Sharon
 

I agree with you and so would Sargent.

Michael G., I know and concede the point, I just think we here may enjoy deeper understanding and conversation. All knowledge is good and useful. Yet, I have never thought we needed to have human anatomy memorized in order to paint a person. Stuff is stuff, they still have unskilled art students in college attempt, usually in total disaster, to draw the nude human form from life, BEFORE they can do the most basic things, proclaiming that we should all learn to know anatomy! Never mind dozens of basic pre-requisite skills that ought to come first.

We are not expected to be automotive engineers to draw a car nor architects to draw a house, why must we know human anatomy to paint people? Stuff is stuff. Draw well and you can draw all-this is another Sargent idea.

LOL Mike! It is fun to tell people you can do plastic surgery!

When Sharon gave me the "classic proportions" it has been a great reference. Just to throw a wrench in the works, I experience two major problems with measurement:

1. If using the head measurement, it is very rarely I have someone standing completely straight - throws the whole thing off. Or is this where Peggy

Tim,

You're right, stuff is stuff. And we should be good enough painters to be able to paint anything. When a flower is slightly off or a vase is a little off in its shape, it is not noticed much. But when a face is off or the head is too large for its body, everyone notices. That is why the faces are now larger on US money, to make it harder to counterfeit.

I'd love to paint people that were life size. I guess I just need clients with bigger houses. :)

MWF 7.74 heads
 

MWF 7.75 heads would like to share with likeminded person of the opposite sex, long northlit afternoons over a jar of Webers Turpenoid.

Faves: Blockx oil paints, unrolling a new length of Claessens 13 DP canvas and a check that is actually in the mail.

Sharon, your post made me laugh out loud!

(It also reminds me that it's not so easy to find people who share my interests. Maybe an ad in the back of a Dick Blick catalog might do the trick. Talking with artists in person would be nice sometimes. Though this forum is a very good next-best-thing!)

Sight size
 

Beth,

Head size is one of the top priorities of all considerations.

I painted a two-story-high portrait in the past, (I was the size of the image's ear), also did a lot of mini sketches, heads were in size of one half of a finger nail. The later practice is not healthy for my vision, but does train my hands. Some craftsmen can carve a portrait on a hair with the aid of a magnifying glass.

I completed a girl's portrait with oversized head, did so for a pretty lady. The later one was risky, although she was very pleased and stopped me for retouching.

Here's another point to consider. If an artist starts measuring heads and does this thing with a formula, then what do you do with everyhting else in the painting? What about the table the hand rests on? What about the bookcase behind the subject? Formulas will get you in trouble-painting what you see will work out fine-if you take your time and see correctly and draw accurately.

There

It's simple
 

Heads are differing sizes. Some people have large heads although they are short. Some tall people have small heads. It's not reliable, not standard, so why even start. It's a art school trick, an interesting thing to show artists and to discuss.

If every time we picked up a measuring tape the things varied 10-20% both ways off standard we would not trust them. We would find a better way to measure.

Then don't do it. Walk away.
Yeah. Nobody's said any different. That's the whole point of comparing reality to presumptive measurements. Greene figured it out. Leffel did, too. How, after so much effort, can none of that have registered here, even for modest consideration?

This is a curious indictment, coming from an esteemed workshop instructor. Surely you have some good ideas, procedures, and protocols that you offer to your students. I'm sure those advices and advisories would be appreciated not by only many current Forum members, but also by future workshop participants.

I'm back
 

Wow, where to start on this one? I am not sure if I should jump in the middle here or not, but what the Hay.

First off, comparing heads, you are using the person's head you are painting and then comparing it by sight to other objects.

Distance from point a to point b is two heads. Hold up your brush at arm's length to the head then compare it to other points of reference.

Why the head? Well, for one, in a portrait it is the dominate focal point and if it is not in correct proportion to the figure as a whole, as well as everything else, then it would look very odd.

Also the head itself is broken down to its parts for comparison.

No one said that every figure is always the same size and every head is the same size. But as long as you get the relationships correct then things look correct. If you do not, then things look odd.

Also: there are people who look more attractive if you forego their actual proportions for more idealistic proportions. Now this part is personal preference. I, for one, am used to idealizing figures for advertising and illustration work, but it does not hurt to idealize your subject a bit for a portrait. It is one of the benefits of a painting over a photo. This can be done with out affecting the likeness.

So, the guides of how many heads there are in a figure are helpful, if your goal is one to be able to draw figures from your imagination, completely without reference, or to combine different reference shots.

Also, it is a very useful guide when drawing idealized characters in illustration work. Now in portraiture, it is not always the desire to idealize and yes, these guides are no substitute for good visualization and sight sizing. But don't be so hasty to dismiss this as useless just because you personally have no use for it. It is not just a art school trick - it is a very useful tool, and when used in conjunction with good observation is a very powerful tool.

Now this is not the only way, nor do I suggest everyone start drawing only Greek-god idealized figures. But although these proportions vary from person to person they are still a good guide and most people fall close enough within the proportion range that you will not be too far off. You need some kind of guide to start out with when you are doing initial layout to position heads and to size multi-figure paintings then through observation and comparison fine tune the relationships. Otherwise I have seen many artists start laying out a head too large and not have enough room in the end for the rest of the figure or end up with a pumpkin head or a pin head.

Steven, I'm not sure what the point was of your last post. The one thing I got was that you seem to think since I teach, I agree with everything ever taught. That's kind of a stretch.

I wouldn't say there is no benefit in having a guideline or benchmark starting point, but in the hands of a master, the whole discussion gets quite elastic pretty quickly...

(You've gotta love James Montgomery Flagg's caricature too...)

Hey, Michael, for "jumping into the middle" of this discussion, you nailed the issues and answers very persuasively. Well done. I commend to all a careful and considered rereading of your thoughtful and temperate post.

Tom -- Before I scrolled down to see the caricature, its "message" was in fact what I had in mind upon viewing the painting. I of course do not assume that Sargent didn't know anatomy, only that he chose to stylize it in this manner, in this painting, for some intended effect. Based in part on the caricature, I assume he succeeded in part.

Regarding Sargent's Painting
 

One probable reason, I was told in art history class, for the seemingly small heads on the Sargent painting posted was: This painting is a full length very close to full size rendition that was intended to be hung with the subjects eyes at or about viewer's eye level or just slightly higher in a location that did not allow the viewer to stand back far enough to view the entire painting at once.

So the proportions as you look at the painting with the heads closest to you and the subjects feet way down by your own feet. The size of the head seems normal.

This is the opposite of what Michelangelo did with the David statute where the head and shoulders were intentionally over size so that when viewed looking up at the statue they would not appear too small. And the effect is a very heroic David.

Steven--

...right, which he did often. At the last PSOA conference, Shane Neal showed a photo of Coventry Patmore next to Sargent's famous portrait, and the "non-literalness" and near-caricature quality of the painting was profound. And yet, you feel you really know the guy when you look at Sargent's portrayal. Shows the liberties you can take with the physical facts and still have a warm, empathetic rendition of the subject.

Best--TE

Good point
 

Tom, I think you make a good point here. The key issue is the understanding of head structure, of which Sargent was a master. If the structural integrity is intact, one has the freedom of alteringing and exagerating aspects of the face in order to enhance the sitters character.

I think there is a tendency towards too much nitpicking when measuring. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with that. But if the structure is not understood something will always seem "wrong."

Measurement, which I stongly advocate (as you undoubtedly witnessed in my workshop), needs to be seen as a means, and not an end unto itself. Understanding is the goal.

I think that what Sargent demonstrates is that the most exciting

[quote]Works can be true without being accurate, as well as accurate without being true. Most of the award winners are both, and that

Marvin--

Well put. As you already know, in my workshop I plan to teach them to use your tools to measure the bejeezus out of what's before them--as a path to that understanding. As I re-read Richard Schmid's book this week, he makes the point that the more correct work that is in place on the canvas, the more the incorrect is easier to spot

Steven--

Add my kudos to Chris's for the above summation. I want to remember this as a yardstick for my upcoming work.

Best to all--TE

Image
 

You guys may want to see;

http://www.artrenewal.org/images/art...lps_Stokes.jpg

you can see here that her feet are well behind and higher than her skirt, which extends forward and thus appears longer. If you look at the male he looks right-if you at the male and compare him to her they look correct together. It's the bottom of the skirt that stirs the remarks herein, I think.

The more I look at it, the more I like the strangeness of it. It reminds me a little bit of El Greco. The clothing of the woman becomes a visual balance. I never saw this one in real life, but I can imagine that the effect of it becomes hypnotic when you look longer at it. Can anyone tell if that's the case in real life?

Especially the placement of the hat is magic.

Tim--

Yours is a good observation, and I'm sure her feet are really up under there somewhere, not at the extreme bottom of the skirt.

But Sargent would still really stretch 'em though, without hesitation. Look at the portrait of W. Graham Robertson, and also Ellen Terry as Lady Macbeth.

But I digress.

Good painting to all--TE

In my experience, I need to constantly challenge myself to understand what lies before me if I aspire to create a convincing portrayal of my subject.

I start with a two dimensional surface upon which I want to convey a three dimensional reality. I cannot recreate the volume of the form and depth of the air because these things happen in space.

I need to manipulate my painting and deceive the viewer to believe that I have recreated this space so they can experience the illusion of reality. In order to do this I need to fully understand what lies in front of me and meld it with my understanding of spatial phenomena.

Accuracy of drawing is very important but to just copy the proportions and positioning without pursuing the understanding of why things are where they are and why, leaves me in the realm of merely copying regardless of whether I work from life or a photo.

I can't stress enough to my students the importance of understanding the rationale for what they are doing.

Sargent, Calipers and Leonardo da Vinci
 

I realize this thread is old, but I had to throw this out there.

I read somewhere Sargent began many of his portraits by measuring his subjects' head with calipers and subtracting 1/4 inch. I don't remember where I read it, but I remember it specifically because I thought it was such a good idea.

Also, using the head as a measuring tool began many, many years ago... Although, one could as easily use a foot, or a forearm, anything that could be compared against something else. One of my teachers taught us, when drawing, to start with the thing closest to us (lower leg, for example) and then use the size of that to measure everything else against. I've always been a head measurer, though. His method is much better for creating the illusion of depth and foreshortening, I admit, and I should use it more. Old habits are hard to break... I'll have to pay more attention.

With regard to the relativity of our body parts... did you know the length of your nose is the same as the distance between the first and second knuckle on your index finger?
Or, that a person's height is usually equal to their arm span?

Leonardo da Vinci wrote much on the proportions of man and the perfection of the design, using it as an argument as to how to design architecture:

This is where Sharon's illustrators' book "eight heads guideline" originated. (Well, I don't think da Vinci originated the idea, as he refers to the ancients, but he did, most famously, write it down.


Vitruvius, De Architectura:
THE PLANNING OF TEMPLES

--snip--

2. For Nature has so planned the human body that the face from the chin to the top of the forehead and the roots of the hair is a tenth part; also the palm of the hand from the wrist to the top of the middle finger is as much; the head from the chin to the crown, an eighth part; from the top of the breast with the bottom of the neck to the roots of the hair, a sixth part; from the middle of the breast to the crown, a fourth part; a third part of the height of the face is from the bottom of the chin to the bottom of the nostrils; the nose from the bottom of the nostrils to the line between the brows, as much; from that line to the roots of the hair, the forehead is given as the third part. The foot is a sixth of the height of the body; the cubit a quarter, the breast also a quarter. The other limbs also have their own proportionate measurements. And by using these, ancient painters and famous sculptors have attained great and unbounded distinction.

3. In like fashion the members of temples ought to have dimensions of their several parts answering suitably to the general sum of their whole magnitude. Now the navel is naturally the exact centre of the body. For if a man lies on his back with hands and feet outspread, and the centre of a circle is placed on his navel, his figure and toes will be touched by the circumference. Also a square will be found described within the figure, in the same way as a round figure is produced. For if we measure from the sole of the foot to the top of the head, and apply the measure to the outstretched hands, the breadth will be found equal to the height, just like sites which are squared by rule.

--snip--

Book 3, c. I1

More here...