Ronald

Denise Racine · 09-21-2002, 01:32 PM

Hello everybody! Finally back after a great summer including a workshop with Margaret Carter Baumgaertner, a trip to Europe and lots of painting ! Here is my latest portrait of my husband. Any comments or suggestions?

Daniel Arredondo · 09-21-2002, 03:01 PM

Denise,

Excellent job with colors and values.
On drawing you may want to check the following.

1.) Angle of the Mandible, his left seems to be lower than the right.
2.) Ear size, seems a little small
3.) Check to see if the top of his head really has that flat area.

Hope this helps.

Daniel

John Zeissig · 09-21-2002, 07:33 PM

Denise,

Well, there's a fine figure of a man! A great subject whose character comes through immediately. No sign of psychological brittleness there. No matter how good you are, there's no substitute for really knowing the person you're painting, is there? This looks like the guy you'd want for back-up if you had to do something difficult or dangerous. Those are my first impressions.

From your post on the other thread, I was looking for a potential problem in the values in the shadow side, but I don't see any. The dark background and relatively isolated light source gives no reason to expect much reflection on the shadow side.

Daniel's observation that the ear seems small is correct, although I wouldn't have picked up on it by myself. It would be interesting to know what the range of ear sizes is relative to other facial features.

With regard to the flatness on the top of the head, on my Compaq laptop with Internet Explorer it looks flat, with a possible hairline right at the tangent. On the Mac with Netscape it actually looks like a slight concavity with the background well defined, clearly indicating no hair above the scalp. I'm not sure what to make of that. On the Compaq the gaze also looks slightly to the left (to my right), whereas on the Mac the gaze is obviously directed at the viewer.

I think the simple background was the right choice. The force of your husband's personality carries the work, and anything else could be distracting

Finally, I'm struck by the overall similarity in skin tones and color between my self-portrait and this painting, the reverse contrast in the backgrounds notwithstanding.

Very, very well done. It looks like your summer of painting was well spent

Denise Racine · 09-21-2002, 08:17 PM

Thanks for the feedback. You are both right about that ear being a bit small but believe it or not, it really is that small and, to top it off, it's lower than his ears !

It's a good thing for me that my husband doesn't use this web site! I think he's cute even if he's got strange proportions

When you talk about the top of his head being flat, do you mean the forehead?

Daniel Arredondo · 09-21-2002, 08:57 PM

Denise,

On his top right side, at the circumference of the head, there seems to be a slight concavity.

Daniel

Denise Racine · 09-21-2002, 09:33 PM

Thanks for the help, I'll check it out tomorrow. Here is the reference photo. I painted from life but used the reference when he wasn't around.

Steven Sweeney · 09-21-2002, 11:38 PM

Denise,

It was my immediate impression as well that there is a great deal of character well depicted in this piece, one which after a single viewing makes you think that you'd know this person immediately upon seeing him in real life.

I also see a problem with the upper part of the skull. The ever-so-slight concavity to the viewer's left of top center is part of that problem, but only part. I have the sense that the entire top of the skull is shifted over to our right. I think there are two easy things to do to help remedy this:

1-- Look at the top left "corner", if you will, of the skull in both your painting and in the reference photo. In the photo, there is a very definite and distinct curve there, where the upper plane of the skull turns down into a side plane, just above the hairline. That feature is missing in your painting, and so the side plane of the skull seems to be slanted more sharply to our right than it should be. This is exacerbated by having brought the hair up a little too high, so that it almost appears to be headed up over the crown of the head in back.

2-- Related to the "flattened" feature that others have mentioned, part of the problem is that however that feature is described, it ought to be the same on the other side of the skull. From the very top center of the skull as painted, the skull line drops much more quickly on our left than on our right (where it actually bulges out somewhat, the opposite of what you want.) This is greatly contributing to the "shifting" effect I mentioned. You'll see in the photo how the top of the skull falls away from top center in fairly equal manner on each side. Note too in this regard that because the head is turned slightly, the top center of the skull won't be so directly above the centerline of the nose. In the photo it's notably left of that line.

The next thing I'd look at is the sense that the side of the face on our right, and particularly the eye, is advancing slightly when it should be receding just as slightly. I think this has to do with the difficult reference photo you're working with, so that you've kind of had to invent the lights (and darks) over on that side. My recommendations would be:

1-- Slightly lower the value of the lights in that side of the face, and raise the value of the darks, especially along the right edge, so that there isn't such an abrupt dividing line between those value shapes that in turn suggests a flat cheek area protruding out into the light and then a side plane falling away very suddenly.

2-- Don't let the lights -- especially around the eye -- work quite so far around to the right side of the face. That's pulling the face toward us, when it should be rounding back away from us.

3-- Introduce a heavier shadow area cast by the lower part of the nose, above the moustache. But don't obliterate that bit of light that's hitting the lower cheek area, defining the form around that deep crease running each way from the base of the nose and underneath the cheek areas. (Also, make sure that creased form stays as far away from the mouth and moustache on the right side as it is on the lighted left, otherwise it will contribute to the unwanted "advancement" of that side of the face toward us.)

Finally I would agree that one last look at the shape and size of the ear might be useful. In the painting it appears more oval than in the photo. Notably, in the painting, the outside (on our left) edge appears to slope in toward the head as it falls, whereas in the photo it appears to slope away from the head, giving what seems to be a quite character-defining and rather unusual configuration that you'd probably be glad to capture.

Guess that's enough for one go around.

Cheers

Marta Prime · 09-22-2002, 12:33 AM

Hi Denise,

This is a comment in relation to the ear. Look at the photo. The top of the ear is pretty even, maybe even a tad higher than the outside corner of the eye. Now look at the painting. The ear is quite a bit lower than the outside corner of the eye. Although he does have small ears, I think the placement is causing some of the problem.

Anyway, overall I think this is a terrific portrait! Did your husband like it?

Steven Sweeney · 09-22-2002, 02:11 AM

Quote:

I'm probably too tired tonight to read Stevenese.

Imagine having to write in that language at this hour!

If it might be helpful, there is a Berlitz pocketbook on Stevenese (just after StenoPool and before Swahili), with a handy tear-out section on portrait critique dialects, idioms, and affective gestures. CDs and DVDs are coming out as soon as popular demand indicates a prospect for a tidy profit.

Steven Sweeney · 09-22-2002, 07:38 AM

Having posted somewhat facetiously, I feel obliged to mention that a single one of my critiques, in whatever lingo, is but one of three to six such critiques that a student would receive in each week of a four-year atelier program. I mention this simply to, with best intentions, discourage the dilettantes -- and if I fail in that, good for them! This is too hard and too serious a profession to dabble in. If you're having fun, that's great, but if you're also trying to earn a living at this, be professional. This includes always striving to improve and to distinguish your work, often with the help of objective critiques.