Matching composition to the setting?

[Julie Deane]

I'm about to start two oils of children in an outdoor setting. The paintings are going to hang in an entryway over stairs, and pretty high
over the viewers' heads.

My question is this: should my vantage point in the portraits also be from a lower position looking up? My thinking is that it would look more natural in that setting.

I did a group portrait a while ago, in which one child was at a lower level looking up, but the portrait hung above the fireplace. I didn't think the position looked natural in the setting it was placed.

What do you think about vantage point in the painting compared to where the painting will be seen by viewers?

[Jean Kelly]

When I was making very large wall hangings (painted quilts), I planned and drew them using three point perspective and always drew to scale. Some of my works were fourteen feet high, and were hung ten to twenty feet up. This made for some very interesting math problems.

I don't know if I would even attempt that kind of problem with a painting. The process is so different between the two types of art. You may want to check with someone who does murals on a large scale.

Jean

[Alexandra Tyng]

Julie,

I have two thoughts about this:

1) A work of art should be inspired by the subject and is created in a way that remains true to the inspiration.

2) An artist, when doing a commissioned work, should consider the client's preferences and the intended setting.

These factors can easily be conflicting, but by taking the demands of the program into consideration while you are contemplating the concept, this conflict can usually be resolved somehow.

To be more specific, I would certainly avoid a high vantage point, i.e. looking down on the children. But on the other hand, I wouldn't lie on the floor to look up at them on the sofa, for instance! If there is a natural low vantage point, i.e. on the ground looking up at the kids in a tree or on a low wall, that might fit the bill.

What I'd really like to know is: WHY DO PEOPLE PICK SUCH CRAZY PLACES TO HANG ART?

[Alexandra Tyng]

P.S. I just though of another one: you on the ground level looking up at the kids sitting or standing on steps. I'm sure there are many of these possibilities.

[Julie Deane]

Thanks, Alex and Jean.

I wasn't thinking of doing anything too unusual or complicated. More along the lines of a somewhat lower perspective than head-on. Like you mentioned, Alex.

This subject just got me thinking about a painting I saw years ago at the Ringling Museum in Sarasota. The docent said that it had been designed with a visual perspective to be seen "correctly" from an angle. Apparently, it was placed in a certain corner of an alcove in a church, and could only be seen from one direction. So the perspective had to be altered so that it would read right.

Those artists from generations before had some pretty sophisticated thinking!

[Michele Rushworth]

The paintings may not always be in that location. I think an eye-level or very slightly below eye-level viewpoint would be a good idea, so they look good now and in the future if they're ever hung in lower setting.

[Cindy Procious]

A low vantage point might lend it a Sistine chapel-esque feeling, but you're still going to have some serious problems of distortion that would need to be addressed.

If you look up at the wall on which the painting will be hung, you'll notice the perspective - it can be quite dramatic. Picture it as a parallelogram - depending on how high up it is, and how sharp the viewing angle, the top of the shape could be as much as a foot smaller than the bottom.

If you don't take this into consideration then you'll wind up with huge feet and tiny heads. And then, even worse - what if the painting is visible from the stairs, and the upper level - looking back into the entry way? What a nightmare of conflicting vantage points.

If I were you, I'd urge them to pick a different spot.

[Garth Herrick]

Julie,

I was just in this same situation; well sort of.....

I just completed and had unveiled the portrait of a Philadelphia Union League president, to be hung in their colossal ballroom with fifty previous portraits of the same size and subject category. I knew full well that at various times in the future, this portrait may be hung twenty feet up or more! So I too wrestled with the issue of an ideal vantage point to begin with. Reflecting upon what exists in the collection, every painting is fairly conservative with a normal eye-level vantage point perspective; and you know what? That works just fine! Our brains can make the jump quite readily and accept the odd placement high on a wall as normal. I ended up with a normal eye-level setting in my portrait too.

I agree with Michele that one can never know the ultimate venue or site of a commission. I know I did one huge painting twenty some years back that inspirted a complete gutting and redesign of an historic center city brick townhome! They spent six figures to better show of fthe painting! So, you never know..... it could end up in a museum one day, three feet up from the floor.....

Good luck,

Garth

[Julie Deane]

Thanks, Michele, Cindy and Garth -

I guess I'll go with a normal perspective depending on what looks good with the children and the scene.

Mom wants separate portraits so that the kids can each have theirs when they are grown. She could have picked two other spots for display in the house, but they did not lend themselves well to individual portraits (the spaces were horizontal and smaller).

The plus side is that the portraits will be one of the first things to catch the eye upon entering the home. If I leave business cards with her, maybe she will do as her friend and my previous client did - and pass them out to interested parties.

[John Crowther]

A quick thought, and perhaps something to think about (and hopefully not confuse the issue), the low angle perspective you're talking about was common in Renaissance painting, especially in large altar pieces. In Italian the term in "da basso in su." Think Tiepolo.

John C.