent’.

No!

It’s the result of years of practice and disappointment and dedication to your craft.

Anyone can learn to paint - you just have to be willing to dedicate yourself to it, to the exclusion of just about everything else - yet even that does not guarantee a successful and sustained career.

 

 

The art world tends to favor creatives who deliver a consistent formula via a distinctive, unique-to-you aesthetic and tried-and-true theme(s). If you didn’t have to worry about staying the heck INSIDE your lane, what radical aesthetic (or subject matter shift) would you explore?

I would probably paint portraits - not just of people, but of animals and plants, too.

Taking the time to really see, observe and understand the subjects that I am gazing at – and giving them the proper attention and reverence - is what really interests me about portraiture. That’s at the core of why I started painting in the first place.

If exploring subject matter well outside of my normal art lane came with absolutely no negative career consequences, I’d even paint fairies, unicorns and other mythical creatures, too.

 

 

Extremely focused brainy and artsy individuals like yourself are still quirky human beings on occasion. What oddity are your willing to reveal?

I exhibit plenty of weird behaviours, but my inability to properly restore the caps on my paint tubes - or screw down jar lids, for that matter (which my husband has had the misfortune of then shaking) – may be perceived as a bit entertaining,