Clothing doesn't make the person BUT...
 

Clothing doesn't make the person, but it does make the painting!

I have learned so much from studying the early works of John Singleton Copley. He liberally embellished the clothing of his subjects and added "made up" props and backgrounds in order to get good compositions for his paintings.

A painting is so much more than a mere likeness and modern clothing can really frustrate me. For the most part, it tends to be rather dull and uninteresting. :( I won't paint a kid in a tee shirt.

Color and shape are very important in a painting and I tend to use props and drapes as I struggle to "frame the face" and compose an image that will look good on canvas. I keep my eyes open on ebay and yard sales and have collected a large box of fabrics - shiny and dull - in my studio that I use in my portrait painting.

I'd like to know how others deal with yucky and uninteresting modern clothing...

Here is some of John Singleton Copley's work. Much of the clothing and props he used were "made up" just for the sake of making a good painting.

It is a tradition in old-time portraiture that what you wear for a portrait isn't necessarily what you'd walk down the street in....(I'm really sorry about the small sizes here)....

I totally agree, Karin! I just finished a painting of a freind's daughter. It was from a photograph, because the painting is a suprise. the pose, facial expression, and even the lighting was acceptable, but I didn't much like what she was wearing. It was just a plain, boxy type tee shirt with spots or flowers or something on it. So I told my freind I was going to improvise and make a soft looking white blouse with small ruffly edges around the scoop neck. I like ruffles, blouson type sleeves, etc., and I'm afraid I'm addicted to white a lot, like William Whitaker's lady's in white. If I use modern clothing, it has to be something with some "flair" to it. I love the outfit you did on "Jesse and Bunny". The face was great, but the clothing was genius.

How would you handle a client who wanted a "tee shirt" picture? Would you just explain that wasn't your style and make suggestions?

I know there are lots of great paintings of men in suits in this forum, but I'm pretty bored by them. I love the old movies when men wore more "colorful" clothing!

Before I take on a commission, I tell my client that I REQUIRE the following colors to be represented in a portrait:
Something that represents RED
Something that represents YELLOW
Something that represents BLUE
Something that represents BLACK and
Something that represents WHITE
By "represent" I mean that the wooden arm of a chair could represent black (mahagony), yellow (pine), red (cherry) - or whatever, depending on the way it is painted.

Each color should be a separate object...no dinky little "spots" on things unless the pattern has good design potential (like a bold stripe).

This forces them to loosen up in regard to clothing...adding ribbons, drapes, lace, etc. to come up with the required colors.

I also tell them that a white "something" near the face is the most flattering to a face. And they might want to include something "drapey," ruffles or somesuch in order to "get their money's worth out of me." (If the truth be known, I really like to paint the "tough stuff").

I don't know why, but my commissions are usually women and children...but a man in a suit would be a fun challenge. Whatever is lacking in the clothing (men are so limited this way) can be made up in the prop department (i.e., books, papers, wood paneling, furniture, etc.).

I approach a painting like a theatrical play - but with no plot and no dialogue....just a lot of character, stage set, costume and lighting to carry the scene in as timeless a way as possible.

I figure that for the dollar$ they pay me, a client ought to be given the opportunity to be portrayed in something better than a crummy unimaginative tee shirt and jeans...yuck.

Marta, Karin,

You can send the t-shirt people to me. I don't mind doing them! ;)

This subject brings to mind a painting by Allan Banks which is IMHO a lovely juxtaposition of casual and formal.

Oops.....please let me try to clarify. There are exceptions to everything and I probably should not have been so darn specific with the word "tee-shirt".

Cynthia & Stanka, The point I am trying to make has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Casual v. Formal clothing. And it has EVERYTHING to do with the DESIGN INTEREST that clothing can carry in a painting.

I have absolutely no objections to the "casual" clothing in the above portrait. The blouse probably qualifies as a "Tee Top" but the bold stripe and drape of the sleeve make it verrrry interesting....(along with the drape in the foreground and the detail in the hair).....

I can easily find a bunch of contemporary examples (and Stanka cannot be included here) where the artist's painting is more than competent, but he/she has sadly missed a wonderful design opportunity by dressing the model in boreing clothing that does not enhance - and actually detracts - from the painting.

For obvious reasons, I cannot post the work of a living artist. And alas, I cannot find any poor examples among the (copyright free) Old Masters.

Karin,

I agree with you absolutely. I just thought Allan's painting was relevant in light of the topic and gave a slightly different angle on the subject.

Or....

Show little of the costume and environment. Admittedly this painting is too small to require compositional devices but I couldn't resist posting it as an example of simplification. I used this painting sightly cropped and edited) for my business card (as you can see) because it causes people to respond and want to know more about the subject.

I do agree that it is very important to set up the painting with a thoughful and appropriate props. I have, however, worked on a painting that the client thought had "something wrong with the likeness" only to discover finally that the subject never wore ties. And yet I was supplied with same for the painting and it was this conflict that made things look "not quite right".

This thread also reminded me of one of my favorite Chase quotes; "Subject is not important. Anything can be made attractive.... aim to make an interesting subject so inviting that people will be charmed at the way you've done it." Also "Do not try to paint the grandiose thing. Paint the commonplace so that it will be
distinguished."

Karin,

Gosh, I do agree with much of what you've said, although I'm glad you clarified.. Just as there are many different artists and styles, there are just as many different reasons clients choose to commission a portrait. Our job is listen to their wishes and work within their perimeters to produce a great piece of art. Each portrait of mine comes out fairly different from the one before because of a client's wishes. It's part of what makes them exciting for me to do. I love the variety.

Also, I think there is something to be said for depicting the era WE live in. We are recording history as well. It will be interesting for our future art historians to gaze upon our work, (in a museum of course) be fascinated with the mode of fashion at the time, and know when it was. Jeans, t-shirts and all..:D

This discussion of clothing and props is very interesting. Cynthia, I love the painting of Allan Banks that you posted. It reminds me of the carpet or tapestry covered table that Vermeer included in so many of his paintings.

Although I completely agree with Karin's statement about design interest in clothing, I really think the following quote posted by Jim Riley has given me lot of food for thought.

"Subject is not important. Anything can be made attractive.... aim to make an interesting subject so inviting that people will be charmed at the way you've done it." Also "Do not try to paint the grandiose thing. Paint the commonplace so that it will be distinguished."

My teenage daughter and her friends have had a ball going through my trunks of clothing, some sewed, and some collected over the years, including everything from Halloween costumes, to gowns worn on cruises, and Prom dresses from her older sisters era. I have even collected old wedding dresses at yard sales.... Although styles change, the girls have lots of fun playing dress up and having their pictures taken. I have been wanting to paint two of my daughter's friends. Stephanie, with her cello, and Candace, who is a darker skinned, blue eyed beauty. But she is a Jean's and tee-shirt girl, that's just her.

Also, as I have worked for Levi Strauss for the last 23 years, maybe I ought to look into painting people in Jeans! Go figure!

Thank you Jim and Stanka, for your making me see the other side of the coin, and Karin, thank you for the wonderful subjects and ideas you come up with!

This kinda depresses me.
 

I personally hope there is a niche for everyone. I know this is the gallery for the traditional portrait painter, as it says up top, but I constantly wonder where the modern equivalent of the genre sort of art fits. I mean, the women in the garb of their day - the straw boaters and the men in white linen of the turn of the other century equate to the tee shirts of today.
I hope to find a place in that casual day to day imagry. Still not denting an income off my people, I am trying to show more of a "who" they are than a "what" they are.

This is a progress piece of a young man going to the culinary institute. I think his tshirt belies his attitude about himself and his future but it is the pose that gives him dignity.

(I fully understand that if I set myself on this path and work with integrity and determination I will end up SOMEWHERE, but am I taking the hard way?)

Cynthia can correct me if I'm wrong, but I treat the term "traditional" (and its cousin, "classical") as describing an approach and methodology rather than a restriction on subject matter or fashion. I consider myself a painter very much in the "traditional" manner, but you'll never see anything by me in which a portrait subject has been window-dressed in period costume, unless there's a very good reason -- related to the person, not to me -- for it. I'm about to start a portrait of my 13-year-old son. The only issue is whether the motif will be computers, skateboards, or electric guitars. The clothing issue isn't even on the table (if I want him to cooperate) -- it's t-shirt and jeans. That's who he is. Obviously I'm going to lobby (possibly vigorously, and in any event, I'll prevail) for the *right* t-shirt, and fortunately he has the world's most complete t-shirt wardrobe, but to put this kid in anything else would completely defeat my purpose: capturing who he is, right now, in paint. As for jeans, well, jeans are jeans -- but I am going to draw the line (no pun) at painting them with the belt south of the hips and the crotch between his knees. I don't care how they're doin' it on MTV.

Gosh, don't be depressed -- be delighted that you're capitalizing on your unique perception and perspective on what it is that you want to accomplish with your portraiture. It's going to be evident in and enrich your results.

Best wishes,
Steven

Have you looked at Daniel R. Frazier

Steven,

Nothing to correct...you are absolutely right in terms of my intention and attitude as to what is meant by "traditional".