"Take Five"

[Virginia Branch]

Steven,

I think you did a great job on your son's portrait. It is beautiful. I just enjoy reading what you have to say and how you say (write) it.

I would leave the sax as is and maybe lighten the left eye as Karin suggests but only a tad. Even if you didn't, it doesn't bother me. I think painting the people you see everyday can be particularly difficult.

Do you think you caught his likeness? He is a handsome boy if you did. He must be fighting off the girls. I still see some pink cheeks!

I like the way you used the red and green. The green has enough earth tones in it so I am not reminded of Christmas colors. They work well together.

You should be pleased with this especially if you caught his likeness. What size is it?

[Steven Sweeney]

Thanks, folks. Sometimes you know what's bugging you about a piece but you need to have someone else's confirmation to bring your focus to bear on it. Karin, I understand what you're getting at. I've noodled around with that eye a great deal and had begun to do so somewhat carelessly and in frustration, which is part of why I stopped the presses and decided to post the piece for critique. A couple of days' worth of Hippocratically doing no further harm to the patient. I surreptitiously "studied" the structure of my son's eye this morning before he took off for school. One interesting thing about that eye that I'm just going to have to capture is its Scandanavian structure (from his mom), which includes an upper lid that is slightly "fleshier" than we'd normally expect, creating a bit more body shadow than "usual" right above the upper eyelashes and falling obliquely in quite a straight line to the outside corner of the eye, rather than following the spherical shape of the eye. (Can you tell that I can "see" the eye, I just can't paint it, yet.) The fullness of that area should be -- and isn't quite yet -- picking up more light than it is. I have had the whites of the eye lighter, too, but it made him look like he'd been assimilated by the Borg, probably because I've got the iris and pupil too dark. Then there's the issue of the eyeglasses, most problematic on the shadow side of the face, where I have the challenge opposite the one you mentioned, Karin -- not wanting a too-bright value stuck into a dark area.

As for size, it's an oddball 20-5/8 by 26-1/2, a prestretched linen format I bought in a Chinese art store. Should be a lot of fun trying to find a frame. The size was deliberately chosen to accommodate the composition in a slightly less than life-size rendering.

Mike -- Was there ever again a line-up like Gilda, Laraine, Dan, Bill, John, Chevy, Jane and Garrett. And I'm still operating under advices (and dispensations) offered by Fr. Guido Sarducci. (Talk about dating oneself.)

Keep those cards and letters coming in, folks, I'm taking notes as fast as I can.

Steven

[Joseph Brzycki]

Good job Steven.
The only thing I can point out is that the left eye seems to be lost in the shawdow. If you could somehow define it a littlemore. Or maybe your scan doesn't do it justice. Anyhow, I am attaching a rough fix up that I hope illustrates my point.

[Steven Sweeney]

That's a pretty good call, Joseph. My former instructor just e-mailed a similar observation. I'm going to have to drag my son back out to the studio after school and make some quick colour notes. The challenge, as Karin alluded to, is that the lightest light in that eye shouldn't be lighter than the darkest dark in the other (save perhaps for an accent or two in the latter). Easy to state, hard to "see".

Thanks,
Steven

Later note: For the benefit of those trying to learn something from this process, my statement above of a "rule" shouldn't be taken as gospel. In fact, on reconsideration, I now feel that the rule does not apply when the form itself dictates a dark shadow even in an otherwise lighted space. A deep indentation is going to be filled with shadow, whether on the lighted or shadow side. There will be a difference in intensity (just because of reflected and ambient light bouncing around), but it will be very peculiar to the shapes and lighting involved.

[Lon Haverly]

This is a wonderful portrait! With all respects to Karin and her genius, I disagree with her eye shadow thought. But I think Joseph's sax thought is a consideration, though certainly not a requirement for this painting. You have the final say: artist's license. Regarding the eye being lost, I think not. The shadow in this particular area will be its darkest right here, because of reflected light on the right most side of the face causing it to lighten a bit towards the right. I like the fact that you dared to leave it dark. If the face were lighter in any way, it would not match the rest of the painting. You would have to follow suit with the shirt as well. That would be a mistake.

I would do about half as much as Joseph did with the sax, so that the metal has a little more sparkle in one or two spots, but not so much as to compete. I think you wanted to feature your son more than the sax.

I like the shadow values. Some would feel compelled to show more light in these areas, especially the face. It is very subjective. I think that is the beauty of this painting, and certainly on of the most difficult decisions as well. It would ruin it to change part of it. It is very well balanced in my view.

It is very much a Sweeney. THAT is a compliment. Your style has come through here.

[Steven Sweeney]

from Cynthia:

. . . and we need to tell him so he keeps coming back

Ah, if only I were that easy.

But, I contradict myself . . .

Anon.

[Marta Prime]

I really like the mood of this portrait. I don't feel qualified to get nitpicky on technical stuff, but I know it gives me the feeling of being connected to the boy, of looking into his eyes and understanding something. It is a sensitive and touching piece. I do find myself looking for more of the left eye, but I think that would be the case even in person, with someone in shadow. That could be a good thing!

I just finished one of my daughter, and if I ever get better with understanding this new Nikon camera, I will post it. Right now I feel as if I need to go to the Borg School of Technology to understand it! Anyway, I just wanted to say Well done! I really like it a lot!

[Peter Jochems]

To be honest, I think the eye is good as it is now. I feel that you lose something of the atmosphere by changing it.

Peter

[Karin Wells]

The challenge, as Karin alluded to, is that the lightest light in that eye shouldn't be lighter than the darkest dark in the other (save perhaps for an accent or two in the latter).

Not exactly what I said...and here is the general principle (I call it "the uninterrupted flow of light") and what I meant in my comment:

Light flows across an object in a path from the center of intensity (highlight) and should not be interrupted by any dark shadows in its flow. (i.e., shadows appear lighter in the light - they never equal a true shadow).

True shadows ought to connect into a pattern whenever possible (the eye on the left is "disconnected" therefore it ought to be slightly lighter than the eye in shadow on the right).

Light should be separated in a consistent manner from shadow. No light should appear in a shadow and no dark shadows should appear in the light. (i.e., the left eye shadow breaks the flow of light and must be lighter than any single shadow on the dark side of the face.)

I believe this to be a solid principal of handling light and not just my subjective opinion. It would apply to all other areas of this painting found in the "path of light" ....I just mentioned the eye because it was so darn obvious (to me).

I hope that this clarifys what I have been trying to say...please look at any painting by Vermeer to see an example of this principle of how light flows in an uninterrupted fashion.

[Jim Riley]

Steve,
Quick and crude, here is my suggestion for your portrait of the young Paul Desmond. (I bought "Take Five" forty one years ago to test our first stereo).

I like the overall concept but want (or can't) to see something in the shadow areas and dabbed some light into the face on the shadow side. For what it's worth I thought the light in the dark area might provide a counterpoint to the dark eye on the light side. Did Dave use counterpoint?