Bare-chested boys?

Kimberly Dow · 07-13-2003, 04:21 AM

I am curious if any of you have opinions regarding small boys or adolescent boys with no shirts on - whether this is appropriate for portraits. I have 2 on my website and Cynthia (I apologize for not haiving it in quotes, I do not still have the email) had felt that this was not a positive addition to my portfolio and that a more affluent clientele would not want this. This had never occured to me before. I have had mixed great responses to these two portraits from clients, usually a big smile and laughter. I always took that as good response, but maybe laughing at my painting shouldn't be what I am going for! I am just wondering if any of you have set opinions about this bare-chested issue. I'll post one as an example. This one is 18x24", oil, "Jake"

Kimberly Dow · 07-13-2003, 04:25 AM

Just to add, some of the shading has changed after this photo was taken; including that one strange lump I left on the little guys right breast.

Peter Jochems · 07-13-2003, 06:54 AM

Hi Kim,

You need to work hard on the quality of your reference-photos. A painted portrait is not a snap-shot. You don't want great laughs, you want them to ask for their own image to be portrayed.

Maybe it's good to consider that you devote your website only to portraits, that makes it more exclusive. And avoid using frames in your web design.

Greetings,
Peter

Timothy C. Tyler · 07-13-2003, 10:31 AM

I have never, NEVER even heard of such problems. I think it is a shame when healthy people have to live their lives and make their art according to the fears or fetishes of others. If we try to not offend anyone we will have to stop painting. Some people find art that sells offensive for example. Some people find realism offensive. Some people think that you should only paint your own race-to do otherwise is exploitation.

Where does it end? There was a letter to the editor in Art of the West about 2 years ago in which a lady said she was going to cancel her subscription because they had printed a nude. (This is a very modest and traditional publication) The number of replies to her letter was the greatest they ever had received. All were in suppport of the magazine. Most said what about 3 thousand years of art? Most said what about half the catholic churches and all the museums around the world?

Michele Rushworth · 07-13-2003, 10:37 AM

I think most artists will not have a problem with the concept of bare-chested boys in portraiture, but you should ask your intended clientelle. Find people you think might commission portraits some day and ask their opinions.

Also, to second what Peter said, the quality of the reference photo used in the above sample will hold you back far more than whether the subject has a shirt on or not. (I actually find the painting scary!)

Peter Jochems · 07-13-2003, 10:47 AM

Kim- I think it would be a wise decision to remove the painting of the boy.

Tim- It is not a matter of artistic principle. It's about how to present oneself in a way that one actually receives portrait-commissions. On your site I don't see such a scary painting either. On your site, I don't even see a work that could be offensive to anyone. (I know the story of the semi-nude, but that, to me, is a really innocent painting). Make one, that's a challenge!

Peter

PS: I like your work, especially the semi-nude.

Mike McCarty · 07-13-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote:

I am curious if any of you have opinions regarding small boys or adolescent boys with no shirts on - whether this is appropriate for portraits.

I think the question must be considered in some particular context. Children on the beach would look right at home bare chested. Otherwise, the question will emerge: "what was the rationale behind your decision to paint this scene in this way?"

Peter and Michele's point regarding the photo reference is a critical one. When left to our own devices we will often turn to family or friends for our inspiration. Instead of selecting from "that stack" of photo references, I would sit down and imagine a scene which is both inspirational for you, and more importantly, satisfies the needs of a prospective clientele. Try and fill your portfolio with direct intention.

Kimberly Dow · 07-13-2003, 12:16 PM

Peter, Michele & Mike,

Thank you for these straight-forward responses. I appreciate the advice. I agree, my reference photos leave a lot to be desired. This is the first thing that hit me when I (recently) started surfing the web and seeing what other portrait artists are doing. I've been in a vaccuum. Since portraits are only one part of the art I am hired to do, (I sell far more still lifes and landscapes than portraits), this has not been a huge focus of mine. But I am finding that it could be a bigger part of my career. Learning how to take good photos and then how to make the paintings look as if they were painted from life are top priorities on my need-to-improve list.

This particular portrait was certainly different, extreme angle and all, but that was the intention. I am suprised it actually seems scary to a couple of you, he is an adorable in-your-face kid.

Peter, you say that Tim doesn't have such an offensive painting on his website. What is it that is offensive to you? Is it the bare-chest? I am asking because that was my main reason for the post. I agree with the quality issue - it is clearly from a snaphot, etc. I do however love the concept, whether I accomplished the feeling I was going for is another story. Scaring people was not the feeling, amusement and recognition of a certain look was.

This is a typical pose for children of that age: looking up at adults with the hands on the hips. If I understand what you wrote, you said I should devote my website to portraits alone? I still have a lot to learn about portraits and I would certainly lose a lot of my income if I stopped painting my landscapes and still lifes. I would like to do more portrait work, it is a greater challenge, but I am not nearly where I need to be. Plus, I do not think I would be fufilled doing only portraits. There are way too many things out there to paint.

Tim, I wholeheartedly agree with you about painting to others' dictates. Even if everyone here thought the bare-chested thing was obscene it wouldn't stop me. I have bare-chested boys running around the house (it's hot here in Texas, y'all) all the time and they are beautiful. I wanted to find out what other (maybe more formal?) artists' opinions would be on this issue. I feel I got my answer perhaps; it's not the bare chest of the boy, but rather the quality that is not up to par. I still like the thing myself, though.

I do appreciate the feedback. This is all very new to me. I've been paid for my art for many years, but I haven't heard any critiqes from other artists since college. Keeping a balance between holding onto my pride and realizing that there is a lot I can learn here is a fine line to walk. (SCARY? I'll show you scary... that is a joke of course).

Along the same (kind of) theme, I have a neighbor who is expecting in August. She is the most beautiful pregnant woman I have ever seen - glowing skin, long blonde hair, nicely shaped with just the big tummy. I have a painting in my head and she has agreed to pose. I am going to try and use some of the lighting and photography tips I have read here. My question is about a pose. I am picturing her in a red satin robe, maybe oriental, with her face turned away so it is not a specific portrait. This is not a commission. I would like soft light falling on her, but a dark background. I would also love to have her belly exposed. Maybe a hand resting on her stomach. I just cannot seem to figure out how to place her so that no other body parts are showing. If the robe just gapes open over the stomach it will be startling I think. Any suggestions? I would really like this to be soft and beautiful painting about motherhood.

Peter Jochems · 07-13-2003, 12:48 PM

Kim,

Do you see this butterfly? Why, do you think it has the images of the eyes of an owl on it's wings? Because it scares animals it would not do otherwise.

I responded to Tim's mentioning of the word offensive. Your painting is scary, not offensive. Eventually it is an irritating and annoying pose. Try to imagine someone looking at that child you love and know personally that does not know that child. And think about the reason why that butterfly has those eyes on it.

Since this is a forum about portrait-painting we give you (or try to give you) advice directed at that part of your artistic output.

Peter

Timothy C. Tyler · 07-13-2003, 03:29 PM

Kim, there is a young artist nowadays that is the flavor of the month. His figurative work has been on the covers of two magazines. He shoots his people with a slight fisheye effect which I always recognize as a camera distortion. It drives me nuts that the editors and critics don't see it and that this suddenly famous painter doesn't simply buy a 50 mm lens.