Teeth Showing

[Linda Nelson]

I'm currently doing two commissions - one "with teeth" and one "without". In the situation of the "with teeth" portrait, showing the teeth was unavoidable. But for the the other, when the client expressed wanting a toothy smile, I used my usual explanation which works well.

I told the client that we get used to seeing toothy smiles from photography. They look natural. Subconciously, we know that a photo was taken in a fraction of a moment, and so smiling that long is normal to expect.

A painting, however is not done in a fraction of a moment. It takes hours of work to complete. So a big smile is "unnatural", as it would logically be impossible for the sitter to have sustained it. So the reason why they look goofy in painted portraits is that we're subconciously bothered by the logic. A demure closed lip smile is sustainable, and appropriate.

Hope that helps.

Linda

[Leslie Ficcaglia]

Linda, this has been debated before but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a toothy smile as long as it looks spontaneous. No one can sustain a natural-looking closed mouth smile for very long either; it ends up looking forced and stiff, and that stiffness can spread to the expression of the eyes, as well.

The same argument you cited could be applied to many classical paintings, including Degas' ballet series. These, too, obviously captured a fraction of a second; no one maintains a ballet stance that long either. Brueghel's scenes also come to mind; again the artist attempted to capture complex activities and depict them as though they were frozen in time. And Eakins has a woman with her mouth open in song and a man in mid-leap at a swimming hole. Once you get away from the very formal studio portrait I think it comes down to preference: either the painter's or the client's.

[Linda Nelson]

I didn't mean to offer my explanation as saying that anything that one cannot sustain for hours is "unnatural" in a painting. I was just offering an option on how to persuade a client when you the artist feel a toothy smile is not in the best interest of the painting or client's goal. I think the public gets trained by seeing photos to the point that not smiling seems uncomfortable. Being conscious of this fact makes them take on the project of a portrait with fresh eyes.

WE know that a painting with even hint of a smile still communicates to the viewer, but we simply have to assure our clients of that. I do agree with you that toothy smiles are totally valid and appropriate, so I'mm only talking here about the cases in which it's not going to bring the best outcome.

I think it's better to offer a reasonable explanation that a customer could concede to than turn the issue into a power struggle.

[Leslie Ficcaglia]

Good point, Linda. I do see what you're saying. I haven't been faced with a situation in which exposed teeth would be a disaster, but that's a good ploy to get yourself out of painting such a thing. Normally I go with the client's preference in pose and expression because they know what aspect of the subject they're interested in memorializing in paint. Often it's not the expression I would have chosen, but when I suggest another one they always have an excellent reason why they would prefer theirs.

Sometimes the expression that I think looks best or most attractive is the forced smile the child offers to a stranger, sometimes it's the look of the child when he's about to try to pull something over on the parent, and sometimes it's just not the expression that the client fell in love with when he first met his wife, while the other one is. But it's useful to have rationales to offer if a client's about to commission a horror.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

I think the two better reasons for not painting teeth are not about difficulty. A broad smile is a contraction of muscles - very hard to hold if one is working from life. So, the answer is photos? Well, if the work bespeaks of being made from a photo, that is NOT the answer. I think paintings that look like real people are better than those that look like real photos.

If you did a painting of a man about halfway up a chin-up bar it would be hard to look at - the viewer would know his muscles are contracting and the moment is very fleeting... so with broad smiles.

Sargent and Hals did smirks nicely.

[Michele Rushworth]

Many artists of the past painted people in poses they could not have held for very long. The paintings were meant to convey a transitory moment. (I was studying Rubens' Saint George and the Dragon the other day, which I have attached as one example.)

I wouldn't avoid painting smiles simply because people can't hold one for thirty hours. The model for Saint George didn't hold his arm in the air for thirty hours either.

[Mike Dodson]

I agree Michele.

My all time favorite, Frans Hals, as Tim pointed out was a master at capturing that "fleeting moment" (with teeth exposed most of the time), but I'm sure they didn't hold those poses for an extended period of time.

I think each set of circumstances are different depending on the subject and mood that is attempting to be portrayed.

[Leslie Ficcaglia]

I, too, agree, Michele, as I've expressed earlier in this thread. It's interesting to read everyone's opinions and consider how valid they are for our own circumstances, but ultimately it comes down to a question of personal preference. A number of your portraits include visible teeth and I think they work wonderfully; it all depends on the look the artist is aiming for - as well as the nature of the subject.

Sometimes it seems that a lot of unnecessary energy is being expended in efforts to set up a hard and fast rule - for whether teeth should be shown, or whether the client should see a work in progress, and so forth - when it's basically just a matter of individual taste and working methods. So many of the people on this forum are wonderful artists who have developed their own unique styles; the diversity of subject matter, composition, process and marketing techniques is what makes SOG so fascinating and such a wonderful learning experience.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

A rearing horse provokes tension/action - it's not what I want to depict in a portait. This wears better me thinks.

[Tom Edgerton]

We debated this topic in another long thread, but I had to post to agree with Michele. That's the best argument I've ever seen refuting the "one can't hold it, so don't paint it" argument. Thanks so much.

I paint teeth as often as not. However, for me the reason to do it is not to cave to the demands of an unsophisticated client, it's to properly depict the inner life of the subject. If it's appropriate, take the cue from Frans Hals--also one of my favorites--and do it.

If a client is asking for the 500-watt PR smile, I merely explain that it won't wear well over time and steer them to an "in-betweener." I don't feel artistically bankrupt in doing so either. And, surprise, sometimes it's actually more complex and lifelike a depiction psychologically than an expression that portrays impending suicide, for example. And, conversely, when my client is inwardly oriented and serious, that's what I paint.

Neither path leads to a higher truth, it's just one more in a series of choices.