Posthumas portrait

[Brenda R. Robson]

I have worked on this further and replaced the pics. I think I am ready unless someone sees something I don't. Any opinions?
Please overlook the shadow cast by the easel, couldn't be helped.
Brenda

[Steven Sweeney]

If there was an earlier thread on this, my apologies, I haven't been around very reliably. It sounds like you're about to wrap this up.

If there is still time to adjust, my comment would be that there are -- because of value contrast -- six focal points. The face, the white shirt, the two photos and the two objects on the mantle. I would significantly reduce the values of all of those but the face, which is "the" reason for the painting.

My "method" here was to squint at the image, and those six value features all show up as being "equal," though of course they're not all equal in significance in this portrait. Some must be subsidiary.

This may have occurred almost subconsciously, to compensate for the overall dark-valued key of the piece. Could you compensate instead by perhaps lightening, say, the blue area around the fireplace opening -- even possibly introducing some red or ochre tones into it? There's an great deal of monochrome blue and green here that is kind of flattening out the visual effect.

Any chance of a bit of red-yellow glowing coals in the fireplace, perhaps with a whisper of reflected color on the back of the fire well? That flat black rectangle seems to want some accent. And the compositional center seems to need a slight nudge toward the right. Once we get to the photos on the table, there's not much "reason" for the eye to look at the right side of the piece.

[Brenda R. Robson]

Thanks so much, good advice. I have made those changes.
B

[Brenda R. Robson]

It is ironic but the client wanted the shirt brightened and the pictures on the table brighter and clearer, go figure.
Thanks
Brenda

[Steven Sweeney]

Clients! Who knows what to do with them?!

But for the discrete, high-valued objects, the overall key is very (very) low (and it will likely darken over time) and the value range extremely limited. So without having seen the piece after the amendments, I can't be sure, but I can imagine that going a little too far in muting the highest values may have plunged the entire painting into the dark, so that a protest would be understandable.

If beginning from the beginning, rather than fiddling with an essentially completed work, I would have worked to get more of the piece (most of it, in fact) into a mid-value range, using darks and lights, then, to fill out the individual and overall form and sense of depth and atmosphere -- notwithstanding the "reading" that the reference photo was providing.

[Garth Herrick]

Hi Brenda,

Steven's thoughts are great; I am glad you could incorporate some of them and I hope the client eventually appreciates all you have done to balance this portrait. Posthumous portraits are never easy!

I have some thoughts too, but they are not practical to incorporate now that you are about finished. Basically I have the same response as Steven. In a future portrait, I'd recommend making the subject more a central focus, with all in the background more subordinated. I wonder if you need the entire fireplace mantle, which commands more central attention than your subject. Another bothersome part of the composition to me is the overlay of the group photo completely contained in the fireplace. With the contrast of the firebox framing the photo, it is the first thing I see, and it almost appears to be odd, having the family photo effectively on the coals (I know it isn't, but it does look that way at first). If your client is happy with everything then leave it alone. These are thoughts to consider for your next composition.

I wish you the best,

Garth