[Steven Sweeney]

I wish I'd painted this portrait, Virginia, so that I could have the pleasure of feeling as good about it as you should. So much about it is so attractive and appealing. The pose is very "telling", with the straight-on gaze, the confident tilt of the head, the casually open jacket. I have the feeling that the subject is wiser than his years, engaged in studying the viewer, rather than the reverse.

I very much like the way the fabrics in the jacket, shirt and tie are handled, in hues, drawing and painting, including the slightly rumpled collar and the soft edge on the far shoulder, a perfect contrast to the other shoulder which is "coming toward" us with its slightly crisper edge.

Yes, I do think the background is "interesting enough" and is in pleasing and effective hues. I'm not sure "what" the background is -- and it doesn't matter -- though it suggests to me shrubbery or trees painted slightly out of focus. The fact that it isn't more detailed (perhaps that's what you meant by "interesting enough") is not only not a problem, but seems to me to be exactly the way to handle it, because the subject himself is executed in somewhat "soft detail" and a crisper, noisier background would likely compete with, rather than complement, him. I think the background's lighter tones on the shadow side of the boy, and generally darker tones on the lighted side, provides the sort of effective contrast that in turn pushes the subject out in front of the background. (Just musing: you might have introduced some reddish tones here and there (in the same values as the greens in which you place them), or even -- if you go along with the "out of focus greenery" notion, faintly suggested a skyhole or two with a smear of blue slightly darker in tone than the shirt.)

And yes, there is not the strong, single source of lighting that might have been set up in a studio to enhance shadow, but there are nonetheless quite obvious lighted and shadow areas on the figure, in the hair, the face and the clothing, enough to suggest form, which is the whole point of manipulating (or making the most of) the available light. As for more highlights in the hair, I guess I would say not, because the overall lighting seems to me to be more diffuse than directional, not the sort that would create strong highlights. I could be talked into reconsidering that; I'd have to see the photo.

Though there's nothing in the portrait that says to me, "This must be changed," you posted for a critique, so I'll suggest a few things that I would want to at least double check before I signed off on the piece:

1-- Even accounting for the tilt of the head, the eye on the viewer's left seems higher than the other one.

2-- It may indeed be accurate, but parts of the chin and jaw area seem larger (longer, wider) than I would expect. Comparing the distance between eyebrows and the base of the nose, and base of the nose to bottom of the chin, which "typically" would be close to the same, I note that the lower distance is significantly longer. The cheek on the viewer's right seems to puff out a sliver too far, right at and immediately above the area where it meets the collar. One of the things that contributes to this is the reflected light on the edge of the cheek, which has a kind of ambiguous optical effect, making the shadow in the dimple look a bit dark and kind of tugging that outside edge of the face toward us rather than letting it roll back. You might experiment with letting that edge go slightly darker rather than slightly lighter. Consider, too, slightly raising the value of the green patch in the background right next to that cheek, to reduce the form-advancing contrast at that edge. (Also, when I squint, that dark green patch shows up as the same value as the shadow side of the hair and kind of looks like an extension of the hair. Not necessarily a problem, just something my eye keeps coming back to.)

3-- On that same side, in the area of the eye, you might let the right side of that triangle of light on top of the cheekbone become darker as it approaches the hair, to round out the turn of the skull. Minimize the reflected light on that edge, where it meets the hair.

4-- The tip of the nose looks a little busier than the rounded "bulb" I'd expect to see. The vertical shadow line on the (viewer's) left side of the "bulb" and the lighted triangle on the right side, extending down almost to the face, suggest a cleft in the tip of the nose. If that is not in fact accurate, it could be eased by minimizing that shadow line (which probably wouldn't be there anyway, on the lighted side of the nose) and darkening the part of the triangular shape that turns and lies on the base of the nose, in shadow (albeit not particularly dark).

5-- It's a little hard to explain the relatively bright highlight on the upper right edge of the hair, both because we're already "accepting" that the light is most strongly coming from the other side and because it's placed right in the middle of a dark shadow area. You might consider at least toning it down a little, so that it appears more in the nature of halation from the ambient light.

That's probably more than you wanted to hear. The suggestions for a second look are just that. As I've said, I think the piece is very well done.

Steven