Jack

[Linda Brandon]

I'm flattered and grateful that so many people took the time to really look at this painting and give helpful suggestions.

Jim, believe me, if I thought the Forum were a competition I wouldn't be posting at all. I'm not apologizing for my work, only for my cowardly reluctance to be publicly scrutinized by other articulate artists. Besides, I want my paintings to look unmistakably "my own" - only better than "my own". There seems to be some things about my style that I can't change no matter how hard I try; I think this is true for every artist.

I learned a lot from these posts, the most important being that you can't make up a dark background when you take a photo of a subject against a light background. (Which is what I did here.) The edges are too difficult to fudge. Not to sound defensive here, but I can remember just one or two other portraits I've done that have had a dark value background, so I'm low on that learning curve.

The second thing is that you can't fake a Classical Realism style without having the absolutely correct lighting conditions - high or direct side, single primary light source (only that one source if you're working live; some sort of fill setup if you're taking photos). This boy was lit by a huge floor to ceiling window, located just to the left of the viewer's shoulder, nearly full-face to him, with lots of ambient room light. There was no drop off from top to bottom, only from left to right.

My next two commissions are outdoor portraits, but when I get the chance I'm going to take my time and really get the lighting right for an indoor portrait. I'll bet the thing will paint itself. (Well, maybe.)

Third, if I knew how to use my Photoshop, I wouldn't have had to do things such as: put in a pink shirt; scrape out a pink shirt; put in an ochre blazer; scrape out an ocher blazer; etc.

I'm going to work some more on this. Thanks to all of you for posting, this definitely was more helpful to me than Dreaded Silence.

[Peter Jochems]

Hi Linda,

I have a few remarks.

I actually like the background as it is. Making it darker would make it lose atmosphere and spatial suggestion. The background appears a bit warm, but it doesn't really bother me.

I sense a certain sharpness in the way you draw lines or the way you define the forms. For example the chin seems the end up in (almost) a corner. But I see this tendency to end up with sharply defined forms in more places. (Part of it is of course a personal touch, part of it is maybe something you could look at whether you want to adjust this or not.)

The way the white clothing on the left side makes an almost razor-sharp contrast with the blue pillows is a bit too sharp I think, it seems to distract from the face.

I like the brushwork. But I have a suggestion, the brushwork could have more effect if it is applied even thicker. After it has dried, why not put some real thick layers of paint with rough edges in the area of the white clothing? It would liven up that area even more (it's alive already). The hair and the pillows are other areas where thickly applied layers of paint can liven up the portrait even more. Thickly applied brushwork can make a painting seem to glow as if it's a light source in itself.

In first instance I had the feeling that he looked a little bit cross-eyed, but I'm not sure, it's not much anyway, but it's a feeling I have.

For some reason the squares of the pillow behind bothered me a bit. The structure doesn't really blend in with the rest of the painting.

The way you adjusted the background on the right side of his face and hair you did with a mixture that is different than the original back-ground (more white). It's a bit like smoke in the space where he is.

He looks very alive, I like the painting more each time I look at it.

"Great work!", "Nice job!"

Peter

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Linda, the truth is it's hard to know what small things you might do to make this better. And you can tell from the others' remarks that it IS the small things we are all discussing.

These are the tough things as well. You know my thoughts about gaining your information from direct observation (life). I pause before tossing you any pat answer from a drawer of answers. Had you been able to stare at the subject alongside your work you might have found only one brightest highlight on the nose, maybe the placement of the left eye could be moved 1/8", maybe the overall "light" side of the face would be a value richer/deeper (darker) so as to allow you room for more form in the light area. These from my poor vantage are only guesses. The better you get, the harder it is to get valid, helpful input.

Tim

One thing I think I can say, is about shapes and placement. Cropping on the (face) shadow side of the work might help you. I don't like that the shape behind the head is the same width as the head.

[Mike McCarty]

Linda,

Within a few seconds of seeing your painting of Jack my mind was taken to the following portrait, one of my favorites by John de la Vega. I can stare at it for long periods of time.

What are those things in the background? What exactly is that on our left? I don't know, I don't know. I do know that I want to stare at it. I am intrigued, I am mesmorized, I am trapped.

Looking at Jack and at some of your other paintings I think you and John have, at your core, similar sensibilities.

[Timothy Mensching]

...

[John de la Vega]

Hi Linda, Michelle, and other participants, since Michelle mentions something I said about backgrounds going back (true, but not my original idea, I was paraphrasing Sanden who was probably paraphrasing somebody else, nothing's new under the sun, something like "the first thing a background should do is stay back") I jump in here--

Great job, Linda: sensitive expression, delicate and subtle drawing and color/value arrangement, expressive image as a whole, even with the 'painterly quirks' others have commented on/corrected. I agree with most of these, with the additions and subtractions (even when didactic, I myself would hesitate to modify somebody's work to make a point, unless the change/s were instantly removable, as I sometimes do in my workshops). My comment, and this applies to a lot of portraits today, and even quite a few of the past, is that most of us are too concerned about 'delineating', 'separating' everything, area from area, material from material, form from form (even the small forms of the bulb of the nose, yes, in this case a bit too pronounced). It is as if we were mandated, under threat of punishment, to indicate, without leaving the eye any doubt, where something begins and ends, where there's change, small or large. This, Linda, in your portrait totally within reasonable boundaries (pun intended) still robs it from some artistic quality. It also creates some, albeit small, stiffness.

Analysis is always needed for accuracy and clarity, but then 'perceptual synthesis' should kick in. The reason is that our perception does not take in outlines (light and distance of course major factors in this equation), does not separate pieces/elements from other elements by their boundaries. Even in more light, arm from chair, contour of head from background, etc. Our perception tends to FUSE, blend, combine, resolve in larger Gestalts (patterns), so that paintings which mimic the way we perceive reality communicate more strongly. That's where and when the sweeter music plays (on those edges, always the all-important, all-present BIG E's, in the FUSING referred to, simplistically, as 'lost edges'), where even a beautiful rendering becomes art, where the obvious becomes mysterious, suggestive, intriguing, in other words, where a painting turns into true emotional material.

[John de la Vega]

Mike and Tim, thank you for your comments on my portrait. I just became aware of them after posting my previous bit. Speaking of outlining, if I were to paint it today I would do less outlining on the mouth, among other things.

[Michele Rushworth]

John, thank you for your post. I have never read a more vivid description of the reasons behind losing edges!

[Jim Riley]

John,

I agree with your comments and attempted (without luck) to find Robert Henri's book "The Art Spirit" where he provides helpful comments on the role of backgrounds in a portrait. I do recall that he believed the background recedes and exists only as a compliment to the figure.

I also like Chase's quote regarding overt quests for every detail.

"Don't hesitate to exaggerate color and light. Don't worry about telling lies. Most tiresome people - and pictures are the stupidly truthful ones. I really think I prefer a little deviltry."

[Chris Saper]

Admin note: This thread was split into the Cafe Guerbois, "Classical Realism? Interpretive work? " since the discussion moved into a more philosophical realm. Please visit the new thread location.

If you have comments to make about the critique of "Jack", please continue them here.