Portrait for critique

[Marianne Molgard]

I

[Cynthia Daniel]

I'm the owner and creator of Stroke of Genius. The decision to include an artist or not is based solely on the quality of their work. It is open to artists from anywhere in the world. You would need to submit at least 4 samples. More is okay also, preferably a variety of subjects if available.

[Daniel Arredondo]

Nice portrait but this is my constructive criticism. The painting looks off balance because the she is leaning from the right. This would have been OK if more would be shown where she is leaning on an armchair or something. This was done from a photograph, paint more from life so that you do not have too much respect for what the photo tell you. This may have been a photo with a flash because it is difficult to read the source of light. It looks like the lightest area is on her right cheek, if so the light was sort of from the left and the clothes and other parts of the face do not tell us exactly.

Hope this helps.

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

At the bottom of this post, I have scanned in an image from Richard Ormond's book, John Singer Sargent, the Early Portraits (an amazing book...). The painting is of Bernice Townsend by Sargent. I have reversed the image so the light and shadow patterns are similar to your painting. I thought it would be helpful to have a reference as I continue with my critique.

The principle suggestion I would make to you on your portrait is the same suggestion I would make to nearly all of the portraits asked to be critiqued on this site. Your drawing is very nice, and I am sure you have a likeness and are happy with the overall image. You have no problem with drawing. Your problem is primarily one of value control. You have what I call a "spotty painting". There are light, middle and dark values in your background, light and dark values in the hair, light, middle and dark values in the face, and light and middle values in the dress. The values are all over the place.

Look at Sargent's early portrait studies to see how to handle the coordination and SIMPLIFICATION of values. The more I know about painting, the more simplified the painting becomes.

I would make the entire background a middle value, possibly the warm middle value next to the top right portion of her head. When the background is an even middle value the face will pop out in three dimensions. Again, look at Sargent's work.

I would make the hair a dark value, the highlights on the hair a middle value (there is too much of a difference between the darkness of the hair and the very light highlights.) I would made the facein the light (by "face in the light", I mean the entire front portion of the face -- nose, cheeks, forehead and chin), a light value, and the chest and front of arms a light value, and I would make them all the same light value. You have too many highlights on the entire portrait. The only "white" highlights should be on the tip of the nose, the forehead, and in the eyes.

For example, the ear is too light and spotty (the value of the ear should be the same as the value on the side of the face next to the ear, in the shadow). The wings on the side of the nose should be the same value as the skin between the nose and the lip. The corners of the skin next to the mouth should be the same value as the skin between the nose and the top lip. The highlight on the clavicle and front of the chest is too light, the value should be closer to the value on the rest of the chest.

Don't determine the value pattern from what you see in a photograph. (The photograph exaggerates the wrong things. The camera does not see the same way the eye sees.) Find the work of a master (a Franz Hals or a John Singer Sargent) who has painted a subject in the same lighting situation as your photograph, and copy their value patterns.

Onto light and shadow. I spent a lot of time on the values, but because you've asked specifically about shadows, I'd like to offer a few thoughts you might find helpful. The only shadows you really will have on the head with your lighting would be on the side of the face by the back of the cheekbone, next to the nose (by the eye on the left side), under the chin (onto the neck), and along the back of the shoulder and along the side of her arm (...note the similar light patterning on the Sargent portrait above). Everything in a painting either belongs to the light or belongs to the shadow. The entire front of her face, from the back of the left cheekbone to the cheekbone on the right, and from forehead to chin, all belong to the light. In other words, the side of the forehead is not shadow, the creases in the laugh lines are not shadow, and the side of the nose on the (our) right side is not shadow, these areas belong to the light and should be massed together. You are trying to make your figure not look flat, but by breaking your simple masses into too many values, you are losing the important shape of the largest mass, the egg shape of the head as it moves out from the background.

As a side note, might I stress the importance of working from life (so even when you work from a photograph you know what life looks like).

Almost all of the work I am asked to critiqued show good to excellent drawing skills. The place where most of the paintings fall apart is in the lack of value massing. Fortunately, this is the easiest lesson to implement. Study the masters, and study their paintings in black and white. You will see that invariably, the paintings will be composed of large light, middle and dark value masses. Try it. It will make an enormous difference in your paintings.

Peggy Baumgaertner

You're good at teeth! I can't draw teeth to save my life and I'm to much of a coward to do a portrait with them in case it looks too bad and I go off drawing again. I think I'll just stick to my tight-lipped portraits for the time being!

[Marianne Molgard]

Thank you all for your criticism. I