"Princess" Leah
 

Yes, she really does call herself "Princess Leah". All of three years old, going on 18. This painting measures 28" x 29". It's my follow-up to the less than successful "Melody & Melvin". I had a heck of time with lighting this for photographing, and do you think I could get the balances right? No! (It's the best I could do for now. Still learning the myriad functions of my Nikon 995.)

What think you? Steven, am I at least going in the right direction? (Thanks to Karin for an earlier priviate critique. I didn't have the heart (nerve) to perform the full scale assault on the background you advocated! I DID make some adjustments, though. Compare this to the version I sent you.)

Detail

David, I cannot find a copy of my critique or the earlier picture you sent me so that I could compare it with what I am seeing now...could you email me copies if you still have them?

Somehow, this picture seems so much darker than what I saw before...did you darken the background and/or the figure? Is it your scan or my imagination?

Sounds like you're already getting advice. I'm waiting with you to capitalize on it.

Stay tuned!
 

It seems my scans above are far too dark. I'm getting some help "true-ing" them up. Will post the corrected version when complete.

It is easier to show than tell..
 

I got radical with your work. Here's a version of your picture after I "painted" on it in Photoshop. This is what I did and why:

I radically cropped your painting. You have a pretty good abstract shape here, but it got lost with all the other "stuff" added in.

I think that you're a frustrated still life painter at heart. The lamp, table and molding were pretty good, but don't add anything to this portrait.

I cooled all of the background so that it would recede. I did not take the time to "ground the figure" (indicate a floor). I think that the only purpose of a background in a portrait is to enhance the figure.

I lightened the whole thing. The contrast between light and shadow on the face and hands is too great...the value range needs to be much less.

I lightened all of the shadows in the general area of light so that none of them were as dark as the shadows in areas of general shadow.

I lost and found some edges here and there. I tried to integrate the figure into the background more.

I smoothed out the skin tones - I found them too choppy for such a little girl.

I added warmth (red) into all of the skin's shadows.

I added pure color into your reflected lights and darkened the value. This insures that they will not compete with any value contained in the area of general light.

I cooled your halftones (where light meets shadow).

I added cast shadows to the eyeball beneath the upper lid.

I slightly blurred details in the shadow side. Sharp details only belong in light.

Here is a face detail...

It is a funny thing... but I think that each of us would approach the same subject matter with an entirely different vision.

It would be fun to see what another artist would do with this....

Dave,
You previously asked me for some input here, but there's very little I can add to Karin's thoroughgoing examination of the elements in your picture. (I've recently acquired the ability to PhotoShop web images, but I'm glad Karin got to this one before I did, because I have little skill with the software.) I would mostly reiterate some of the advices already offered.

The lamp and table, as Karin indicated, are problematic compositionally and thematically, not because of the way they're rendered (indeed, they're painted very competently). There isn't a good answer here to the question, "Why are these elements included in this particular picture?" I will presumptuously say that you included them because you wanted to experiment with a picture that "contained its own light source". Those are often fascinating works (one of my favourites is van Honthorst's The Denial of Peter) [I've just discovered that the site doesn't accept hyperlinked contact, so go to www.artsMIA.org and search for "Honthorst"], but to be most successful, the light source would be something we'd "expect" to see in this particular painting (as we'd expect to see the candlelight, and not a modern lamp, in van Honthorst's picture). And so, in a different composition -- say, in a nursery or a setting that is obviously a little girl's room -- a lamp of a design that we'd identify as belonging in a children's environment might well have worked fine. That's the thematic part, but there's a compositional challenge as well, because the very nature of that self-illuminating element means that the greatest contrast between lights and darks in the picture is going to be at and around that light source, which is to say that that area and no other is going to wind up being the focus of interest in the picture. If, as in your composition, the light source is quite apart from the "real" subject -- the little girl -- we find ourselves looking at the lamp first, and then at the girl, illuminated in both a low key and a narrow range of values. And even if that key and range were manipulated to bring the girl into greater visibility and interest, there remains the "duality" of subject, the lamp and table having nearly the same "weight" as the portrait subject.

Karin's itemization of elements to look at is so complete that I really can't add anything else to it.

By the way, in your original post, you referred to your "less than successful 'Melody & Melvin'. Quite the contrary -- it was most successful, though perhaps not in the way you expected. Deepak Chopra writes that the very best thing that can happen in your life is what's happening right now. Consider how much you learned in making that picture and, yes, even in wading through the critiques. The piece was completely successful, insofar as it provided the experience and information to move on to another picture, which in turn will beneficially inform your later work. If there wasn't any challenge, there wouldn't be any education and there wouldn't be any fun.


Steven

Thanks, Karin. I noticed you forgot to sign it. ;)

I appreciate what you've done, but I still like mine better. I prefer the sense of time & space in mine. I didn't want a nebulous vignette. What you

detail

By all means, Dave, you should retain artistic ownership of your work and not implement changes that go against the grain of what you intend in the piece. I don't know that anyone offering critiques here has an emotional investment in persuading anyone to do something they're not comfortable with. There's perhaps a more acute sense of vulnerability attached to posting a piece of artwork, as opposed to, say, joining the fray of debate, and my impression of almost all replies to such postings in this Portrait Critiques forum is that they're generally (and genuinely) focused on fundamentals and not on esoteric preferences. I would have failed in my purpose here if someone just automatically adopted my advices without turning them this way and that and assaying them and considering whether they were actually the sort of stones the artist really wanted to mount in the setting of the piece.

I once had a psychology professor who, a few minutes into a class, walked down amongst the students and looked at this notebook, and that notepad, and said "What is everybody writing? You shouldn't be writing down everything I say. You should be listening and thinking about it."

Same intentions here, I believe.

Steven

Oops...
 

I think that the art of painting really cannot be taught and therefore cannot be learned. Only certain underlying principles and fundamental techniques can be discussed.

These things are usually hidden away in a work of art and are not so obvious as the (I admit) "outrageous liberties" I took in altering your painting.

Style in painting is rather like handwriting...we all know and use the same alphabet, but the overall appearance of our individual writing is vastly different - as it should be.

I posted my altered copy of your painting - not as a suggestion that your penmanship should look like mine (heaven forbid) - but to illustrate (and exagerate) the fundamental principles and techniques of painting that I was attempting to point out.

The principles I listed are most difficult to grasp - especially in this venue - and I think that I did you a great disservice. I regret that I altered your picture. My illustration was not clear and served no useful purpose here.

Sorry.

Thanks, Karin.

I appreciate your words. I must admit, I WAS a bit taken aback by (and I use this rather harsh word with affection) your "assault" on my work. I've never yet seen anyone else's efforts in the forum treated so radically and abstractly. I was kind of hoping for some positive feedback on things I might actually have done well. C'est la vie, as we say up here in Montreal.

Thanks, Steven.

You suggested that the self-illumination of the lamp might have reconciled better were it more in keeping with a child. Don't forget, this is a work intended for the family involved. This setting is very evocative of their life & home. They had acutally sold their home in Quebec, moved to Toronto for a year, and then moved back, coincidentally buying-back the same house. In each incarnation the same lamp and table was in the same corner of their stairwell. It work's for this family. I absolutely knew and strived for these admittedly "competing centers of interest". (As opposed to M&M where it was all accidental.) I have no problem with the lamp being noticed first, and having the eye bounce between them.

Knowing the "rules" of composition is all I need to justify my breaking them.

For those who may be interested, here's the main photo I worked from.

David, I'm not sure how your monitor is adjusted, but the photo is so dark, it's hard to see any details in the dark area. So, I'm reposted it with adjustments.

I misunderstood and thought that you had asked me to do this in your private email to me. And don't worry I will not do that to you again. It would be really helpful if, when posting a painting for critique, the artist CLEARLY asks for what they want...i.e., "I need help with the composition, skintones, background, anatomy, etc."

Fair enough. I made a wrong assumption. But from now on, please SAY this if/when you ever send me another picture in the future.

It has taken me a lifetime to learn how to paint. And I resent the time and energy it takes to translate this knowlege into words as much as you resent my having done it.

...enough said...let's drop this subject and get back to our easels :)

Well!...

I like the way your paintings have a narrative to them. It's something you can capitalize on by the spaces you include. You've done that well here, and in your other portrait, Melody and ? (sorry).

I would just keep on eye on your edges.

David's "Princess" Leah
 

This is my first posting, and it was prompted by the respectful way I feel David was responded to; it feels an emotionally safe forum to present, and to respond to. Now back to my painting! :exclamati