[Kimberly Dow]

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.