Blake Gopnik trashes official portraits in Washington Post article

[Thomas Nash]

One of my biggest challenges was that the positions of the various elements did not cooperate to make the painting I envisioned in my head. The Washington Monument for one thing, is a very tall and insistent structure that would've been too much of a distraction had I not "worked with it a bit". Have you ever painted someone who owned a really large dog and tried to find a way to not have it hog the picture?

The pattern of the railing didn't line up in an interesting way and the height of the top bar and the way it would intersect the view down below was unfortunate. I could write a book on the artifice and liberties employed to make the painting that the W.P. critic was certain was just a copy of a photo.

Here I'm just sketching and figuring, trying to find a way to make my idea work out. The easel is one of those light weight aluminum ones with the telescoping legs.

[Thomas Nash]

I will have to scan some other things to show you more. There is a pattern that runs through the painting that echoes a diagram the Speaker used to illustrate a point in a paper he wrote about the future. I will share that with you when I can.

[Michele Rushworth]

What a gorgeous portrait!

I love how you combined outdoor light with natural looking color and light on the figure -- very hard to do. I see what you mean about how you had to position him facing the Mall to get the light the way you wanted on his figure, then put him in a place where the light was really only coming from behind. I never would have noticed it if you hadn't pointed it out.

I also like how you lined up the pattern of the railing with the center line of the Mall. Beautifully designed.

Too bad they wouldn't reposition the Washington Monument for you, or put a smaller one in its place for a day or so....!

By the way, are you always able to do at least one color study from life with the model?

[Thomas Nash]

At least one session painting their head from life is pretty much the minimum. I always try for as much time with the subject as I can get.

Some paintings require more live sittings than others. Many official portraits like this one are not commissioned until the subject leaves office. Had he still been the House Speaker I don't think I could've gotten the several sittings that I did.

Even with the sittings (standings) I spent more time composing the picture and working out the perspective and other aspects than I did painting the head and hands.

There is always a lot the artist can do "from life" which does not require the subject to be there. I paint backgrounds, clothes (on manikins) and lots of elements without the subject being present. It's been done that way for centuries.
An aspect of realistic painting that is not often discussed is just how much is actually made up. The more one knows about light and shade, color and form, the more they know what they "can get away with" and still have it ring true as an illusion that is feasible.

I try to get my set up as close to what I want the painting to look like as possible. Working from your imagination is as tricky as trying to use photographs. It's always easier to have the real thing in front of you. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. You might notice the yellow/orange cloth hanging to Newt's left. That was to reflect some warm light back towards him to help me envision what might happen with the sun bouncing off the Capitol. It's not real evident in the reproduction posted. It affected the shadow on his collar and the back of his hand that is raised but the rest is more subtle.

I try to understand what the light is doing in every painting situation Then I can pick and choose what I want to use.

[Thomas Nash]

While doing my homework before starting this painting I ran across Newt's paper on "The Age of Transitions" It contained a diagram with three overlapping S curves that describe the evolution of technological change. We are now living in a period with the two overlapping S curves of the information age and Nano technology. They form a box. I knew that this is something that interested the Speaker very much so I tried to find a way to incorporate it into his portrait. This is the diagram itself.

[Thomas Nash]

The old iron railing corresponds well with the earliest flat part of the industrial revolution S curve. The other parts are not so content related as they run up his arm and shoulder. The future part trails off into the clouds, a customary symbol of "the future". I had to make up the sky and clouds to conform to my idea without it appearing that I had forced some unnatural shape into the sky.

I put he Speaker's head is smack in the middle of the box because it is his concept and he is very much "into it".

[Michele Rushworth]

Isn't it interesting that paintings (yours included) often have little hidden secrets that are of importance to the subject or the patrons. In Nelson Shanks' portrait of the brother of Princess Diana, he's holding a paper with notes about what he planned to say at her funeral.

Not that I'm at all in the same league as you or Nelson Shanks (not even on the same planet!) in my upcoming portrait of the Governor there will be 21 brass nail heads going up the side of the leather chair -- since he was the 21st Governor. The tour guides at the State Capitol love that sort of stuff, apparently.