Bare-chested boys?
 

I am curious if any of you have opinions regarding small boys or adolescent boys with no shirts on - whether this is appropriate for portraits. I have 2 on my website and Cynthia (I apologize for not haiving it in quotes, I do not still have the email) had felt that this was not a positive addition to my portfolio and that a more affluent clientele would not want this. This had never occured to me before. I have had mixed great responses to these two portraits from clients, usually a big smile and laughter. I always took that as good response, but maybe laughing at my painting shouldn't be what I am going for! I am just wondering if any of you have set opinions about this bare-chested issue. I'll post one as an example. This one is 18x24", oil, "Jake"

Just to add, some of the shading has changed after this photo was taken; including that one strange lump I left on the little guys right breast.

Hi Kim,

You need to work hard on the quality of your reference-photos. A painted portrait is not a snap-shot. You don't want great laughs, you want them to ask for their own image to be portrayed.

Maybe it's good to consider that you devote your website only to portraits, that makes it more exclusive. And avoid using frames in your web design.

Greetings,
Peter

I have never, NEVER even heard of such problems. I think it is a shame when healthy people have to live their lives and make their art according to the fears or fetishes of others. If we try to not offend anyone we will have to stop painting. Some people find art that sells offensive for example. Some people find realism offensive. Some people think that you should only paint your own race-to do otherwise is exploitation.

Where does it end? There was a letter to the editor in Art of the West about 2 years ago in which a lady said she was going to cancel her subscription because they had printed a nude. (This is a very modest and traditional publication) The number of replies to her letter was the greatest they ever had received. All were in suppport of the magazine. Most said what about 3 thousand years of art? Most said what about half the catholic churches and all the museums around the world?

I think most artists will not have a problem with the concept of bare-chested boys in portraiture, but you should ask your intended clientelle. Find people you think might commission portraits some day and ask their opinions.

Also, to second what Peter said, the quality of the reference photo used in the above sample will hold you back far more than whether the subject has a shirt on or not. (I actually find the painting scary!)

Kim- I think it would be a wise decision to remove the painting of the boy.

Tim- It is not a matter of artistic principle. It's about how to present oneself in a way that one actually receives portrait-commissions. On your site I don't see such a scary painting either. On your site, I don't even see a work that could be offensive to anyone. (I know the story of the semi-nude, but that, to me, is a really innocent painting). Make one, that's a challenge! ;)

Peter

PS: I like your work, especially the semi-nude.

I think the question must be considered in some particular context. Children on the beach would look right at home bare chested. Otherwise, the question will emerge: "what was the rationale behind your decision to paint this scene in this way?"

Peter and Michele's point regarding the photo reference is a critical one. When left to our own devices we will often turn to family or friends for our inspiration. Instead of selecting from "that stack" of photo references, I would sit down and imagine a scene which is both inspirational for you, and more importantly, satisfies the needs of a prospective clientele. Try and fill your portfolio with direct intention.

Peter, Michele & Mike,

Thank you for these straight-forward responses. I appreciate the advice. I agree, my reference photos leave a lot to be desired. This is the first thing that hit me when I (recently) started surfing the web and seeing what other portrait artists are doing. I've been in a vaccuum. Since portraits are only one part of the art I am hired to do, (I sell far more still lifes and landscapes than portraits), this has not been a huge focus of mine. But I am finding that it could be a bigger part of my career. Learning how to take good photos and then how to make the paintings look as if they were painted from life are top priorities on my need-to-improve list.

This particular portrait was certainly different, extreme angle and all, but that was the intention. I am suprised it actually seems scary to a couple of you, he is an adorable in-your-face kid.

Peter, you say that Tim doesn't have such an offensive painting on his website. What is it that is offensive to you? Is it the bare-chest? I am asking because that was my main reason for the post. I agree with the quality issue - it is clearly from a snaphot, etc. I do however love the concept, whether I accomplished the feeling I was going for is another story. Scaring people was not the feeling, amusement and recognition of a certain look was.

This is a typical pose for children of that age: looking up at adults with the hands on the hips. If I understand what you wrote, you said I should devote my website to portraits alone? I still have a lot to learn about portraits and I would certainly lose a lot of my income if I stopped painting my landscapes and still lifes. I would like to do more portrait work, it is a greater challenge, but I am not nearly where I need to be. Plus, I do not think I would be fufilled doing only portraits. There are way too many things out there to paint.

Tim, I wholeheartedly agree with you about painting to others' dictates. Even if everyone here thought the bare-chested thing was obscene it wouldn't stop me. I have bare-chested boys running around the house (it's hot here in Texas, y'all) all the time and they are beautiful. I wanted to find out what other (maybe more formal?) artists' opinions would be on this issue. I feel I got my answer perhaps; it's not the bare chest of the boy, but rather the quality that is not up to par. I still like the thing myself, though.

I do appreciate the feedback. This is all very new to me. I've been paid for my art for many years, but I haven't heard any critiqes from other artists since college. Keeping a balance between holding onto my pride and realizing that there is a lot I can learn here is a fine line to walk. (SCARY? I'll show you scary... that is a joke of course).

Along the same (kind of) theme, I have a neighbor who is expecting in August. She is the most beautiful pregnant woman I have ever seen - glowing skin, long blonde hair, nicely shaped with just the big tummy. I have a painting in my head and she has agreed to pose. I am going to try and use some of the lighting and photography tips I have read here. My question is about a pose. I am picturing her in a red satin robe, maybe oriental, with her face turned away so it is not a specific portrait. This is not a commission. I would like soft light falling on her, but a dark background. I would also love to have her belly exposed. Maybe a hand resting on her stomach. I just cannot seem to figure out how to place her so that no other body parts are showing. If the robe just gapes open over the stomach it will be startling I think. Any suggestions? I would really like this to be soft and beautiful painting about motherhood.

Kim,

Do you see this butterfly? Why, do you think it has the images of the eyes of an owl on it's wings? Because it scares animals it would not do otherwise.

I responded to Tim's mentioning of the word offensive. Your painting is scary, not offensive. Eventually it is an irritating and annoying pose. Try to imagine someone looking at that child you love and know personally that does not know that child. And think about the reason why that butterfly has those eyes on it.

Since this is a forum about portrait-painting we give you (or try to give you) advice directed at that part of your artistic output.

Peter

Kim, there is a young artist nowadays that is the flavor of the month. His figurative work has been on the covers of two magazines. He shoots his people with a slight fisheye effect which I always recognize as a camera distortion. It drives me nuts that the editors and critics don't see it and that this suddenly famous painter doesn't simply buy a 50 mm lens.

Tim,

My point to Kim is that in six years of marketing portraits, I've never had a mother request a portrait of a boy bare-chested. Additionally, from my same years in marketing, every client with whom I worked commissioned their children in clothes. An exception to this is a beach portrait, which a client might commission if they have that as part of their lifestyle. But often even the beach portrait is done with clothes as in these two very beautiful examples by Tim Chambers: http://timothychambers.com/pages/carla-joshua2.htm
http://timothychambers.com/pages/bio2.htm (further down the page on the right).

There are two bare-chested boys on Kim's site. Considering that one only has a short period of time to capture the fancy of a potential client, my marketing advice was to use portraits that had a more proven track record of pulling commissions instead of those.

Hey, I am really enjoying all this.

There is the part of me that says, "Well, I don't care if it is advantageous to my portfolio. After all, I was inspired!" Like I am going to stick to my vision no matter what, clients and critics be ****ed. Now, if that were truly how I felt that would be great, but we all need to make a living and I take less-than-perfect commissions here and there because the bills need to be paid. So much for my ideals.

I appreciate the fact that if I want to appeal to a wider range of clients I need to stick to classical poses/views, not to mention improve my skills. There is only one of this particular pose and I have no plans to replicate it. It was a fun thing to try basically. People have come into my studio and loved it, but here it is not a hit. I'm glad to know that.

The advice here is geared toward pleasing the client so we can make more money and achieve success - that is why I am here, so it's all good. By the way, my husband and mother hated it too - not the painting, but the harsh pose. I am glad I tried it, I still love it, but I believe this is something I will not do again. Thanks again for all the input.

Any suggestions on the expectant mother I mentioned above?

No, it is really about quality, and having a balanced view on composition, pose and the psychology of your paintings.

We're really trying to help you become a better painter, not to sell-out. You must never sell-out. But no-one said it was going to be easy.

Peter

To succeed financially as a portrait painter the surest path for someone new to the field is probably to paint what you see a lot of on the successful artists' sites elsewhere on SOG.

Could you possibly become a new sensation with offbeat subjects (pregnant women, bare chested boys)? Sure, maybe, but I think the odds are strongly against it. If you want to know what most clients commission, look at what artists who've been doing this for twenty years are showing on their sites.

Sounds like good sound advice to learn from the SOG painters. I am in no way interested in becoming some kind of sensation for offbeat subjects. It had also never occured to me that a expectant woman would be considered offbeat as well. I see them as beautiful and am interested in painting one.

I appreciate all the advice. For some strange reason though I feel the need to call my mother and have her tell me how smart & talented I am.

Your work clearly shows talent and skill. (I particularly like the couple in the sunlight on your site.)

At this point, WHAT you choose to paint (especially what reference you choose to work from) will have the greatest effect on whether or not your samples bring you commissions. Study the work of artists on SOG whose work you really like and think carefully before you begin your next portrait.

Once you decide on a subject that you find compelling, plan out the composition, clothing, lighting and props. Then shoot your own photos (with NO flash). Reading the sections on good reference photos on the Forum will give you lots of excellent tips on shooting the right kind of photos to paint from.

Good luck and I look forward to seeing your next creation!

Kim--

I wouldn't be too put off by the counsel to avoid "offbeat" subjects. In my opinion, you can portray doggone near anything, and it will either work artistically or it won't, regardless of the painting's actual content. I have seen numerous paintings of pregnant women, and they work, totally. It basically comes back to whether an artist has the skill and experience to pull it off. But that's a big if.

Specifically, in regard to your bare-chested boy, it's not a question of whether to portray a little boy without a shirt, it cuts to the quality and completeness of your vision and execution. The problem I have with that painting is the quality of your reference material. It's obviously painted from a photo that was shot with a flash, or at least in an extremely severe light, which completely undercuts your ability to see and render form properly. If you had conceived this image and painted it exquisitely from life, no one would be complaining or finding it "shocking." The harshness comes not from the image's content or even from its point of view--idiosyncratic though it is--but from its harshness and lack of sensitivity in rendering. In other words, the actual formal qualities of the painting. NO artist could have painted a terrific painting if working from this reference alone.

Michele is on the mark when she counsels that you put in your portfolio what you want to sell and pitch it to whom you think your clients will be. But I disagree that there are very many subjects that are off limits, if one has sufficient ability to bring them across the finish line. And making that decision for oneself takes a certain degree of true objectivity.

But as I tell my students, you'll learn more from a big failure than a small success. You just might not want to put it in your book.

Best--TE

Thanks Mom. Oh! I mean Michele. Just an update for your amusement. Mom said, "If you do not want to know, do not ask. I hate that painting too. You can do much better Kimberly, now smarten up."

Tom,

Thank you for your response. Your wording is diplomatic and best of all did not make me cry like the others. That is a joke everyone! This has been an extrememly informative day for me. Tom, I just saw your website and I am so very impressed.

Tom, you wrote:

I agree that there are very few (if any) subjects that are too offbeat to be worthy as art. However I just wanted to let Kimberly know that commercial portraiture is a much narrower field of endeavor than simply creating a striking or even beautiful work of art for art's sake. I love many paintings of people that would not get anyone hired as a portrait artist.

On the other hand if one looks at Nelson Shanks' site they would see some really wild and daring portraits of some very famous folks. Ole Nelson, along with the Swedish Nerdtrom (sic) feller and that Siggy's nephew would lead one to go for the bold stuff.

Administrator's Note: Tim is referring to Odd Nerdrum. You can see his work at http://www.nerdrum.com.

I love Nelson Shanks' work but I wonder if he did the bold stuff when he was starting out, or if he does bold work for most of his commissions even now. His portrait of the Pope is very conservative as are most (though not all!) of the work on the portrait page of his website:

http://w3.icdc.com/~nshanks/gal_port.htm

...

In 1707 Gerard DeLairesse (who wrote an important book about painting) that painters like Vermeer were too modern or too trendy, because their images had no timelessness in them. They would be forgotten soon. We all know he was right, don't we?

Timothy - Could you please explain more specifically why you would want to call yourself a kitsch-painter? To me the 'kitsch-philosophy' is a personal PR-strategy by a respected painter, although Nerdrum likes to portray himself as a rebel.

What boundaries do you exactly feel, is it the 'shirtless'- thing, from this thread, or is it something else that you feel, that limits you?

Peter

Michele--

I'm as discerning as the next artist in regard to what one should include in a portfolio, almost to a fault. Most of my own work, to me, seems awfully safe sometimes.

However, the danger in underestimating the range of what clients will respond to is that it limits their ablility to learn what the potential for portrait art is on the whole, and moreover, it causes artists to "self-edit" and stop stretching for the transcendant image.

An atypical subject, stupendously painted, will resonate with even an unsophisticated layperson; they can appreciate excellence without necessarily being able to articulate why. Or at least that's my hope. We can't fault the public for expecting poker-playing dogs if that's all we give them.

But I realize that your effort is toward helping Kim get started, and it's a very generous and commendable thing.

Best--Tom

I just checked out the work by Odd Nerdrum. I do not know what I think about his work, but I do feel like washing my hands now.

Tim N., I did not dis Odd's work. I pointed out that it's bold and brave. Take care not to read to much between the lines. I think Nelson Shanks and Oddie's work is powerful. But O.N's self-portrait that got so much attention was not on the mere merits of quality. Shock effect gets press.

Tim M,
Thanks for the comments.

I hereby swear (right hand on the Art Dictionary) to learn all I can about photographing my subjects.

As I am reading this, Tim T's quote on his signature caught my eye again. I know I can paint this painting the way I intended. It will not be today and not too soon, but when I feel I can do it right I am going to attempt this pose again. Just for my own satisfaction. I will not admit defeat. I had a certain vision of this and it was not scary, it was endearing.

Kim, here are a few quick tips on how to photograph the boy if you want to try painting that pose again.

1. No flash.

2. Don't use a wide angle lens (or wide angle setting on a variable-length lens). This means that if you're using a camera that can zoom, don't use the farthest-zoomed-out setting. That will distort the features dramatically. Zoom in at least a couple of steps. If you have a camera with a detachable lens, use a 50mm lens. You may need to get on a chair above the subject to get the right distance away for this to work properly.

3. Set up the subject so that the light source (window, daylight, whatever) is off to the side enough that you can see the roundness in the forms. Don't have the light directly behind you.

Hope this gives you a place to start.

Thank you Michele, specifics are wonderful. I am going to print this one out. Trying to fuddle through the mass of information on this site & figure if it applies to what I am trying to do exactly can be confusing. This is helpful.

Feels most comfortable bare-chested
 

Kim: I have read the posts directed towards whether it's good to paint a child bare-chested or not. I believe an artist should paint a portrait to portray the child. In your case, I do agree with the others that the child looks scary but that doesn't mean that you can't paint him bare-chested. If the child feels most comfortable shirtless then you could still do that. You just may want to pose him differently.

Wende Caporale, pastel portrait painter, coincidentally has a bare-chested boy printed in her portrait book. Her comments were "his parents and I posed him in several different shirts. But the most natural photos of him turned out to be when he was shirtless, because this his how he feels most comfortable. This highlighted his free-spirited personality and resulted in a striking portrait."

There is no set rules out there in what an artist can or cannot paint. I do admit I haven't seen too many bare-chested boys but as mentioned above if it's the child's personality...go for it!

I don't think I ever said Kim's subject matter was off-limits. My recommendation to her was to include things in her portfolio that would be most likely to appeal to the most people, both from a compositional and quality point of view.

I was referring to these comments that were made to Kim:

Good luck Kim in the photo tips that Michelle has posted in photographing the boy. It looks like good advice to follow

Cynthia,

No, you did not indicate that anything was off limits. You had indicated (how I read it anyway) that you felt more affluent clients would not be as interested in bare-chested children. I was just curious if the other artists agreed that this seemed to be their experience.

Although you clearly have a lot of talent, I find this painting to be disturbing because of the expression on the child's face. A shirt on this figure would not improve it.

I would not recommend that this painting be shown to a client.

Goodness, such controversy. Here's my experience. I had a client that wished to have her 7 yr. old painted with his shirt off in the woods. As it turned out, he sort of resembled Huck Finn and we went with the idea. I thought nothing of it until one day I walked in my studio, saw the painting, and thought "oh my, he looks naked!" I was so alarmed I immediately called the mom and said, "I think we need to put a tank top on him". She saw it.. completely disagreed and actually loved it. Other people that saw the portrait thought the same thing I did. I finished her piece, and decided not to include it in my portfolio because it made ME uncomfortable.

The bottom line is, (I feel) we need to include or not include paintings based on our OWN feelings, and face the consequences (if any).

I completely agree with this, but she did ask. :)

Melissa, Stanka & Karin,

Thank you for the advice & input.

I wish I had gotten such a response (in terms of numbers of comments - not the strong dislike) when I posted for a critique.