Lines

[Chris Saper]

Hi Ilaria,

You might consider getting rid of the bannister and supports altogether, and instead, move the wainscoting down to support the center of interest, sort of like Norman Rockwell's Saturday Evening Post covers.

I think it is really difficult to use architectural elements, even if handled loosely, without painting them quite accurately. In your photo, the bannister looks as if is not only moving behind the boy, but, simultaneously away from him.

[Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco]

Thank you, Chris and Julie.
I will reconsider all the composition since I am fairly at the beginning.

I really love to have elements behind the subject, so that he or she is placed somewhere in a domestic environment.
It is true though that a straight line should remain a straight line also in a losely painted work, I 'll have to have a better look at J.S.S., I guess.

Since I am a mother of three boys and I particularly love this subject, I am posting a portrait by an Italian painter of the early 20th century who is a great source of inspiration. This window is often in the back of my mind when I paint. Hope you'll enjoy.
Thank you again
Ilaria

[Linda Brandon]

Originally Posted by Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco

I really love to have elements behind the subject, so that he or she is placed somewhere in a domestic environment.

Hi Ilaria,

The painting by the Italian artist is a good example of using rectangular shapes within a rectangular shape to help focus the composition onto the subject. If you are really interested in these types of scenes you might start a notebook of similar compositions and compare how each artist handled problems such as dark head against light background, light head against dark, lost edges and soft edges, warm against cool, landscape outside vs. empty space, etc. Directing the eye with shapes frequently seems to me less "obvious" than directing the eye with line. (Compositional issues are on my mind too because I am starting a similar notebook on the topic "circles")

And I like how you have painted the boy, by the way.

[Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco]

Linda,
actually this is a really good idea, as I do sometimes end up frantically leafing through books looking for that special painting I have seen months before.
I have almost finished the portrait, and I got rid of the bannister as it had a feeling of someone within bars. I painted the mouldings of a door in the background, going back to the rectangular scheme again.
In a sense it was a way out to avoid a background with a nothing, though it is a much less real place than the room where the boy with the boat is.
It's an acceptable solution when you cannot rally paint on the spot, I think.
I am working also on three more portraits on the same theme,I will post everything as soon as it's done
Thank you as usual
Ilaria

[Garth Herrick]

Hi Ilaria,

I am anticipating that you will have solved your compositional dilemma by the time you post another image. I think your rectangular scheme is going to work. If I had not told you before, I do so much love your painting style, and strength of your compositions.

As a photographic portrait, I love your reference as it is. Interpreting this successfully into a painting, as you have shown us is unfortunately problematic, since the complexity of the bannister begins to overwhelm the softness of the boy; yet it works as a photograph.

Could you tell us who that Italian painter of the early twentieth century is? I really love that dynamic composition, and the way the architectural elements have been successfully integrated. I would really like to see more of this great painter's work. Thanks for sharing this.

Garth

[Timothy C. Tyler]

If I may make a general remark, I'd say just learn how to conquer any of these background challenges and make them work for you. Sargent, Zorn and yes R. Schmid handle this well. One key is to soften the intersecting point; letting one shape, normally the one in the fore, be much crisper and blur (or deny) the other so as to eliminate the linear intersection.

In portraits, lines and backgrounds can really add power to a work. I admire strong works that use the lines and shapes to the artist's advantage. I think you can make the rail work but it will take some effort. If you were to mirror the rail and place it on the other side I think you like that better and don't worry about the eyes exactly-the force will be with you.

[Ilaria Rosselli Del Turco]

Garth, the name of the painter is Oscar Ghiglia. I stumbled on a catalogue of an old exhibition of his work. I must say that not all of them are as nice, infact just a few, I will scan them and post them. Ghiglia belongs to a group of painters who worked in Livorno, a town on the coast of Tuscany, you can see their works here. http://www.comune.livorno.it/arte_cu...ori/autori.htm

Thank you for the great example, I understand what you mean by pushing something back, specially seeing the actual colour of that... whatsit. In my case I did not manage to create such a strong dialogue inside the painting, also it would have taken away from the boy. But... did you notice how the presence of a background easily turns the portrait into a painting, I mean a self sufficient one? I never had many "marbled" backgrounds, but I decided I won't paint them anymore, even a piece of cloth behind the subject will be enough for me.

Timothy, I am ashamed to say I went for the easy solution and just painted over it... as you say it would have taken too much effort! I had in mind to try and blur the rail, but then there would have been too many vertical lines to blur, I think it might have looked weird. I am planning to try and include the rail in a still life, just to take the challenge.

Linda,
Rembrandt painted himself with circles drawn on the wall behind him, the painting is in Kenwood house (the Iveagh bequest) here in London; Also my favourite English painter has some circles behind his models, I would post them but I think I can't post nudes.

Thanks to all
Ilaria

[Garth Herrick]

Originally Posted by Garth Herrick

As a photographic portrait, I love your reference as it is. Interpreting this successfully into a painting, as you have shown us is unfortunately problematic, since the complexity of the bannister begins to overwhelm the softness of the boy; yet it works as a photograph.

Ilaria, if this is not too off topic, here is an example of an architectural element that I needed to almost completely diminish to make the painting work. The full work can be seen here:
Human on My Faithless Arm

Can't wait to see your resolved portrait!

Garth

[David Bottoni]

Originally Posted by Chris Saper

Hi Ilaria,

You might consider getting rid of the bannister and supports altogether, and instead, move the wainscoting down to support the center of interest, sort of like Norman Rockwell's Saturday Evening Post covers.

I think it is really difficult to use architectural elements, even if handled loosely, without painting them quite accurately. In your photo, the bannister looks as if is not only moving behind the boy, but, simultaneously away from him.

Ditto - Chris is correct. I just had to comment. Get rid of the railing. Even a scumbled-marble like backdrop is more effective. Use a muted cloudy colour that you feel will enhance the boy's presence and compliment the flesh and clothes.

[Michele Rushworth]

I'll add my vote to those who recommend getting rid of the bannister altogether. As Chris pointed out, architectural elements that aren't painted absolutely accurately (even if in a painterly way) will distract from anything else that may be right with a painting. And the position of it makes it look like it's growing out of his shoulder now.