I've used the above calculations to come up with the golden ratio point of interest for "El Jaleo." My calculation puts it at the point I've indicated with the red dot just above the guitar players head.

I would say that the more grand the composition, the more elements involved, the less use this measurement may be. If I apply it to the Valazquez below it comes up quite random in the upper left of center as indicated, yet, if applied to Vermeer's Pearl Ear Ring it hits the mark quite well.

And there is always the possibility that I have not applied the calculation correctly. I hope someone with more knowledge of this principle will come forward and tell what they know.

It has been brought to my attention that the above mentioned painting - Diego Velazquez's Las Hilanderas (The Spinners) c. 1657, is a reversed image. Thanks to Carlos Ygoa for bringing this to my attention. The image is reversed on the Art Renewal Center web site. It is indicated that the painting resides at the Museo del Prado, Madrid, so I trust that Carlos would know best. Makes you wonder how many other images are reversed, cropped or misrepresented in some way.

I've reworked the calculation mentioned above and noted the location with the red mark. It does make a difference. Diego now gives a sigh of relief.

Also, another not too shabby painting by Velazques: Juan de Pareja.

And once again with Diego Velazquez ...

Below is Las Meninas (Ladies in Waiting), 10'5" x 9'5".

For an interesting discussion regarding Velazquez and his paintings, and why this is the "Greatest painting in the world" you can click below:

http://www.artchive.com/artchive/V/v...uez_atlee.html

And following I've listed three paintings by Thomas Wilmer Dewing. I think The Piano painting is really an interesting composition.

Lady with Lute
The Piano 1891
Woman in Purple and Green 1905 (I guess we'll have to imagine the colors)

Notice in this last painting how the back of the chair coincides with the line of her dress. This is a bit distracting to me and one of those little things that can be easily fixed.

Mike--

My understanding (limited) of the Golden Mean is that it's plotted from both ends, and top and bottom, the result being four corners of a rectangle within the composition representing the four strongest points at which one could hang something compositionally important.

I haven't plotted it on "El Jaleo," but estimating by eye, it looks like if plotted from the right end, the mean point on the upper right of the rectangle would be about at the main dancer's chin, more or less. That would bring us very quickly to the head of the main character.

Make sense?

--TE

(Juan de Pareja is the one I'd go back in after if the Met caught fire.)

Tom, ET AL,

I'm going to try and get to the bottom of this "Golden Section."

Phi = 1.618033988749895
phi = .618033988749895

Pronounced Phi as in fish (pheel phree to jump right in).
Small "p" being the reciprocal of the capital "P".

The ratio, or proportion, determined by Phi (1.618 ...) was known to the Greeks as "dividing a line in the extreme and mean ratio" and to Renaissance artists as the "Divine Proportion." It is also called the Golden Section, Golden Ratio and the Golden Mean.

Just as pi is the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, phi is simply the ratio of the line segments that result when a line is divided in one very special and unique way.

Divide a line (one side of your canvas) such that the ratio of the length of the entire line (A) to the length of the larger line segment (B) is the same as the ratio of the length of the larger line segment (B) to the length of the smaller line segment (C). In other words - (C) is to (B) as (B) is to (A).Conphused yet?

The Seurat example below, created by Seurat with full intention of following the golden section principles, is 300w x 195h pixels.

If we consider the whole first we would multiply the top of the canvas 300w by phi .618 and we would get 185. If we then follow over 185 clicks from the left this would be represented by the blue (and continuing down with the white) vertical line on the right. What we now have is two large rectangles which have that special relationship discussed above: A to B to C. Each of the two resulting rectangles would be considered a golden section.

If we then take the 195h and multiply it by phi .618 we get 120. Coming up from the bottom 120 clicks we see this represented by the horizontal blue line forming the rectangle at the top and bottom right. We now have two more rectangles on the right side of the canvas each being a golden section.

As you can see it goes even phurther, creating more from the last.

The idea was to place in these so called golden sections the important aspects of the composition.

And just phor the phun of it, and to phoster greater phlumux, it also holds true that if you take the 300h and divide it by 2.62 you will come up with 115, which is the other side of the 185 (totalling 300) that you get when multiplying 300h by phi .618.

And of course any of the multiplications by phi could be done as a division by Phi, it being the recipricol.

I would like to apply this to "El Jaleo" but my laptop software can't even draw a straight line. And besides, I'm tired of phiguring.

Tom:
to think juan de Pareja was a "warm up" to Innocent X because before doing the Pope, Velazquez had not done portraits in a while.
Mike, yes, "Las Meninas". Someone called it the Theology of Painting. Volumes have been written about this particular work, analyzed right down to the ground used on the linen--the red Cross of the Order of Santiago, the faces of the monarchs reflected in the mirror and all sorts of other comentaries. But what amazes me is the painter

I should point out that in my investigation of the Golden Section I did not come across anything that would indicate a single point of interest the way that I have indicating above. As Tom suggested, they are rectangular sections.

And to end the long Thanksgiving holiday weekend there is the Frenchman, James Jacques Joseph Tissot, 1836 - 1902.

This first is just the berries. I'm sure most people could guess the title if given a half a minute. To me this is about as charming as they get: Hide and Seek, 289x212 inches.

Next is a pastel on linen: The Princesse De Broglie, 66x38.

And then Mlle L. L. oil, 1864, 49x39,

and The Garden Bench oil, 1882

There's to many crusty old men displayed here, I'm going looking for a woman. I'm thinking Elisabeth Louise Vig

From her father she inherited a talent and taste for art, an amiable temper, a gift of wit; from her mother, a very handsome woman, she was dowered with a beauty for which she was as remarkable, and to which her many portraits of herself bear abundant witness. From very childhood she began to display the proofs of her inheritance - that happy disposition and that charm of manner that were to make her one of the most winsome personalities of her time. At her tenth year she fell to drawing on the margins of her books, filling them with little portrait heads - an incessant habit that set her teachers grumbling at her lack of respect towards grammar and history. But to her delighted father the grumbles were matter for laughter; in him she found an ally who was hugely proud to discover in his girl an inheritor of his gifts. It is told of the fond father that the girl having taken to him one day a drawing, Vigee cried out exultantly: "You will be a painter, my girl, or there never was one!"

The above was excerpted from the biography of Elisabeth Louise Vigee Le Brun 1755-1842. I would highly recommend this short biography which can be read in it

Here are a few more that I thought had particular merit. There are so many to choose.

1- Alexandre Charles Emmanuel de Crussol-Florensac 1787
2- Hubert Robert 1788
3- The bather (daughter Julie) 1792
4- Infant lisant

Mike, you are right. These are very lively self-portraits and I will have to read about her. Thanks for the link!

In the recent movie about "Marie Antoinette", it is amazing to see at what an early age the ruling of a nation fell upon the royal couple. When Marie Antoinette came to the French court, she was only 14 years old. Louis XVI was not much older either and in the movie it looks like they did nothing but party, totally oblivious to the affairs of the state. (The movie is only noteworthy for the beautiful costumes. )

That the young Le Brun would fit into that milieu is totally understandable and it would be interesting to see how her portraits of the royal family differ from those of her predecessor.

;) "And just phor the phun of it" ;) I would like to comment on a phew of themm.

Alexandre Charles Emmanuel de Crussol-Florensac 1787: He has got a sophisticated, arrogant look that could be taken for intelligence or even good manners, at least nobility.

The light on the head is more convincing than the modeling of the body. The color scheme is cool and quite pleasing.

Hubert Robert 1788: A rural type painter though a bit unfocused. I think that his bandanna is in the center of the golden means. It might justify the sumptuousness of the garment, that is, otherwise, uninteresting. Good volume in the body.

The bather (daughter Julie) 1792: This is obviously a detail of a larger canvas so it is difficult to talk about anything golden.

About the shape of the body, I find it hard to acknowledge the structure of it, it feels like the shoulder is further away than the legs, just like she don't have hips, and what about the fold of the fabric by the elbow?

Self 1790: Now that this is a topic about composition I would like to emphasize the merging of lines that happens with the collar and the hand pointing. I also have problems with the hair that tangents the upper edge of the painting.

Otherwice I am positive. ;)

Enzie,

I haven't heard of that movie, I'll have to check it out. It sure seems that Ms. Vigee Lebrun led an interesting life. Although, I guess anyone living in Paris (Europe) at this time in history would have stories to tell. Where ever she traveled her reputation as an artist preceded her and she was taken in by all the heads of state.

Allan,

I'm sitting here eating popcorn and trying to phigure this out. Do you think you could elaborate on your comments above? Maybe having the image here will help me.

Also, another self portrait from 1800, 8.5x7".

Mike,

I know that I am not always consistent in my critique. But I feel that it is OK to go to the limit and sometimes over when it comes to debating old masters, since they will no longer be personally offended. We must try our minds on their works and discuss it freely and we might learn something.

My opinion of the little bather is that it is charming but a bit too sweet. The body looks as if it was drawn from a very bad memory. I can't believe that the shoulder / neck would show no signs of bone structure. The features in the head are painted from the front but the head is seen slightly from our right. All the edges are weak and endlessly repeating them self, the fabric hangs like a curtain, the leaves in the back is all bend the same way and even the hair shape repeats itself three times, at the head, hand and lap.

Now look at a real master, Sargent would not waste his time painting the same thing twice.

Allan,

I agree that it's OK to be hard on the dead painters, as long as it's not in their obituary.

I was confused, I thought your comments were about the "Self 1790" painting.

As to "The Bather," I will admit that I will always be a sucker for a sweet face, and if they make it sweet enough I will give them the rest. I'm much too sentimental, I think. I also have no particular strength as a critiquer. I tend to look for something good and dwell on it.

Jihan Georges Vibert 1840 - 1902.

I pulled the following from the ARC biography of Mr. Vilbert:

He entered the Salon in 1863; found his first success with a medal at the 1864 salon, and won a financial prize at the universal exposition of 1867.

During the later part of his life, his interest turned to the clergy. Paintings such as The Fortune Teller satirized the clergy's irreligious indulgences or depicted them in homey situations to an audience used to seeing the church ennobled in traditional religious and historic works. These would be the paintings that would make his reputation.

In 1882, he was promoted to Officer of the Legion of Honor, for his painting this time. This growing reputation would make him one the the most sought after atelier masters at the Ecole des Beaux Arts. This would lead him to being one of the seven most influential artists of his time, along with Bouguereau, Cabanel, Meissonnier, G

Dear Mike,

I had come across his work before and just love the vibrancy of the colors. His work also reminds me of that of illustrators, there is a narrative in each and every one of them.

Thanks for digging these delightful images up!

When I first came upon these images I was struck by how small they were. The Preening Peacock is only 18x15. But it was the mocking nature of the subjects that really got me wondering. As is said above - during most of history (even now in some parts of the world - I recall some recent cartoon figures) you could easily loose your head having authored these images.

Could these be the precursors to the painting of the virgin Mary that caused such a commotion a few years back. It's hard to imagine a further decline from there.

It's easy to get involved in the narrative, but putting the politics aside they are some stunning images.

Here are a couple more from Jihan Georges Vibert. Notice how much volume is given above the subjects in each of these paintings:

1- Tea for the Bishop 24x18
2- The Sick Doctor 1892

There are some nice large images of his work on the ARC web site here:

http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/database/art.asp?aid=134

The Fortune Teller, which doesn't come across very well here, is particularly worth the visit.

A passage from the book - Little Lord Fauntleroy,
by Frances Hodgson Burnett:

"And; indade," said Mary to the groceryman, "nobody cud help laughin' at the quare little ways of him--and his ould-fashioned sayin's! Didn't he come into my kitchen the noight the new Prisident was nominated and shtand afore the fire, lookin' loike a pictur', wid his hands in his shmall pockets, an' his innocent bit of a face as sayrious as a jedge? An' sez he to me: `Mary,' sez he, `I'm very much int'rusted in the 'lection,' sez he. `I'm a 'publican, an' so is Dearest. Are you a 'publican, Mary?' `Sorra a bit,' sez I; `I'm the bist o' dimmycrats!' An' he looks up at me wid a look that ud go to yer heart, an' sez he: `Mary,' sez he, `the country will go to ruin.' An' nivver a day since thin has he let go by widout argyin' wid me to change me polytics."

Pierre-Auguste Cot, 1837 - 1883

Little Lord Fountleroy - oil on canvas

Why do you think there is so much space above the figures in "Tea for the Bishop"and "The Sick Doctor"?

I can see how the extra space helps to employ the darkness (almost like fog entering the room in Sick Doctor) as a tool to make the other colors pop, without loosing the details of the room interior. The extra height over the figures also adds a sense of atmosphere to the room .

Of course, the boring explanation would be, back then rooms had very high ceilings....

I am curious to know what others think about all that space above the figures.

I would say that first of all these are not portraits per se, but narratives, story telling. Also, it may be in keeping with his want to portray these people in a negative way, to illustrate more fully the grandeur and pomposity of their surroundings.

Mike--

It'd be interesting to see the golden section applied to these last two genre pieces.

My guess is the heads (and the screen in the "Tea..") would hit somewhere just about there.

--TE

Tom,

I think I've got one represented below.

400w x 520h each multiplied by phi .618

The vertical blue line creates the first golden mean relationship from the horizontal perspective. The red line creates this relationship from the vertical perspective. The white line then creates two more rectangles from the golden section on the bottom right.

If my phiguring is correct I think that each of the phive resulting rectangles would be considered a golden section. It would seem that compositionally this painting would hold up pretty well in this regard.

Here's another that strikes a pretty good compositional balance.

Tom Edgerton's Superior Court Judge, 48 x 42.

Well, HEY!

I felt pretty good about the judge, but it's nice to know the Greeks would be proud too.

And a high phive to you, Mike, for all the effort!

--TE

I agree with Mike. Careful not to place any of todays concepts in yestrday's time frame, I believe that the size of the room shows opulence without shouting about it.

Not being familiar with the works and concious of the limits of photography I also trust that there is detail in the upper portions but it reproduces too dark to see.

WOW! I am late with the above comment and way to simple. Thanks Mike and Tom for the enlightenment.

Below are the paintings of John Everett Millais, 1829-1896, English Pre-Raphaelite painter and illustrator. Teacher of Frank Dicksee and president of the Royal Academy of Art - 1896.

1- Self Portrait
2- A Souvenir of Velasquez
3- My Second Sermon, watercolor 1864
4- Lord Alfred Tennyson

Ulysses
by Lord Alfred Tennyson (the last half)

There lies the port; the vessel puffs her sail;
There gloom the dark, broad seas. My mariners,
Souls that have toil'd, and wrought, and thought with me,--
That ever with a frolic welcome took
The thunder and the sunshine, and opposed
Free hearts, free foreheads,-- you and I are old;
Old age hath yet his honor and his toil.
Death closes all; but something ere the end,
Some work of noble note, may yet be done,
Not unbecoming men that strove with Gods.
The lights begin to twinkle from the rocks;
The long day wanes; the slow moon climbs; the deep
Moans round with many voices. Come, my friends.
'T is not too late to seek a newer world.
Push off, and sitting well in order smite
The sounding furrows; for my purpose holds
To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths
Of all the western stars, until I die.
It may be that the gulfs will wash us down;
It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles,
And see the great Achilles, whom we knew.
Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are,--
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

The paintings you have shared here, Mike, are inspirational indeed! Thank you!

Intersection or Quadrant?
 

Many times, we have basic questions that we are afraid to ask. Having taught children for 30 years, I did my best to eliminate that fear. The reason that I understood their concern is revealed below. I privately emailed Mike as I thought my question surely must be a VERY naive one and not wanting to appear as the "only one," I was sure tht the rest of the world OBVIOUSLY KNEW the answer and I didn't. While I didn't post my question for the whole world to read, Mike encouraged me to do so. All I can say is, "He better be right!!

Mike:
I have loved your composition thread! Loved it! Now, I am sending this question to you via private email as I am quite SURE that it is way to stupid to send on "The Phorum." The Golden Mean. I was under the impression that that perfect spot was where the lines intersect - something that has given me trouble when composing various paintings. What your lines indicate in the last several posts suggest is that the Golden Mean is the quadrant that their intersection creates. If that is correct, that makes composing a painting a whole lot easier.

I'll be thankful for your answer.
__________
Carol,

It's not a dumb question, especially the way I presented it. I first stated that there was a single point of interest, but later discovered that it is indeed a rectangular section, and possibly many sections. I sure wouldn't mind if you ask the question on the forum. I may not have cleared up these points sufficiently.

Mike

Carol,

What a dumb question! Ha, just kidding.

I think you've got it right. In all my research I've not been able to find anything that suggests that the "golden section, mean, ratio" can be reduced to a single point on the canvas. They are rectangular sections created in a specific way with the use of Phi or phi, and hold within them the main components, or points of interest within the composition.

You can do a google search on "golden section" and get a ream of information on the subject. Much of it is mathematical some of it relates to art specifically.

Sorry about the conphusion.

Liberated!
 

Thanks, Mike. The source of my misunderstanding began in a posting from Karin Wells (6.17.02) saved in my treasured notebook of Forum wisdom. Karin states that "The intersection of the two lines described above is the exact point of the kiss in my painting below." It's a beautiful painting of a mother and child. That information in addition to input from a landscape painter that I studied with, who divided up his canvas into 6 quadrants telling students that the "star performer" should go on one of the intersections, I falsely assumed that the center of interest had to be on that line intersection. It's interesting how a "little information" can lead to false conclusions. Your post has been very liberating as it sure opens up a lot more space in a composition for the focal point. I guess it's not just children who take things literally!!! :D

These compositions by Winslow Homer, American artist 1836-1910, are among the most interesting that I have come across.

1- Girl Seated, watercolor 1879
2- Portrait of Helena de Kay 12x18
3- A Summer Night
4- Autumn 1877

Nice composition of the seated girl!

I think it may have something to do with the viewers perspective. We view her at a slightly up angle, as if we are in the audience in front, and she is on a stage just above us. It gives her a nice airy, elevated sense. Not to mention that it's just so well done. He was quit the watercolorist.

I don't know what to make of the second one. It has some of the look of "Whistler's Mother." It's an odd way of sitting on that odd chair. The subject is also pulled a little more foreward, giving her slightly more room behind in the composition than we might expect to see. And with that down turned head - it all makes me wonder ...

I love the last one's shock of color, but I'm a bit puzzled by the sharply rendered leaves just beneath her right hand. Aha, maybe it's a basket of leaves that she's carrying?

Here are a couple more by Homer:

1- Charles Savage Homer Jr., watercolor 7x5"
2- The Butterfly Girl, 37x24"

From the recent ARC competition -

Aron Wiesenfeld's "Princess" Charcoal 50x38
Second place in the drawing competition.

This just crushes me.

Here are a couple of interesting compositions by Louis Weldon Hawkins, British, 1849-1910. I like the face in the mirror.

I'm guessing that the splotches in the lower left are not part of the composition. It looks like a gold leaf construction.

1- no particulars
2- Girls singing music by Gabriel Fabri, 21x18 - 1903

This is an interesting example, I think, of how color and contrast are used as compositional tools.

Alexandre Georges Henri Regnault, 18x13 - 1870

Wow, nice one...it certainly looked like one of those funky Jimi Hendrix art pieces at a quick glance! In fact the guy in the pic certainly looks quite like the man himself!

Marcus,

I have never been able to imagine this type of bold color concept in my own work. I fully appreciate it when I see it, but I guess some are just not genetically capable of producing this kind of statement.

I think the title was - Head of a Moor.

Jimi met his demise right at 100 years after this painting was produced. I think he would have approved.

All Along the Watchtower - 1968

There must be some kind of way out of here
Said the joker to the thief
Theres too much confusion
I cant get no relief

Talk about being poetic Mike...if the Jim-ster's still around he would have approved and become best mates to a poetic soul like you too...
<guitar strumming behind>