Jack
 

20" x 16"
Oil on Panel (ABS Plastic)

I'm shamed by the very talented and productive Michele Rushworth, who frequently posts in this section. I'm supposed to be a Moderator for Critiques and I've never posted here, preferring instead to reap the "Great work!", "Nice job!" or Dreaded Silence that happens over in Unveilings.

Frankly, it's much more fun to sit back and pontificate rather than have one's own work pulled apart, so it's about time I took some heat.

Linda,

This is a beautiful painting no matter where it's posted. I like the flesh tones and also the placement of cool/warm colors within them. The brush work is very nice, particularly the "loose" brush strokes used on his shirt.

If I were to throw out a critique here (which is a stretch) it would be that "lit" area surrounding his hair to our right. Does it appear a little "muddy" or is it the way it is photographed? It seems to stand out away from the rest of the background.

It's a very nice piece!

Mike, nice to hear from you, and you're right about that area. I think it's a value problem rather than a color problem. Photos pull values apart, and this applies not only to reference photos but also to photos of finished paintings. (In other words, if something jumps out as too light or too dark in the photo of the painting, you have to go back in there and adjust or blend those value changes, even if the painting seems fine in "real life".)

I love the hair, and his eyes jump right out at you.

"Great job!"
"Nice work!"

Hi Linda,

I have to agree with Mike that this is a beautiful painting. To add to what he's already said about it, I think the color and brushwork in the tousled hair plays wonderfully against the russet background. I'm going to remember that combination.

It's really hard to to find fault with this captivating work, but after looking for a long time, I started to notice that the almost pyramidal area at the top of the cushion behind the subject, at the very left of the painting, seemed to be drawing my eye. The blue here is a higher value than the cushion in front of his shoulder. That and the fact that this area of the cushion continues a curve formed by the front of the shirt and the collar line may be what's pulling my gaze over there. It's a subtle thing, and I'm hesitant to mention it because of the artifacts introduced by photographing and digitization that you just brought up. I wish I had Photoshop so I could manipulate the area to see if it would make a difference.

Linda,

Please don't think of the Forum as a competition. The critiques are meant to be helpful to any of us whatever our level of experience and ability.

I made a few changes for your consideration and hope they will be of some help.

I don't like hard and fast "rules" but generally it is more favorable to place the subject with more room in front than in the back of the figure. I did the opposite one time when my subject was turned to the right but her head/eyes were turned and looking back to the left which justified more background space on the left side of the canvas.

I thought the light area surrounding the hair on our right becomes a problem because it appears without explanation. To make it better relate to the background I have carried this same color to the other side of the head. This reduces the feeling that something is emerging from the head and only occurs in the background to our right. For the same reason I dabbed a small amount of the red to our left also.

You're doing a great job and have no need to apologize.

Super job, of course. Above comments seconded, adding that I like the inclusion of the

You are too kind! Thanks, Linda.

Ready "to bear the slings and arrows" yourself, are you? Well, this is a beautiful and sensitive portrait so you don't have anything to worry about!

Somebody once said that the chief function of a background is to go "back". (Who was that? John de la Vega?) With that in mind I have darkened some areas and unified some others. I really like the transparent sienna wash effect you have in the background on the left so I replicated that elsewhere. I think it's okay to have the hair on the right side of his forehead get lost somewhat so I don't think you need to lighten that area of background in order to make that edge visible.

I also softened a lot of other edges that are some distance away from the center of interest. I found the sharp edged, high contrast folds of the sleeve to be a bit of an "eye trap", as well as the checks on the couch behind him. I darkened the upper part of the couch, too, to make it go back.

Like Steven, I also wondered about the complexity of the nose shapes.

Overall though, it's gorgeous!

...
 

...

...

I'm flattered and grateful that so many people took the time to really look at this painting and give helpful suggestions.

Jim, believe me, if I thought the Forum were a competition I wouldn't be posting at all. I'm not apologizing for my work, only for my cowardly reluctance to be publicly scrutinized by other articulate artists. Besides, I want my paintings to look unmistakably "my own" - only better than "my own". There seems to be some things about my style that I can't change no matter how hard I try; I think this is true for every artist.

I learned a lot from these posts, the most important being that you can't make up a dark background when you take a photo of a subject against a light background. (Which is what I did here.) The edges are too difficult to fudge. Not to sound defensive here, but I can remember just one or two other portraits I've done that have had a dark value background, so I'm low on that learning curve.

The second thing is that you can't fake a Classical Realism style without having the absolutely correct lighting conditions - high or direct side, single primary light source (only that one source if you're working live; some sort of fill setup if you're taking photos). This boy was lit by a huge floor to ceiling window, located just to the left of the viewer's shoulder, nearly full-face to him, with lots of ambient room light. There was no drop off from top to bottom, only from left to right.

My next two commissions are outdoor portraits, but when I get the chance I'm going to take my time and really get the lighting right for an indoor portrait. I'll bet the thing will paint itself. (Well, maybe.)

Third, if I knew how to use my Photoshop, I wouldn't have had to do things such as: put in a pink shirt; scrape out a pink shirt; put in an ochre blazer; scrape out an ocher blazer; etc.

I'm going to work some more on this. Thanks to all of you for posting, this definitely was more helpful to me than Dreaded Silence.

Hi Linda,

I have a few remarks.

I actually like the background as it is. Making it darker would make it lose atmosphere and spatial suggestion. The background appears a bit warm, but it doesn't really bother me.

I sense a certain sharpness in the way you draw lines or the way you define the forms. For example the chin seems the end up in (almost) a corner. But I see this tendency to end up with sharply defined forms in more places. (Part of it is of course a personal touch, part of it is maybe something you could look at whether you want to adjust this or not.)

The way the white clothing on the left side makes an almost razor-sharp contrast with the blue pillows is a bit too sharp I think, it seems to distract from the face.

I like the brushwork. But I have a suggestion, the brushwork could have more effect if it is applied even thicker. After it has dried, why not put some real thick layers of paint with rough edges in the area of the white clothing? It would liven up that area even more (it's alive already). The hair and the pillows are other areas where thickly applied layers of paint can liven up the portrait even more. Thickly applied brushwork can make a painting seem to glow as if it's a light source in itself.

In first instance I had the feeling that he looked a little bit cross-eyed, but I'm not sure, it's not much anyway, but it's a feeling I have.

For some reason the squares of the pillow behind bothered me a bit. The structure doesn't really blend in with the rest of the painting.

The way you adjusted the background on the right side of his face and hair you did with a mixture that is different than the original back-ground (more white). It's a bit like smoke in the space where he is.

He looks very alive, I like the painting more each time I look at it.

"Great work!", "Nice job!" ;)

Peter

Linda, the truth is it's hard to know what small things you might do to make this better. And you can tell from the others' remarks that it IS the small things we are all discussing.

These are the tough things as well. You know my thoughts about gaining your information from direct observation (life). I pause before tossing you any pat answer from a drawer of answers. Had you been able to stare at the subject alongside your work you might have found only one brightest highlight on the nose, maybe the placement of the left eye could be moved 1/8", maybe the overall "light" side of the face would be a value richer/deeper (darker) so as to allow you room for more form in the light area. These from my poor vantage are only guesses. The better you get, the harder it is to get valid, helpful input.

Tim

One thing I think I can say, is about shapes and placement. Cropping on the (face) shadow side of the work might help you. I don't like that the shape behind the head is the same width as the head.

Linda,

Within a few seconds of seeing your painting of Jack my mind was taken to the following portrait, one of my favorites by John de la Vega. I can stare at it for long periods of time.

What are those things in the background? What exactly is that on our left? I don't know, I don't know. I do know that I want to stare at it. I am intrigued, I am mesmorized, I am trapped.

Looking at Jack and at some of your other paintings I think you and John have, at your core, similar sensibilities.

...

Hi Linda, Michelle, and other participants, since Michelle mentions something I said about backgrounds going back (true, but not my original idea, I was paraphrasing Sanden who was probably paraphrasing somebody else, nothing's new under the sun, something like "the first thing a background should do is stay back") I jump in here--

Great job, Linda: sensitive expression, delicate and subtle drawing and color/value arrangement, expressive image as a whole, even with the 'painterly quirks' others have commented on/corrected. I agree with most of these, with the additions and subtractions (even when didactic, I myself would hesitate to modify somebody's work to make a point, unless the change/s were instantly removable, as I sometimes do in my workshops). My comment, and this applies to a lot of portraits today, and even quite a few of the past, is that most of us are too concerned about 'delineating', 'separating' everything, area from area, material from material, form from form (even the small forms of the bulb of the nose, yes, in this case a bit too pronounced). It is as if we were mandated, under threat of punishment, to indicate, without leaving the eye any doubt, where something begins and ends, where there's change, small or large. This, Linda, in your portrait totally within reasonable boundaries (pun intended) still robs it from some artistic quality. It also creates some, albeit small, stiffness.

Analysis is always needed for accuracy and clarity, but then 'perceptual synthesis' should kick in. The reason is that our perception does not take in outlines (light and distance of course major factors in this equation), does not separate pieces/elements from other elements by their boundaries. Even in more light, arm from chair, contour of head from background, etc. Our perception tends to FUSE, blend, combine, resolve in larger Gestalts (patterns), so that paintings which mimic the way we perceive reality communicate more strongly. That's where and when the sweeter music plays (on those edges, always the all-important, all-present BIG E's, in the FUSING referred to, simplistically, as 'lost edges'), where even a beautiful rendering becomes art, where the obvious becomes mysterious, suggestive, intriguing, in other words, where a painting turns into true emotional material.

Mike and Tim, thank you for your comments on my portrait. I just became aware of them after posting my previous bit. Speaking of outlining, if I were to paint it today I would do less outlining on the mouth, among other things.

John, thank you for your post. I have never read a more vivid description of the reasons behind losing edges!

John,

I agree with your comments and attempted (without luck) to find Robert Henri's book "The Art Spirit" where he provides helpful comments on the role of backgrounds in a portrait. I do recall that he believed the background recedes and exists only as a compliment to the figure.

I also like Chase's quote regarding overt quests for every detail.

"Don't hesitate to exaggerate color and light. Don't worry about telling lies. Most tiresome people - and pictures are the stupidly truthful ones. I really think I prefer a little deviltry."