Above I implied that the pose might be responsible for the burn in the Vermeer and Rembrandt I posted. To elaborate: the cool expression (notice the slightly elevated eyebrows in each), shaded eyes and deliberate glance (the bodies are angled away which must mean that they intentionally turned their heads to look at the viewer) are seductive. The way poses are lit is visually satisfying in part because of the contrast of the indistinctness in the shadows and the glow of the lit cheek.

The paintings also satisfy other more general preferences of mine: a three-quarter view of the face, and a very optical approach to painting (emphasis on recreating the visual effect of the light).

These two images have many retina-burn factors in common, but on the other hand, one of the main reasons I like the Rembrandt is the silhouette of the dark side of his face against the light creamy background. The Vermeer doesn't have this (the opposite effect of the light side of her face against the dark background doesn't move me as much) but it does have those deliciously crisp highlights that the Rembrandt lacks. I also love Rembrandt's haze of hair. It's loosely yet delicately painted, and utterly convincing as a volumetric mass.

I wish that this thread will not end before I

Here's one of my favorites by a portrait artist I rarely see mentioned on this forum. It's John Singleton Copley's Henry Pelham or Boy With Squirrel. Copley was known for having a highly finished style and a skill for painting textures and finishes like fabric and wood surfaces. He painted this of his nephew as a demonstration of his skill but it seems that it turned into so much more than that. I think his familiarity with and affection for the subject transforms this painting; not only that, I suspect it influenced his original conception and inspiration. Whenever I look at this painting I am fascinated by this boy and his relationship with his pet squirrel. I wonder what he was like in real life. In fact he seems to come alive as I stare at the painting.

That is an amazing painting and one I'd never seen before. Thanks for posting it. I can't believe the realism in that wooden table top!

One that has always had that impact on me. Jusep de Ribera (Sp. Barroque, 1591-1652). His "San Andres" is from his series of apostles but was clearly painted from life. A fine exalmple of naturalist realism.

Carlos

I'm right with you, Michele. Alexandra, that painting is fantastic! Never seen it before, either.

Oftentimes, it is the narrative quality to a painting that drags me in - and this painting really speaks to that. This, undoubtedly, reveals the natural tendencies of the illustrator in me.

• I'm very happy that you started this thread Alex; I'm also looking to that factor.
  
  I look at the paintings which touched me and try figure out why I like them. I usually like simple compositions with a good lighting. Some paintings are so realistic that they look like photographs, and that's the problem, few photographs have touched me deep, on the other hand, I cannot look at many paintings or even at studies without having a moving feeling.
  
  Here are some of my favorite ones.

There's a lot to think about in this topic! Here's a summary so far of characteristics that produce "retina burn:"

1) Wall presence (as opposed to the image seen in a reproduction) paint quality appeal, pulling you closer and making you want to touch the painting

2) Enchantment--makes you want to know more about subject and artist

3) Compelling countenance or beauty of subject, combined with technical brilliance (composition, palette, etc.)

4) Magic quality--compelling concept skilfully realized. Result transcends itself, speaks to you on several levels

5) Simple subject with good lighting

6)Illusion of Physical and psychological depth achieved by extended value range, higher contrast near focal point.

7) Expresses soul of subject so you feel emotional connection, subject seems to come alive

8) tension and release, both in composition and in the portrayal of the person

9) Dash of saturated color

Some of these may be facets of the same thing (2 & 7, or 6 & 9, or 3 & 5. . .etc.)

MIchele, you brought up a really interesting thing about "retina burn." There are so many paintings that have wide appeal. And then there are some that resonate with only a few people, and others are not drawn to them at all. Now I am wondering what qualities are in these paintings that "everyone" is drawn to. Do they have broader spectrum wall appeal? Are they simpler? Do they have a touch of bright red somewhere ;) ? Do they elicit an emotional connection? Or do they simply have more of the above qualities?

Simplicity is a good thing because it concentrates all the energy of light and form in a single figure , if it

Thanks so much for your thoughts, Alan. I know you can be trusted to synthesize our ramblings into a wise observation.

Looking at what I was thinking earlier about the artist's concept, I think it must be very focused and skiullfully translated onto the canvas, so that the energy is concentrated into the focal point and all other elements play just the right part in enhancing, but not competing with, the focal point. Even when there are many elements, such as in a family portrait or other group portrait, there must be the same gathering of energy towards a single focal point. Something to think about!