Including pets or not

David Dowbyhuz · 12-08-2001, 07:44 PM

I am in the process of composing a seated portrait of my wife. I've captured a pose with lovely natural light and subject placement; I'm really pleased.

I composed another, similar setting, with our dog (a Basset Hound) in her lap, and the expression on his face is great (not "cute" or "precious", mind you), and he lends a balance and weight to the lower half of the composition.

What's the consenus of including pets in portraits? I see it's done all the time, and I want to blend the best parts of both compositions to create a new one.

Mary Reilly · 12-09-2001, 01:20 AM

I say yes, include the dog, if he is a special part of your wife's life. To me portraiture is about capturing the personality of the person, a slice of their life, and when a pet is a prominent part of someone's life then it makes sense to include the pet. Of course, keeping the pet in "its place" and also working through the composition is important, but it sounds like you've already worked that out and so that will not be a problem.

Mary Reilly

Karin Wells · 12-09-2001, 05:26 PM

Go for it!

Virgil Elliott · 12-11-2001, 03:17 AM

David,

I see nothing wrong with including a pet in a portrait. There is a long tradition of it. It is not looked upon the same way as portraits of dogs and cats by themselves. In with a human subject, the pet provides secondary interest, something to keep the viewer looking at your picture a little longer after taking in the primary subject.

Virgil Elliott

Karin Wells · 12-11-2001, 09:39 AM

David...Please forgive me, but my earlier post was too brief and probably not very useful to you beyond my encouragement.

Pets can be difficult but well worth including in a portrait. Below is an example of my (one and only so far) "pet and person portrait."

I really struggled with this in the conceptual (drawing) stages because I couldn't get beyond that "cute dog picture" look as the incredible cuteness of that darned dog completely eclipsed the young woman.

To resolve this thorny problem I had Anna engage the viewer directly with her eyes and had the dog's gaze go off the canvas. I also had to remove the light in the dog's eye or this painting wouldn't work at all. (It amazes me how something that small can really matter!)

Again, go for it - it is well worth the trouble when a pet is so important and helps define the person you are painting!

David Dowbyhuz · 12-11-2001, 11:22 AM

Very nice! Consider also the cover of JHS's "29 Steps" book.

I too am waging the same compositional-battle. With a Basset, however, I have to compete with their clownish, comical expression. Being such a heavy dog too, I'll have to relegate him far lower on the canvas then your pooch (or JHS's). He'll be the base of an near-isosceles triangle, his body and my wife's forming a near right-angle on the right. The diagonal from her face to his will be echoed in the position of the arm of the sofa they're sitting on, as well as some background elements.

I'm also going to see what an application (within reason) of the Golden Section you advocated does to the composition.

I'll likely post some progress shots in the coming days (unless it bombs, but I don't think it will).