Robert

[Debra Jones]

This is from a week ago Saturday in the Scottsdale Artists' School.

Their open studio for portraiture is Monday evening and Saturday afternoon. I have not been doing humans for a while and although I was happy with this three-hour pose, a comment unsettled me.

One of my peers commented on his oversized forehead (which to my observation was just right), and a thought occured to me. Is it a better idea to "normalize" a pose or try to convey the uniqueness of the model?

My energy for portraiture has waned with the very idea that the generic is why I am here. This pastel with whatever imperfections my eye saw. What does portraiture OWE to the model?

Am I making sense?

[John Zeissig]

Hello, Debra

I was just checking out this new section when I saw your post. Oversized forehead? How so? The classic feature placement has the eye-line at 1/2 the height of the head. Clearly this fellow's eyes are well above this point, meaning that his forehead is lower in height than usual relative to his other features. I don't see any unusual width either. Your colleague may have a quarrel with the likeness, but I doubt it's due to an oversized forehead. The model appears to have a long face, so you may be correct and should therefore trust your own judgement. Your other post of the woman in profile has the eyes at the classic position. Excellent work on both, by the way!

[Debra Jones]

It was an even odder situation with the comment because being on the short end of average, and models normally on three-foot stands with the obligatory chair, for the first few years I came into studio, I was the queen of chins!

This young man has that wonderful receding hairline with pony tail. I feel the representation shows a specific individual BUT also a very evocative archetype that, coming from the 60's, I smile and reminisce over.

A bit of my lack of success in the realm of portraiture is the reaction of the client. This young man was a freebie. He didn't even look at it when it was done, but the room was full of praise. The critic that blew my confidence was the single voice blowing all that ill-wind. This career is such a challenge for me to overcome the fears and sense of inadequacy at the slightest challenge.

However that incident turned me back to my goal, which is to please myself. I have found it easier to defend my work. I mean this as I would an idea or insight to another, not like the lioness and her cub. I am growing a backbone which I need to bolster the work as I put it out. It is a whole forum unto itself of how to negotiate the client's desires and the integrity of the image.

Did I miss the psychology Forum? I should look right now.

But I digress, thank you for your well-considered comment. Funny how one comment from a near stranger whom I really have never met, could turn my world around. I am striving to rank your comment, also as a stranger, of equal or higher consideration in my development. I need all the help I can get!

[John Zeissig]

Debra,

Yes, I get the same feeling of archetypical 60's hippy guy: almost as though he's somebody I knew. So, you've definitely captured that aspect of the subject. In fact, I did know somebody, Larry Miller, who strongly resembled this man. It took me a minute to figure out who it was. Larry wore granny glasses, so that threw me off until I squinted at the image just now.

The view definitely appears to be from below, so the smaller than usual forehead would make sense due to slight foreshortening. The beard also adds to the effect. Queen of chins, it figures.

In the rest of your post you're getting a little outside my usual idiom. I think you've every reason to be confident in your artistic skills. I think you're quite talented already, and certain to become more so. But I'm not sure I understand all your concerns. Help, I need help here too. Where's Mike McCarty when you really need him?

[Leslie Ficcaglia]

Debra, I too think the portrait is lovely, and I see nothing out of line with the forehead. I wonder what your critic meant. You usually get the likeness dead on and you're able to produce an eminently saleable painting in one session, complete with your usual vigor and fresh, painterly style, so perhaps there was a bit of the green-eyed monster operating with the person who objected. I'm thinking of the beautiful painting you did recently of Catherine, was it? Your portraits are wonderful, so don't entertain doubts about your ability either as an artist or a business person with a product to sell.

[Debra Jones]

Leslie, thanks for the memory.

It was Catherine, but it turns out her name is Cathleen. WHICH might explain why I am not selling!

Memory is really bad.

WetCanvas and the world missed me lately due to a less than productive venture into non-human. They called it nature inspired and As the day job takes most of the day, I was working my usual 9 hours a week on cactus and landscapes. I am happy with the work and must say that branching out like that made me more confident of my portraits so in spite of only a single sale, it was not a bust.

I feel a bit shaky in here with the big guns and am still feeling out the territory. The fine line of portraits and the traditions seem to weigh me lately, as I have commented. I am much happier painting than anything else, so if I keep doing it and find time now and then to let people know, and get a few brochures in strategic places, I may glide through Christmas before I feel overwhelmed again!

Thanks for your lovely comment and I agree: He looked like that TO ME!

[Michael Georges]

Patt and Debra:

I moved the question about "what is an open studio" and the answer from here to its own topic. Thought it would be useful info for others to have and it is not evident that the info is here under "Robert".