Top 10 Key Elements of a Portrait

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

Julianne,

This is not a question I take lightly. I have found that every (every!) master work has contained each of the elements listed below. When I do a critique or judge a composition, it is the inclusion or lack of these elements that I base my judgment on. This is what I teach. These are the criteria I hold myself to in my own paintings.

1) Composition
2) Accurate, strong drawing
3) Definite light and shadow massing
4) Three value massing
5) Correct color without losing value massing
6) Solidity, three dimensionality
7) Integration of features with anatomy and planes of the head.
8) Beautifully rendered features
9) Edges, edges, edges
10) Visceral connection between the viewer and the subject in the portrait

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

I like your list a lot. I knew composition had to be number one. Could you give a few words on #4, three value massing? And maybe as it relates to #5.

Mike,

I don't know how brief I can be , but here goes.

I've posted two paintings, 19th century. These two paintings are important only in that they were the original paintings I recognized this principle in. If you go back and check out five centuries of paintings in black and white (to isolate the values) you will see the same pattern.

The light, middle and dark values are massed together. Within that value massing, the middle value, for instance, can be broken up into numerous values, from the darkest middle value to the lightest of middle values, but within the mass, it never crosses over into the light value or the dark value massing.

In this first painting, you will note that the head in the light and the cravat are the light values. The background, coat, and shadow on the side of the head are middle value. The vest is the only dark value. A very simple, very strong head.

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

In this second painting, much more complicated, you can really see the beauty of this principle. The hair and skin of the figures, the man's shirt, the woman's dress, the dog, are all light value. The man's coat, the tree, his back leg, are all middle value. The man's pants, the tree behind his head, and the grass he is walking on are all the dark value.

This is the key factor. Look at the woman's dress. There is a lot of information there, folds, and detail, detail in her hair. There are dark light values, light light values, but no matter how dark the values in her dress are, they never cross the line and become as dark as the lightest middle values.

Look at the middle values of the man's coat. Again, there is a lot of detail in the coat, buttons, folds, but no matter how light the lighted middle value gets, it is still darker than the darkest light value, and the darkest middle value is still lighter than the lightest dark value.

This is what I mean by three value massing. Controlling the values into light, middle and dark values, but within those three values, you have infinite value and color choices, as long as you do not cross over into the other two values. I think this is something that every artist knew until the 20th century, and then it was forgotten. We were not taught this very basic, very elementary principle.

BTW, Mike, this is where you get to play with composition. I contend that composition is not about line, but about value massing. (Phew...I think this is enough for now).

Oh! On your question about color correction without changing value, what I mean by this is you can put any color within a value mass, as long as the color doesn't cross the line and move into a different value.

I see this frequently in the postings on this site. On the middle value shadow on the side of the face, for instance, the reflected light onto the shadow will go too light, will cross the value line and become a light value. You need to be ever vigilant that when correcting for color into a value mass, to not cross over into a different value.

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

Lastly,

Here's how I apply this principle to my own work, in this black and white of Lin. Her head, body, and dog are a light value. Her dress is a dark value, and the rest of the painting is a middle value.

In the painting in the background, the entire painting is in middle values. There are no values darker the lightest dark value and no values lighter than the darkest light value. (...excuse my repeating this post of the Lin painting, but I think the principle is more easily seen when in black and white.)

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

Peggy, how do you know when the darkest light is not really the lightest middle value? Or the darkest middle value is the lightest dark?

Julianne,

You ask some great questions! This takes me to one of the most exciting aspects of the three value massing principle: how to control the composition of the painting based on the decisions you make on how to label the "fuzzy middle" in those "...is it a dark light or a light middle value" questions.

I don't have time to do another essay. I'm leaving town tomorrow for a few days. I would be glad to go into it with pictures upon my return.

Basically the principle is this: the definite light values, definite middle values, and definite dark values are all massed together. You can't make a middle value a dark value if it is not.

However, on the questionable values, "...is the shadow on a white shirt a light value or a middle value?", you can see if you like the composition better if the shirt shadow becomes part of the light value mass, or if you like it better if it is part of the middle value mass. If you decide it is part of the light value mass, you need to make sure it unquestionably belongs with the light massing. If this means that you need to make it a little lighter to mass in, this is what you must do. No fuzzy middles. Only three values.

This is where the strength of any painting comes in (re. Michael Georges comments....strong paintings are based on strong decision making.)

It's better to make one big mistake than to make many little wimpy mistakes. You can see a big mistake; the little mistakes just slide by and weaken the painting.

Peggy

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

Joan,

Value massing does not necessarily mean all the same values need to be touching, it means that within a value mass, i.e., the dog, all of the values in that dog are light values. No bouncing around with a dark shadow under his chin, or middle value swirlies on his fur. All of the modeling and definitions are carried out in the value mass you've designated for that area.

The floating bow, I see as an atmospheric problem. The bow is usually further back on the head, and will not have the same high definition and bright color as something closer to the viewer, like the subject's nose. I could still be a light value, but the edges would be softer and more atmospheric.

Peggy

[Michele Rushworth]

Marvin, I particularly appreciate Number 7. "A love of your subject".

Sometimes it's too easy to get wrapped up in the surfaces I'm rendering and forget the feeling!

[Joan Breckwoldt]

Peggy,

Thank you for taking the time to explain about the value massing. The paintings you posted were especially helpful.

I can see how the three values are massed in the portrait of the gentleman. With the portrait of the couple though, there is some dark between the two light heads. I can see how the light values are generally massed together.

On your beautiful portrait of Lin though, I don't see how the light dog is massed with the rest of the light values in that portrait. Am I missing something? Perhaps 'massing' doesn't exactly mean touching, but there does seem to be a lot of dark between the dog and Lin.

I often read about the pitfalls of the 'floating bow', I suppose that's when you have a light bow that is not massed together with a light face? (Assuming dark hair). Is that the reason to watch out for the 'floating bow'?

Thank you for all the information you share on this forum!

Joan Breckwoldt

[Joan Breckwoldt]

Peggy,

Ah-ha! Now I understand. I was under the impression that the ENTIRE painting should have only three masses. I will have to study some paintings, as you suggested, to let all this sink in.

Thank you Peggy,
Joan Breckwoldt

[Steven Sweeney]

Almost four years old, this thread is so chock-full of essential fundamentals (an oxymoron, I suppose) that it deserved to be escorted back up to the head of the line for close examination by many members and guests who may not have had the good fortune of discovering it in the archives.