Please critique

Kent Curole · 01-14-2002, 06:51 PM

I know it's obvious that I used a photo reference and proportionally the consequences of that. Please advise on this and other aspects of painting.

Kent

Karin Wells · 01-15-2002, 11:05 AM

This is a very charming picture, but I want to know if you took the original photograph and what size is the painting?

By the way, I paint from my original photographs and one of the reasons I do is because a photo can capture an exact instant like this one. I can't imagine how a child would stand still enough for an artist to paint this.

Anyhow, I would like to see much lighter shadows with more luminosity. Also, since you show the feet, it might be interesting to establish a sense of grounding along with some background "depth".

Steven Rosati · 01-15-2002, 03:41 PM

Kent,

the painting is very good technically, you paint very well but I find that the relationship between the background and subject very odd. I suggest putting a hint of her "world" around her to make the painting more interesting and more personal. Maybe something relating to her costume? Something more for the viewer to learn about the subject. Painters can put anything they want in their paintings to say something. That is one of the great things about painting.

Portrait painters should NOT think like commercial photographers. If the painting looks like a Sears portrait, then I say what was the point of painting one like it?

I hope I don't sound harsh because I know you can paint a very good portrait, I can see that, I just feel that painters should stay away from painting the "look" of a photograph and to make paintings that look like something more.

Maxine Gilder · 01-15-2002, 09:04 PM

I really think the pose is great. I agree with Karin about the grounding. The lack of a horizon line or some sense of where she is standing gives her the floating aspect. She is so important that it makes the background look unfinished. She's a cutie!

Kent Curole · 01-16-2002, 01:29 PM

Thanks to all for the advice. I think this is such a great forum - one that lets you get professional opinions of your work.

By the way, the painting is oil and is 30 x 36".

Kent

Steven Sweeney · 01-16-2002, 07:47 PM

The background has kind of grown on me as I've revisited this portrait and I now find that I like its "formlessness", as not being in competition with the detail of the subject and particularly her outfit. Paul Leveille's pastel and oil portraits very often exhibit a similar treatment of the background. I do think a bit more color on the right side would be useful -- if not the blue then perhaps its warmer complement, some subtle orange.

As for "grounding" the subject, the cast shadow of course helps. My first impression of this portrait was that the girl was in a dance outfit, ready for a recital. If that's correct (or even if it's not!), one grounding technique might be to suggest the color and lines of a wooden floor . . . an orange overtone with a couple of faint lines here and there to suggest edges of floorboards (and in proper perspective, a short line at a right angle to suggest the butting together of two boards). I'm only proposing a "suggestion" of the floor and only a vignette in the immediate area of her shoes/slippers. A faint line, a short length to the left of the girl, a shorter length to the right, could sufficiently suggest the back edge of the "stage" and thus give her both location and weight.

There is a very subtle and difficult task of foreshortening in this pose, as we look down onto the subject, and I think it's been handled quite well. The only area that I keep catching on is the forearm of the girl's left arm (on our right), which seems to need to taper ever slightly more to "fit" itself to the quite small wrist.

I agree that the shadows have gotten a bit dark and colorless. There's also some incongruence between the strength and location of the shadows on the arms, torso, and legs, while the face has no shadow at all, as if it were front-lit -- and of course, if the face is front-lit, the other parts of the body would be, too, but in fact they appear to be strongly side-lit (which in turn might cause you to reconsider whether you want a shadow edge on *both* sides of the arm on the viewer's left!)

One last matter of drawing, which also implicates another too-dark shadow, concerns the area of the bright triangle of blue in the outfit, just below the head. The dark line of shadow underneath that shape extends too far to the left, into and almost all the way across the arm, making it appear that there's a thick fold or bulge of flesh across the front of the arm. The arm seems to be appearing from behind the girl, but in fact she is turned slightly toward us, so we would see the smooth front of that extended arm. I would eliminate that extension of the shadow across the arm.

Finally, some light on the neck, so that the head is somehow connected to the body. That almost black triangle of shadow is probably the result of working from the photograph, in which shadows are very often way too dark and bled of color, especially when juxtaposed with the very bright face. Without a visible, lighted neck, the head and the rest of the body almost appear to be interchangeable parts of separate portraits, especially with the quite different flesh tone coloring in the two areas.

Very nice work overall.

Steven

Timothy C. Tyler · 01-24-2002, 11:31 AM

it's really hard to follow one of Steven's complete critiques...they are really something. I as usual tend to agree and would add was the head from a seperate photo? I think the lens might have been 35mm and would suggest 50 or 55mm to make the distortion less. With such bright light around the figure the darks sinple can't be so dark. Do a color study in a bright area and you'll see.

By the way...it's good work, I get so busy trying to help I forget to say that sometimes,

Jeanine Jackson · 01-24-2002, 11:46 AM

WOW! I am new to this forum, and have already learned much from reading these critiques. My first impression of this adorable subject was the disconnect between head and body. I thought it was tonal (cool face, warm body), but realize that Steven nailed the lighting issue which would occur this way - especially with flash!

Jim Riley · 01-24-2002, 03:18 PM

Kent,

I agree with previous comments and would suggest using a telephoto lens to avoid the size distortion from larger head to smaller feet. (I use the telephoto for head and shoulder shots as well to avoid a big nose/small ear situation) Allowing that a child has a larger head to body ratio than an adult to begin with, it's easy to make the figure "top heavy".

I am currently wrestling with a portrait of a young girl holding a book to her breast and find her hand too big if painted true to life then again seeming tiny with an ever so small reduction.

The upper left background shows an exciting and interesting background but doesn't work with the painting technique of the figure and rest of the background. I respond favorably to that kind of brush work and my bias is toward the painterly and impressionistic styles. You might want to try some portraits with a freer style. It may help you broaden the range of skin tones as well.