Clothing doesn't make the person...

Karin Wells · 01-22-2002, 09:51 PM

Clothing doesn't make the person, but it does make the painting!

I have learned so much from studying the early works of John Singleton Copley. He liberally embellished the clothing of his subjects and added "made up" props and backgrounds in order to get good compositions for his paintings.

A painting is so much more than a mere likeness and modern clothing can really frustrate me. For the most part, it tends to be rather dull and uninteresting.

I won't paint a kid in a tee shirt.

Color and shape are very important in a painting and I tend to use props and drapes as I struggle to "frame the face" and compose an image that will look good on canvas. I keep my eyes open on ebay and yard sales and have collected a large box of fabrics - shiny and dull - in my studio that I use in my portrait painting.

I'd like to know how others deal with yucky and uninteresting modern clothing...

Karin Wells · 01-22-2002, 10:24 PM

Here is some of John Singleton Copley's work. Much of the clothing and props he used were "made up" just for the sake of making a good painting.

It is a tradition in old-time portraiture that what you wear for a portrait isn't necessarily what you'd walk down the street in....(I'm really sorry about the small sizes here)....

Marta Prime · 01-23-2002, 02:01 AM

I totally agree, Karin! I just finished a painting of a freind's daughter. It was from a photograph, because the painting is a suprise. the pose, facial expression, and even the lighting was acceptable, but I didn't much like what she was wearing. It was just a plain, boxy type tee shirt with spots or flowers or something on it. So I told my freind I was going to improvise and make a soft looking white blouse with small ruffly edges around the scoop neck. I like ruffles, blouson type sleeves, etc., and I'm afraid I'm addicted to white a lot, like William Whitaker's lady's in white. If I use modern clothing, it has to be something with some "flair" to it. I love the outfit you did on "Jesse and Bunny". The face was great, but the clothing was genius.

How would you handle a client who wanted a "tee shirt" picture? Would you just explain that wasn't your style and make suggestions?

I know there are lots of great paintings of men in suits in this forum, but I'm pretty bored by them. I love the old movies when men wore more "colorful" clothing!

Karin Wells · 01-23-2002, 10:29 AM

Before I take on a commission, I tell my client that I REQUIRE the following colors to be represented in a portrait:
Something that represents RED
Something that represents YELLOW
Something that represents BLUE
Something that represents BLACK and
Something that represents WHITE
By "represent" I mean that the wooden arm of a chair could represent black (mahagony), yellow (pine), red (cherry) - or whatever, depending on the way it is painted.

Each color should be a separate object...no dinky little "spots" on things unless the pattern has good design potential (like a bold stripe).

This forces them to loosen up in regard to clothing...adding ribbons, drapes, lace, etc. to come up with the required colors.

I also tell them that a white "something" near the face is the most flattering to a face. And they might want to include something "drapey," ruffles or somesuch in order to "get their money's worth out of me." (If the truth be known, I really like to paint the "tough stuff").

I don't know why, but my commissions are usually women and children...but a man in a suit would be a fun challenge. Whatever is lacking in the clothing (men are so limited this way) can be made up in the prop department (i.e., books, papers, wood paneling, furniture, etc.).

I approach a painting like a theatrical play - but with no plot and no dialogue....just a lot of character, stage set, costume and lighting to carry the scene in as timeless a way as possible.

I figure that for the dollar$ they pay me, a client ought to be given the opportunity to be portrayed in something better than a crummy unimaginative tee shirt and jeans...yuck.

Stanka Kordic · 01-23-2002, 06:10 PM

Marta, Karin,

You can send the t-shirt people to me. I don't mind doing them!

Cynthia Daniel · 01-23-2002, 06:22 PM

This subject brings to mind a painting by Allan Banks which is IMHO a lovely juxtaposition of casual and formal.

Karin Wells · 01-26-2002, 11:33 AM

Oops.....please let me try to clarify. There are exceptions to everything and I probably should not have been so darn specific with the word "tee-shirt".

Cynthia & Stanka, The point I am trying to make has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Casual v. Formal clothing. And it has EVERYTHING to do with the DESIGN INTEREST that clothing can carry in a painting.

I have absolutely no objections to the "casual" clothing in the above portrait. The blouse probably qualifies as a "Tee Top" but the bold stripe and drape of the sleeve make it verrrry interesting....(along with the drape in the foreground and the detail in the hair).....

I can easily find a bunch of contemporary examples (and Stanka cannot be included here) where the artist's painting is more than competent, but he/she has sadly missed a wonderful design opportunity by dressing the model in boreing clothing that does not enhance - and actually detracts - from the painting.

For obvious reasons, I cannot post the work of a living artist. And alas, I cannot find any poor examples among the (copyright free) Old Masters.

Cynthia Daniel · 01-26-2002, 11:42 AM

Karin,

I agree with you absolutely. I just thought Allan's painting was relevant in light of the topic and gave a slightly different angle on the subject.

Jim Riley · 01-26-2002, 12:47 PM

Or....

Show little of the costume and environment. Admittedly this painting is too small to require compositional devices but I couldn't resist posting it as an example of simplification. I used this painting sightly cropped and edited) for my business card (as you can see) because it causes people to respond and want to know more about the subject.

I do agree that it is very important to set up the painting with a thoughful and appropriate props. I have, however, worked on a painting that the client thought had "something wrong with the likeness" only to discover finally that the subject never wore ties. And yet I was supplied with same for the painting and it was this conflict that made things look "not quite right".

This thread also reminded me of one of my favorite Chase quotes; "Subject is not important. Anything can be made attractive.... aim to make an interesting subject so inviting that people will be charmed at the way you've done it." Also "Do not try to paint the grandiose thing. Paint the commonplace so that it will be
distinguished."

Stanka Kordic · 01-26-2002, 06:58 PM

Karin,

Gosh, I do agree with much of what you've said, although I'm glad you clarified.. Just as there are many different artists and styles, there are just as many different reasons clients choose to commission a portrait. Our job is listen to their wishes and work within their perimeters to produce a great piece of art. Each portrait of mine comes out fairly different from the one before because of a client's wishes. It's part of what makes them exciting for me to do. I love the variety.

Also, I think there is something to be said for depicting the era WE live in. We are recording history as well. It will be interesting for our future art historians to gaze upon our work, (in a museum of course) be fascinated with the mode of fashion at the time, and know when it was. Jeans, t-shirts and all..