Melody & Melvin

[David Dowbyhuz]

May I introduce Melody and Melvin, my wife and one of our dogs.

The painting measures 28" x 36", and took me about a month (on & off; more off) to complete. However, I lost well over a week of that time changing gears; smashing out parts that didn

[David Dowbyhuz]

Close up.

[David Dowbyhuz]

The oaf ...

[Steven Sweeney]

Just to jump in and start somewhere, you've done Melvin the Oaf proud with his rendering (though perhaps it's indelicate to use the word "rendering" within earshot of a dog), especially the head as detailed in the close-up. Those light-catcher whiskers are funny and you've somehow managed to depict the texture of the fur and the slack-skinned bunching, even the chamois softness of the ears. I have a standing request, which I've tried to selectively remember to forget, to paint our white standard poodle (named Matisse), but I've been intimidated by the curly fur. Do you know the secret for that texture as well?

You know by now that I generally proceed somewhat randomly, not insisting that anything's right or wrong, just suggesting areas that might be interesting to revisit.

-- Perhaps in approaching this as a "portfolio" piece, you've chosen an ambitious composition that includes a number of "painting demonstrations" -- a human figure, the dog, furniture and fabric folds, elements of a room, a window view. It may be too much for the portrait to bear, so that the woman kind of becomes just another of many elements in the painting. One thing you might consider is cropping both sides quite a bit, so that the figures dominate the composition. On the left I'd go somewhere between the end of the woman's hand and the edge of the fabric; on the right, perhaps to the shadow edge of the window casing. I deliberately choose those areas so that both the blue fabric and the south end of the dog do in fact run out of the painting, rather than leave edges or arcs close to and parallel or tangential to the frame. You'll have to play with the dimensions; in some circles there's an aversion to square formats.

-- Staying with the composition for a moment, you noted that the size of the dog was daunting, and compositionally, it is that. At the very least, he creates what some refer to as a "duality", an ambiguous statement of what the painting is "about". We're not sure whether it's a portrait of the woman or of the dog. The temptation to answer "Both!" should probably not be given into quickly. Such a duality weakens the impact of the piece. One of the subjects needs to be clearly dominant, the other clearly subordinate.

-- One of my first thoughts the first time I saw the piece was that I couldn't describe the lighting with certainty, either its direction(s) or its intensity. I especially noticed this in the face, which is not only receiving light from both sides (slightly more from the viewer's left) but somehow still manages to have shadow shapes running down the center -- and confusingly strong shadow shapes, too, as revealed when you squint at the close-up. I think the lighting is costing you form in some areas. For example, that bright left edge appears to be advancing, rather than receding, as it would be in nature. It's also freezing that left side, temperature-wise; in the close-up, cover one side of the face and then the other and see if the temperature extension doesn't seem extreme to you. The side on our right is very warm and lovely. (If all that light is coming from the window, time to pull the drapes; more about which, later.)

-- Since we're looking at the face, the eye on the viewer's left seems a little higher than the other. In both eyes, you've correctly lightened the iris opposite the small highlight, but a little too much, I think; that's not light shining on the iris but through it and, so, is represented by just a very subtle lightening of the iris color. Also, taking the side lighting as a given, that crescent of light on the left side of the nose extends up around that eye too far, cancelling out the form effect you introduced by darkening the area where the brow turns under to meet the bridge of the nose. That high crescent of light makes it appear not only that the bridge doesn't recede under the brow, but that it turns and proceeds toward the eye.

-- Some of your shapes have discrete edges that create a kind of "illustration" look. One example is the top edge of the sweater sleeve on the far arm. You might think of such an area as the boundary of a tonal shape rather than a thin edge with its own tone.

-- Staying with the arms, their difference in size suggests possibly excessive foreshortening, as may happen, say, in a photograph taken by a 35mm camera at quite close range. The near arm and hand appear very large, the far ones very small; the "truth" is perhaps somewhere in between.

-- I'm having trouble "seeing" what the woman is sitting on, and not the least of reasons is that it's covered up by the light blue fabric. There doesn't seem to be any thematic or compositional "reason" for that cover. Even if you retain it, I think it would be more pleasing aesthetically to see it in a color (namely, green, perhaps hunter green) that complemented the reds in the sweater and the dog's orangey fur. The folds in that fabric as it drapes down the far left create an area of considerable detail and contrast, and so compete with the portrait subject for the viewer's attention. There doesn't seem to be a "back" to the furniture, against which the woman would be leaning (and with that big dog in her lap, she'd need some kind of support!) Also, the strong diagonal of the furnishing, from below her hand to well above and behind her head, not only tends to lead the eye out of the painting (the curious "arrowhead" folds in that brown afghan exacerbate this), but seems canted at too severe an angle to be explainable by perspective. If that edge fell rather than rose behind the head, it would arrest that movement out of the painting and would also leave us with two diagonals, each of which is leading the viewer's eye toward the subject, the woman.

-- If I'm correctly reading the large square shape behind the woman as a window, I don't think it's effective. It's contributing to the confusion of light and it's minimizing the contrast between it and the head, which is similar in value, thus affecting depth. Consider a wall instead, perhaps with a dimly lit low-detail painting hanging on it, or pull some dark drapes.

I just checked "Preview Reply" and see that I've used up my column-inch quota -- for the month! Guess I'll leave it there. I definitely would close by saying that a great deal of the drawing and the painting application is very good. The matters I've spoken to have more to do with the packaging of it.

Best wishes,
Steven

[David Dowbyhuz]

Steven,

You've GOT to come and sit by my easel from now on! You would have saved me a lot of (too valuable) time and heartache.

You have distilled all of my concerns, as well as identified fundamental flaws I could "sense", but not place. Why is it we often can't see something until it's pointed out, and then CAN'T UNSEE IT. Now what am I going to do with this painting?

I had already voiced some of my concerns to Cynthia, and even admitted the entire composition should be re-worked and re-painted. (Maybe with some judicious use of shears I can cannibalise the thing into two separate portraits?)

The thing you nailed the best (and something I blinded myself to) was that I was trying TOO MANY things in one work. I've always drawn a distinction between "skill" and "talent". The "skill" is the workmanship, which I'm closing on. The "talent" is making it work, which I'm not yet even close to!

I've got to do smaller works so that my learning curve can keep pace with my efforts. Thank you, Steven. Thank you.

[Steven Sweeney]

Nah, Dave, you'd hate having me anywhere near while you paint. Anyway, it wouldn't work and it would sap the fun part out of the whole process. There's a time to create and a time to critique. There's some overlap but if you mix them up too vigorously on the palette, you get mud.

One of my early instructors used to say "We're not here to keep starting over, we're here to solve problems."

Furthermore, put away the shears! Stay away from open windows! Get the painting out in a couple of days and start playing around with some of the areas we've looked at. Plan the revision you're going to make, be able to articulate to yourself what it is you're trying to accomplish (increase or decrease contrast, restate shadows, redirect light) and why, and always consider how the changes are going to fit into the painting as a whole. You're probably only a few hours from a very presentable piece that would impress anyone considering a commission.

[David Dowbyhuz]

Thanks, Steven.

I likely will revisit this canvas, but not too soon. As I recently said to Cynthia, I feel I'll be more productive making new mistakes at this point then dwelling on old ones.

Best Regards,
Dave

[Steven Rosati]

Really great work David!

I think the whole painting works quite well. The different size hands does not bother me, it adds to the portrait. By giving her a larger hand and strong arm around the dog gives the viewer a sense of how caring and protective she is with her dog. Anything that gives the viewer more info about the subject is necesary and must be put in even if it does not match the other hand in size in your case. Look at Michaelangelos David, those hands are huge compared to the body. Look at Igres paintings, some of the limbs don't look like they are attached to the subjects sockets!

Draw attention to what matters in the subject and NOT how "correct" it should be. It's easy to get lost in the technical side and lose the overall meaning in a painting, which is THE most important.

Keep it up!
Steve

[Steven Sweeney]

As the culpable technician, I should probably 'fess up right here that I actually came to this site with the intention of stealing ideas, especially "technical" information, from painters with experience different from mine. I didn't intend to do critiques -- I'm actually not particularly comfortable scrutinizing someone else's personal creative efforts, and anyway, it takes a lot of time -- but the whole point of this part of the forum is to invite such scrutiny, not for gratification of the writer but the benefit of the artist seeking feedback.

I have only my own modest training to rely upon, most of which took place in a setting in which line and form, lighting, composition, anatomy, proportion, foreshortening, color theory, and many other underpinnings of the classical craft of putting together a realistic representational picture were not considered technicalities. In the case at hand, the artist had previously commented on his appreciation for this sort of approach, so it would have been a disservice to offer any less than my best effort. Indeed, I offered an extended review out of respect for him.

As is the case with many who visit this site, I took a workshop some time ago at Daniel Greene's studio, and believe me, if he ever offered glowing praise and nothing else for my work, I'd remember it. I'd have also felt cheated. I got back in my truck and drove the 1200 miles back to my home, thinking that I'd been a silly, aging dreamer to have even signed up. About three months later, I began a new, ambitious portrait and from the very earliest drawing stages I discovered myself using some of the technical information Mr. Greene had demonstrated. One thing led to another, and that portrait turned out to be the most accomplished work I'd done to date, or since, for that matter.

I suspect that Dave's already thinking about his next painting, and I can practically guarantee you that it will be his best ever.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Really grabs the viewer...I like the straight-forward stare...I'm reminded of another artist in style from the past...anyway really sound overall.