Figure size?

[Steven Sweeney]

Then don't do it. Walk away.

Heads are differing sizes. Some people have large heads although they are short.

Yeah. Nobody's said any different. That's the whole point of comparing reality to presumptive measurements. Greene figured it out. Leffel did, too. How, after so much effort, can none of that have registered here, even for modest consideration?

It's a art school trick

This is a curious indictment, coming from an esteemed workshop instructor. Surely you have some good ideas, procedures, and protocols that you offer to your students. I'm sure those advices and advisories would be appreciated not by only many current Forum members, but also by future workshop participants.

[Michael Fournier]

Wow, where to start on this one? I am not sure if I should jump in the middle here or not, but what the Hay.

First off, comparing heads, you are using the person's head you are painting and then comparing it by sight to other objects.

Distance from point a to point b is two heads. Hold up your brush at arm's length to the head then compare it to other points of reference.

Why the head? Well, for one, in a portrait it is the dominate focal point and if it is not in correct proportion to the figure as a whole, as well as everything else, then it would look very odd.

Also the head itself is broken down to its parts for comparison.

No one said that every figure is always the same size and every head is the same size. But as long as you get the relationships correct then things look correct. If you do not, then things look odd.

Also: there are people who look more attractive if you forego their actual proportions for more idealistic proportions. Now this part is personal preference. I, for one, am used to idealizing figures for advertising and illustration work, but it does not hurt to idealize your subject a bit for a portrait. It is one of the benefits of a painting over a photo. This can be done with out affecting the likeness.

So, the guides of how many heads there are in a figure are helpful, if your goal is one to be able to draw figures from your imagination, completely without reference, or to combine different reference shots.

Also, it is a very useful guide when drawing idealized characters in illustration work. Now in portraiture, it is not always the desire to idealize and yes, these guides are no substitute for good visualization and sight sizing. But don't be so hasty to dismiss this as useless just because you personally have no use for it. It is not just a art school trick - it is a very useful tool, and when used in conjunction with good observation is a very powerful tool.

Now this is not the only way, nor do I suggest everyone start drawing only Greek-god idealized figures. But although these proportions vary from person to person they are still a good guide and most people fall close enough within the proportion range that you will not be too far off. You need some kind of guide to start out with when you are doing initial layout to position heads and to size multi-figure paintings then through observation and comparison fine tune the relationships. Otherwise I have seen many artists start laying out a head too large and not have enough room in the end for the rest of the figure or end up with a pumpkin head or a pin head.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Steven, I'm not sure what the point was of your last post. The one thing I got was that you seem to think since I teach, I agree with everything ever taught. That's kind of a stretch.

[Tom Edgerton]

I wouldn't say there is no benefit in having a guideline or benchmark starting point, but in the hands of a master, the whole discussion gets quite elastic pretty quickly...

[Tom Edgerton]

(You've gotta love James Montgomery Flagg's caricature too...)

[Steven Sweeney]

But don't be so hasty to dismiss this as useless just because you personally have no use for it. It is not just a art school trick - it is a very useful tool, and when used in conjunction with good observation is a very powerful tool.

Hey, Michael, for "jumping into the middle" of this discussion, you nailed the issues and answers very persuasively. Well done. I commend to all a careful and considered rereading of your thoughtful and temperate post.

Tom -- Before I scrolled down to see the caricature, its "message" was in fact what I had in mind upon viewing the painting. I of course do not assume that Sargent didn't know anatomy, only that he chose to stylize it in this manner, in this painting, for some intended effect. Based in part on the caricature, I assume he succeeded in part.

[Michael Fournier]

One probable reason, I was told in art history class, for the seemingly small heads on the Sargent painting posted was: This painting is a full length very close to full size rendition that was intended to be hung with the subjects eyes at or about viewer's eye level or just slightly higher in a location that did not allow the viewer to stand back far enough to view the entire painting at once.

So the proportions as you look at the painting with the heads closest to you and the subjects feet way down by your own feet. The size of the head seems normal.

This is the opposite of what Michelangelo did with the David statute where the head and shoulders were intentionally over size so that when viewed looking up at the statue they would not appear too small. And the effect is a very heroic David.

[Tom Edgerton]

Steven--

...right, which he did often. At the last PSOA conference, Shane Neal showed a photo of Coventry Patmore next to Sargent's famous portrait, and the "non-literalness" and near-caricature quality of the painting was profound. And yet, you feel you really know the guy when you look at Sargent's portrayal. Shows the liberties you can take with the physical facts and still have a warm, empathetic rendition of the subject.

Best--TE

[Marvin Mattelson]

Tom, I think you make a good point here. The key issue is the understanding of head structure, of which Sargent was a master. If the structural integrity is intact, one has the freedom of alteringing and exagerating aspects of the face in order to enhance the sitters character.

I think there is a tendency towards too much nitpicking when measuring. Not that there is anything intrinsically wrong with that. But if the structure is not understood something will always seem "wrong."

Measurement, which I stongly advocate (as you undoubtedly witnessed in my workshop), needs to be seen as a means, and not an end unto itself. Understanding is the goal.

[Steven Sweeney]

I think that what Sargent demonstrates is that the most exciting