Figure size?
 

I did a search of the posts and didn't find a reference to what I am asking. But I was interested if there is a rule of thumb, tradition, preference etc. to the size of the person in a portrait? I believe I read somewhere that you should keep the head under life size. So if I am making my kids with a 7" head from chin to crown is that acceptable? I prefer to work larger than smaller.

I don't charge by size but by figure, i.e. head & shoulders, etc. So I thought the answer to this question may just be the simple thought that the person who has commissioned the portrait has a frame size in mind.

Dear Beth,

I'm not sure how much of size preference has to do with a "rule of thumb", or just what painters personally prefer. I prefer to work so that the head is somewhere between 50% and 90% of life size. Life size heads (usually, but not always) for me take on an odd visual quality. Even in intimate conversation, you are not really seeing a life-sized head; so standing at a viewing postion to a canvas, you would be farther away, and the head would appear smaller. Smaller than 50% is just too small a work space for me, although I have seen many, many painters use a smaller scale beautifully.

I think I probably developed this comfort scale because I learned to paint portraits from life. One of my teachers, Phil Beck, taught me to place the head by splaying the fingers, in such a way that if you were to place them on your own head, thumb on chin, the longest fingertip would generally touch your hairline...and to use that distance as the full head starting point on your canvas.

With respect to more complete figure work, I always first determine the size of the head, then measure the other body landmarks in comparison to the size of the head.

From Sharon K's posts, I know that she uses a sense of "classic" proportion in determining size, and hopefully she will share more of this.

I'm not sure if this is what you are asking, but hope it is helpful.

Classic proportions.
 

Unfortunately, since the eclipse of representational art by abstraction and other evils, a lot of very good artists have not learned these proportions. We are relying today on photographic proportion. These, when translated to painting and drawing, tend to make a figure look dumpy and graceless.

I was very fortunate to come across some amazing instruction manuals from "The Famous Artists School". They had contributing artists like Norman Rockwell, Robert Fawcett, Albert Dorne, etc. These may not all be household names today, but they were the art stars of the 40's 50's and 60's. People had to really draw well in those days to be considered a top illustrator.

They had excellent diagrams on figure and head drawing which are now plastered all over my studio.

I have memorized the longitudinal measurments. They are based on an 8 head format. The standard figure is about 71/2 heads in length.

HEAD 1. The head itself, the neck is 1/3 the length of the head to the pit of the neck.
HEAD 2. The second head length is to the armpit.
HEAD 3. The third head is to the waist.
HEAD 4. The forth head is to the pubic bone just above the crotch.
HEAD 5. The fifth head is to mid thigh.
HEAD 6. The sixth head is to the bottom of the kneecap.
HEAD 7. The seventh head is to mid calf.
HEAd 8. The eigth head is to the bottom of the heel of weight bearing foot. For example, the weight bearing foot could be behind the front foot, that front leg would be extended longer than 8 heads.

Check out the measurments in Sargent's standing figures. These proportions give his work some of their stateliness.

Sharon, that's very interesting, but I think Beth meant the size of the head in relationship to real life, rather than in relationship to the rest of the body. In other words if you are using 18" x 24" paper, and you fill it with just the head, you'd have pretty bizarre looking portrait. Of course some artists are doing that today. It brings to mind Andy Warhol prints. I think traditionally most portrait artists have kept the head at least a little smaller than real life, and of course kept the body in correct proportion to that. Children's body proportions are not the same as adults. Their heads are much bigger, in proportion to the body, than an adults would be. The younger the child the more dramatic the difference.

Sharon,

Thanks for sharing the classic proportions 'rule'. I often wondered how those heads fell on the figure.. It will come in handy with my next job!

Beth,

I agree with Chris that head size is a matter of preference. Many artists feel comfortable strictly working life-size, however I go both ways -- to suit my traditional clients and folks with more non-traditional taste.

I have to say, I much more enjoy going over life size. My canvases can go to 48" in length at times, and it gives me the opportunity to work with visible brush strokes, the palette knife, and lots of paint. Design is imperative working this way. Lots of thumbnails ahead of time, and client approval before you start.

I would suggest experimenting and seeing what you think is best.

Giant Baby Heads
 

The only rule I set for myself on that account is that I try never to paint a child's head larger than 7 inches from hairline to chin. There is nothing more scary than an oversized baby head. :)

Size
 

If one paints sight size (like JSS) then all heads will be smaller than life size.

Furthermore, if you map across (draw horizontal lines that precisely match the sitter) then you don't need formulas or a calculator. Too small and they are hard to work and convey the sitter.

8 Heads
 

I seriously beg to differ!

Measure the head lengths in a standing Sargent painting or two. His figures are 8 heads. That is why his figures are so elegant. There is elongation, especially in the knee to the heel area.

If you can draw well, it is no problem to make the adjustment in a sight size painting. Also, if the canvas and the figure are placed side by side the figures would be life-sized, not in any way smaller.

Two dozen books
 

Two dozen books have described Sargent's methods as recorded by sitters, students, friends and fellow painters. This is not an original concept of mine. If he had such a simple formula as making everyone 8 heads tall, it would be pretty easy to crank out a Sargent or two next week. Yet, we don't see many these days.

Majesty is not simple.

Let the eight heads roll!
 

Tim, I was not suggesting that an 8 head format is the only method of achieving majesty or elegance. It is a useful technique in making figures graceful as opposed to dumpy. Try measuring some of Sargent's figures for yourself.

I am not sure what you are referencing when you talk about sight size, just Sargent? Sight size is (among others) a Boston School technique. You can control the size of the figure depending on the position of the model, same size if the canvas and the model are side by side, or smaller if the figure is further back. Sight size painting is obviously practiced a lot around here.

Tim, I have no contribution to make about the topic, although I wonder how the French school treated head sizes.

I just love the paintings you have posted. I wonder if there is an interest in viewing more Orientalist paintings. I would post a whole bunch and I am sure Marvin would add several too.

These are the portrait conventions I am familiar with. If you are talking about traditional rules for head size:

1) No heads bigger than life size.

2) No monkey sized people, (...who said this? Richard Whitney? Kinstler?)

3) The only exception is the 10 inch corporate head.

4) If you are cropping body parts, crop at mid-arm, mid thigh, mid-calf, not at the joint (...i.e., elbow, wrist, knee or ankle.)

5) In a head and shoulders portrait, place the head two inches from the top of the canvas, and place the eyes in the middle of the canvas.

6) The eight head figure is based on the way the painter views the subject when painting from a close position He looks up at the face, straight at the chest, down at the knees, and way town at the feet. This creates a natural elongation. Look at Sargent's paintings. Even in seated figures, he is looking up at the face and down into the lap, way down to the feet.

7) No candid's, even if working from a photograph, pose the subject in a position they can hold for 40 hours is they needed to.

That's a start.

Peggy

Hmm, I think I will to come to Sharon's defense here. Not that she needs it - she can hold her own :)

The 8 heads rule is a very good guide and one I use often. Especially in illustration work. Although, if you are going for accuracy and not idealizing, then 7 to 7.5 heads is closer to what most people are. Except maybe fashion models :)

And with kids, it is better to use 7 heads. But this is a guide, not a written in stone rule that you must follow in every painting. If I was to paint my wife, who is only 4'10", at 8 heads tall I would be idealizing her, not painting a accurate likeness. But at the same time if I painted her as a camera sees her she might appear dwarfish. So I strike a happy medium between the idealized figure of 8 heads and her actual stature. If you are painting from life, it helps to step back enough to take in the full figure as you sight size the proportions.

As for taking photos, it is very important you stand back and not use wide angle lenses to increase the view angle. The biggest culprit in camera distortion is holding the camera at head level then taking a full length shot. When you do this every thing from the neck down is foreshortened and gets worse as you go down. When taking full figure reference it is best that the camera lens be 70-80mm (35mm film camera) and held at about mid-level of you subject. This reduces the camera distortions.

As for how big a canvas and the size of head? I feel it is personal preference and intention of the painting. If you can paint a 1" head and still capture the likeness then you might be able to paint a small full length portrait on a 9" x 12" canvas. And if you are painting on the side of a building then you could paint a head 4 feet tall. Personally, I feel it is the intended viewing distance that matters a lot also. If the painting is to hang in a very large room, you could paint a larger-than-life portrait and it would work out great. But in a normal home, the normal viewing distance would be no more then 8-10 feet at most, so a life size or bigger painting might be disconcerting. I think that is the reason for the 90% life size rule some have mentioned. For me it is about the size of the head, I need a 4 inch head minimum to feel comfortable. I have painted smaller at times, but never on a commissioned portrait.

Point is...
 

Here's the simple point: Sargent painted what he saw from life. No formulas. Do you think he made street scenes with formulas? What about the landscapes and still lifes? For painters who paint everything from life - EVERYTHING - no formulas are needed. That's the simple point. Measuring of heads is pretty rudimental stuff. Work like his, was well beyond this in scope. I'd argue that creative composition was more on his mind and I'll bet you he never counted heads after the age of 21.

Now, I agree that Sargent was wise enough to help some of his sitters, but like most of you I've seen the photos of those sitters and I recognize them all. Enzie, Sargent learned to paint in Paris; the English used to say he was too French in style.

You Win

Sharon
 

Sharon, I've been admiring your work on your site. You really know a great deal to make such lovely work. I don't wish to win-only discuss.

I've pointed out before that a human head will vary 4 to 5" in height. Some men that are not very tall have very large heads...the math thing is really unreliable.

Headless wonders
 

Tim, I was asked to post this formula. I do not pretend to be an expert on Sargent. I have personally benefited from this and thought many others might.

I had noticed that contemporary portraits often lack the grace and elegance of past paintings. I noticed that the figures looked somewhat squat and out of proportion. They did not have that certain "Je ne sais quoi". Fortunately for me I came across a series of books published by the "Famous Artist Schools". This was a mail order correspondence school successfully operating in the Fifties. These proportions were published there. Since the illustrators of that time were working mostly figuratively they still had access to that knowledge. It had not died out as yet. Many of them were classically trained. Many of these 'illustrators' who produced the course, would put to shame many of our contemporary figurative artists. They were Norman Rockwell, Robert Fawcett, Al Dorne, Coby Whitmore among others. There are other basic formulas that appear to work i.e. that the eyes in an adult are halfway down the face etc. There are always exceptions of course. These particular proportions have been of great use to me. I can only speak for myself.


I have personally measured the proportions in Sargent's painting (among others) and find their formula to correspond in many examples. Others may not agree. That is their prerogative. I have found it enormously useful and simply wanted to pass it on as asked.

There are many simple formulas that work in composition and proportion and once absorbed can often be successfully ignored.

To reiterate, this is a formula I have found useful, was asked for, and hope other artists would benefit from.

Sincerely,

The 8-heads standard is indeed useful, both in the initial set-up of a figure and as an analytical tool to reverse engineer "what's gone wrong" with a drawing or painting. Same for the "eyes halfway down the head's height" rule (which I've just used over in Drawing Critiques to sort out a problem.) These are rules, not truths, so trotting out exceptions misses the point and does not compromise the utility of the rules.

Sargent. Didn't know the man, and haven't any idea what he was thinking as he constructed his pictures.

We had occasion here some time ago to view a painting in which the figure looked (to my eye) stretched, and upon checking the measurements, I found it to be 10 heads high. I queried this. To "prove" the accuracy of the painted version, the reference photo was posted. Unfortunately, the figure in the photo was exactly 8 heads high. At that point the "debate" ends (or should), and the only thing left to talk about is artistic license to idealize the figure.

It's fine to acknowledge the rule and deliberately decide to work outside its parameters for reasons of artistic preference. It's always disconcerting to the eye, though, to see rule violated carelessly or without apparent justification in the picture. In nontechnical terms, it just looks funny.

Regarding head size per se (and not as a relative measurement), sight-size does not actually produce life size, even if the canvas is next to the subject [Wrong. See humble confession of error, infra], because the artist's necessary distance from the subject reduces the dimensions. (A quick measurement of one's reflection in a mirror, even four feet distant, demonstrates this.) The only way to work life size (that is, the size that something is, not as it appears from a distance) is to physically measure the subject's head, transfer those measurements to your paper or canvas, and proceed thereafter by relative and proportionate placement of features.

Hmmm??? Duhh???
 

Steven, my brain is aswoggle! If you have the figure next to the canvas I can't understand why it wouldn't be life sized. When I work that way I usually draw a line corresponding to the top and bottom of the head on my canvas. If the figure is standing directly next to the canvas why wouldn't it be lifesized. DUH I'm confused.

To be honest I usually pick a workable head size 8" to 9" and place my canvas correspond to that. Usually my canvas is slightly in front of the figure and I am appx. 15' back.

Sharon, if a man is six feet tall, then the canvas would have to be six feet tall, in order for it to be life size. Most of us don't routinely paint portraits on canvases that are that big. A routine portrait is usually done on smaller sized canvases, so the figure and head must be smaller than life size. Even if you are doing "just the head", I still think it is a bit overwhelming to have it life size or larger.

We have all seen large paintings, in museums, that have the figures "bigger than life", but if we were to put those same paintings in our living room, they would look a bit out of place, I think. It would depend on the living room I suppose. Perhaps in some people's "great room" it would be alright. Maybe I should ammend my opinion to depend on where it will hang.

Big heads
 

Linda, most of my standing adult figures are based on an 8" head to 9" head on an 8 head format. 8 x 8 = 64" 5 and 1/2' and 9 x 9 = 81" 6' 9". Some of my work is in Newport where the ceilings are from 18' to 25' high. They can make a portrait look downright puny if not scaled properly. My men are usually 6' and my women slightly smaller. I recently did a portrait of a 6' woman, I scaled her down very slightly.

Obviously it is most important to consider where they will be hung and adjust accordingly. However, I never make a head any smaller than 7" and do not do full lengths if there is not enough space. I also consider doing sitting figures if the ceilings are lower.

Every artist has their own sense of scale and that should be their guide.

Sharon,

It

This is one of my favorites John Singer Sargent

Painting full size heads or getting a big head
 

Getting a big head right, that is. :)

I was re-reading an article about Richard Schmid that I had saved and here is a quote from it that I thought might be relevant to this thread:[QUOTE]
To simplify the task of measuring and comparing, Schmid usually works life-size. "That makes measuring easy because you don

Michael,

You'll see Peggy Baumgaertner do the same thing in her portrait videos.

In a way, strictly following rules could mean following someone

[QUOTE]In a way strictly following rules could mean following someone

Ok I measured myself. I come in

Your empirical approach intrigued me, Enzie, so I did the same. Head size 9-1/2 inches, times 8 equals 76 inches (6' 3") -- my EXACT height! "Ideal" would be 6' 6", to elongate some of this middle-age spread.

Steven, you are funny! I have to go and practice what Peggy just taught me regarding color theory.

I seem to have more problems in that area!

Heads Up
 

Hello all,

Based on anatomy texts and various drawing books, and supplemented by empirical measurements on several suckers who were coaxed into compliance, I think Sharon's statements on proportioning reflect the collective wisdom of both the scientific and artistic communities. As one who views the world from an elevation of 7.7 of my own head heights, minus one half a head height, it's hard to imagine the umwelt of those who view things from the perspective of the average 7.5 head heights; let alone that of my wife at 7.35 head heights. Nevertheless, the canon of 8 head heights has apparently been in use in art and illustration for a long time, along with rules for tweaking the proportions for special situations. To wit, this illustration from Jack Hamm's "Drawing the Head and Figure", 1963:

Measuring
 

Unless we go after the specifics in front of us, especially in doing portraits, we miss the minor things that make folks recognizable. All humans can ID an old friend from great distances, we are very good at seeing those small things that added together mean total identity. To do any thing else (than to see and paint these) is to paint a somewhat generic portrait, which is too often just a conglomeration of presumations and looks weak very naturally.

But that's why they're called "presumptions", no more suspect than a hypothesis. You still have the responsibility to verify the accuracy of what they suggest. No one here has come even close to arguing that the presumptions trump what you see.

Be careful, though -- they might! Not everyone is going to "see" things correctly the first time (and some who think they do, don't), and if they need guidance to help self-assess their work, the presumptions are useful. That's all. They're useful. MOST of the time they result in accurate placement of anatomical features. I've benefited too many times from having them in the toolbox to get particular about how I build a picture. They're tools bought and paid for, engraved with the ID of yours truly. I don't lend them out, but I'll tell you where to get your own.

John --

I have that book here in front of me. It's where I first learned of the head-size relative proportions. I don't recall if Hamm or someone else says that the more "typical" human size is 7.5 heads, and that the 8-head measure is actually somewhat idealized. But who cares? (And who wants to figure out where that .5 head goes in the scheme of things?)

This has been an interesting post, though I can't seem to get the image of corporate monkeys out of my head (8 1/2", by the way).

Two additional points that might help somebody:

Assuming I have a large enough canvas, when I'm doing a really fast "quick draw" exercise I put my left hand on the canvas and draw a fast oval in the correct location (giving your subject some "looking space" if it's a profile). This gives me some assurance that the forehead won't be lopped off at the top (as in the Hannibal movie). My hand measures 5" so it gives me some room to let the head "grow" as I paint. It also calms me down and shows the canvas who's boss right off the bat.

Along that vein, when painting the figure I put in measuring points based on head length when I block in the figure - so many heads to chest, elbows, knees, etc. I paint the head in first and then re-measure the proportions based on the painted head... since the head tends to grow when you paint it, your initial measurements will likely be off. Adjust accordingly.

By the way, didn't I read somewhere in this Forum that the length of your foot is the same as your wrist to elbow measurement? Not that this particularly matters, mind you, but I think the logic behind human design is fascinating. Peggy, with your medical background, I'll bet you know all about this kind of thing.

Linda

If so, then I was idealized at birth. My size 12/13s don't come close to the wrist-to-elbow length.

[Imagine the power of getting so many people to check that out, though, just by posting a suggestion. What else can we get them to do?]

Yea, but Tim, portraiture and figure work also involves anatomy and understanding the proportions and human anatomy can really help you to paint a better portrait - and a beginning student needs to have some way of translating what they see from their eye to their hand - measuring is one way of doing that.

Further, a good understanding of anatomy will definitely help you if you want to do work from your imagination (i.e., figures in action - falling, running, jumping, etc.) - not something that you will have much luck getting a model into let alone holding it for 9 hours - talk about hang time! :)

While I agree with you that rarely will you meet someone who will conform to these anatomical measurements, they can be useful for beginners to better place features. The thing to understand is that your subject is a person and not just a measurement - thereby, use your measuring to get things rolling, but then you need to refine and really capture what you are seeing. That is where the real work is.

Try drawing children....AAARRRRGGGG!!! Talk about non-conforming features!

I Love A Grid
 

Hey Linda, how are you doing? This has been a most interesting post. Which all the talk about sight sizing and the idealized "how many heads tall," we've missed two of my favorite methods of placing the figure. Building out from the skeleton, bone, muscle, skin and clothing. (Much as I understand the placement of the heads across the body to make the point, it does creep me out. I think there is also a picture in the book with "eyes" denoting placement of features. It's enough to give one nightmares....)

My preferred method is to grid out using brush measurements, or actually making a grid by using a sheet of acetate and holding it over the subject, transferring the information to produce a "cartoon" of the subject on your canvas. The placement is correct from the first stroke, and nothing moves on you. It's the ultimate control.

Peggy

The dairy approach
 

Tim, I love all the variety of the human form, that is why I chose to be a figurative painter. However I find my clients prefer to be somewhat homogenized. I have discovered through trial and error, that it would be a fatal career move to paint them as they actually are.

Sincerely,

Yes, unless you are as popular and have the same kind of social standing as J.S. Sargent, making the same career moves he made could be fatal. :)

Regarding Sargent's refusal to change his paintings at the request of his clients: Not exactly the same as idealizing proportions, but I am sure to some degree Sargent made many concessions in his work at the whims of the fashionable of his day. And he did modify proportions at times to suit his artistic vision.

On other occasions Sargent would start over after many sittings.

This early failure may have been because the woman painted to capture just her likeness was not a pretty sight. (Remember the Lucian Freud painting of the queen?)

Can you imagine? Assuming each sitting was a few hours, that woman sat for over 20 hours and then was told he is starting over. And we claim we must take photos because clients won't sit for two sittings, never mind make them sit for twelve just to start over and have to sit for six more. Can you imagine how that would affect your career?

I think Sharon's work can speak for itself and it shows she does not paint generic portraits.

We all try to portray the person at their best and sometimes as they envision themselves or to portray a position of power. So using heroic proportions or hiding the fact that they have put on a few pounds is only to produce a better, more pleasing image. What's wrong with that?

I painted a man in three quarter pose turned slightly to profile. This man was large. Not just his 6'8" height but he had accumulated a substantial circumference. I'm sure I painted off forty pounds from his center. Upon seeing the portrait he proclaimed that I had painted him too fat around the middle! I never came out and said that I had thinned him up considerably.

There is the way you are. There is the way people see you. There is the way you see yourself.