Morgan: Child's Portrait

[Mike Dodson]

"Morgan", 11" x 16.25", Graphite/White chalk on grey Strathmore paper.

This drawing is a follow up to the photo I posted in the photo critiques section.

This is primarily a preparatory drawing for my next oil painting. A few of the things I changed from the original photo are as follows:

1) lowered the line of trees in the background to show more of the sky around her head to create more contrast and help create a focal point

2) darkened the original bright area on the water behind her

3) lightened the dark reflective area on the water to our right behind her to present a change in value

4) lightened the limb she is holding to give some seperation from the background

5) lightened the right side of her face/shoulder to indicate some directional lightening (this area doesn't show up as well on the photo as does the original

6) her hair is actually the darkest area on the drawing, even darker than the trees to our right, this area also doesn't show up as well in the photo.

Thanks in advance for your commentary.

[Mike Dodson]

I didn't use white chalk but white charcoal (early morning brain lapse).

[Scott Bartner]

Hi Mike,

I think your drawing is quite excellent. One point you can take or leave: The painting is divided into three horizontal bands: grass, water and sky. There is an element of sameness here, the grass band being as wide as the water band etc. If you moved the horizon up a few inches you could get rid of that sameness and let the value of the distant trees gradually run into her hair, thus letting the eye move more easily through the picture.

[Mike Dodson]

Thanks Scott. That's an approach I'll certainly spend some time looking at today. I'm considering purchasing Photoshop for situations such as these. I think I'd like to see it there first before taking the plunge you suggested, but sounds like a good possibility.

[Chris Saper]

Dear Mike,

You have done a very nice job with the subtle modeling in the dress and arms, and in keeping your edges under control.

The main observation I have is that my eyes are crying out for a little light. The drawing is so very low key that it makes me work a little bit more than I want to. I basically see middle and dark values; even the hints of light in the bodice aren't reading to me as light. And I don't necessarily think you should make the dress feel as white as it is in the photo; in fact, it is a good choice, I think to leave it in the middle value range.

I think that I am wanting to find more light and form in the face, and I think it's difficult to convey the subltety of small faces' forms without much wiggle room in your value range. The modeling, (at least on my monitor) from the bridge of the nose to the lower lip doesn't read as a series of smooth symmetrical forms.

I know only too well that in a tiny drawing like this, it's very hard to deal with even smaller areas. If you want to try a finely sharpened white NuPastel stick to pull out some lights, you'd proably have fun with it - the NuPastel is much lighter than the white charcoal, so a little goes a long way.

Scott has made some very helpful observations, too. You would probably want to watch the seam between backgound and water to keep it from reading as a line.

Mike, this is a lovely little drawing.

Best wishes,

[Mike Dodson]

Chris,

Thanks so much for your time and attention to my drawing, your insight is most helpful.

Subtlety is something that I am really beginning to place more emphasis on. I tend to want to place emphasis on certain areas such as highlights and particularl darker areas. Perhaps in this case, at least on the subject's face as you suggest, I may not have made enough distinction between those areas. I'll work on the highlights a bit more and post again.

I'll pick up a couple of sticks of NuPastel tomorrow and work the highlights.

Thanks Again!

[Jeff Fuchs]

[Michele Rushworth]

Mike, I like the changes you've made to the composition with regard to the large masses of landscape, especially the light area behind the child's head.

I would reduce the emphasis on the vine she is holding somewhat, however. A little less contrast in the area to the right of her head and a little less of the edgy linear quality in the lower part of the vine would be good, I think.

This is going to be a lovely painting!

[Scott Bartner]

Hi Mike:

Before you think, "Oh, that Bartner fellow again" I have another suggestion. Getting back to what Chris said about the absence of strong light fall on the figure, you may want to take a look at Peggy Baumgaertner's site under Charcoal & Sauce Portraits, specifically the drawing of "Keily."

Much of what is in that drawing with regard to the rendering of form you may find applicable to Morgan. For example, notice how the lower lip division on the light side of her face is barely perceptible. Lips are difficult and must be thought of as part of a larger form, not cut out or evenly delineated. Also the shadows at the corners of Keily's mouth are just dark and gradated enough and suggest the softness of her skin.

The shadow defining the bridge of Keily's nose on the light side of her face is hardly visible. Because the light is coming from one source, much of the form on the light side of the face is underplayed yet very convincing. On the shadow side, the eye is heavily in shadow yet just enough form is visible to make it believable. This in turn helps bring the viewer's attention directly to her left eye. The left eye carries the right so to speak. Notice by the way the constant variation of the hair line above her forehead.

You can go on and on about this, but the best thing to do is really study drawings of this nature. The Degas study of Giovanna Bellelli is a classic study of light and shadow. I must have copied it six times. It's important to acquire a drawing vocabulary and try to apply it whenever possible.

Enough said. I'll shut up now and get back to my own work.

[Mike Dodson]

Thanks to all for your great advice and interest.

Jeff,

I certainly don't mind addressing your question at all, it's one that I have often wondered about others also.I am flattered that you think my work is so close to the resource photo's provided.

I spend a great deal of time/effort in doing my best to capture one's likeness and to have everyting in the right place. I was so pleased with the composition of the two pieces you have referenced that I decided to change very little, with the exception of the great recommendations I am receiving so far for this particular drawing.
One thing that I do is that I go to great extremes to try to get everything it it's exact location. I measure, measure, measure and check relationship's, relationship's, and relationship's. I also do exactly what you mentioned, I place a photo along side the reference to have another look.In many cases, though not seen in these two works, I may move an arm or a piece of furniture.

I just recently visited an artist who is currently receiving $30,000 for bust portraits and $75,000 for full length. He had a full length WIP I saw and it was quite obvious he uses a projector from the way the drawing was rendered.

So I guess there are some out there who use this approach. I might myself if I were just swamped with commission's, but that's another topic.

Michele,

I'll "downplay" those areas of the vine you have mentioned. I think that will certainly improve the drawing. I am also studying some of Bouguereau's work since not only was he a master (understatement) but painted a number of outdoor children's portraits.

Scott,

I just spent some time viewing Peggy B.'s drawing of Keily and I certainly see your points. Subtlety is something that is not easily mastered as I am discovering but I will contine to work at it.

Also, please feel free to give your recommendations as often as possible, it has been most helpful, actually, last night I moved the horizon line upward and you suggested and it was a vast improvement.

I'll post updates early next week.