Jamie in a tux

[Mike McCarty]

What's not to like?

[Michele Rushworth]

I like the first one, painted exactly as shown. Reminds me of a Sargent painting in the museum here in Seattle.

[Kimberly Dow]

If I did any of these it would have to be for my portfolio. It would take too much explaination to have this in my home. We are not tuxedo people most days - we are shirtless around the pool people. (well, the boys at least). And if it were for my portolio - wouldnt it be better to have something more people would be interested in doing with their own children? How many people really want their children painted in a tuxedo? Then again - maybe that IS the types I need to target.

If I were going to paint one of my family for just myself - exactly what I wanted ....it would be all of us dressed similiarly casual and piled all over each other like a bunch of monkeys. We can't sit down to watch tv without the kids all piling on us. There are other couches...other chairs, but that want to be on our laps - squished all together. So that is how I'd paint us. I've wanted to do this for years - my youngest is getting older and I want to do it before he gets any bigger. I just want to come up with a pleasing natural composition. I may go scope out the zoo for ideas.

[Mike McCarty]

Kim,

What you describe sounds like a nice photo, the whole family pilled up with a big bowl of popcorn. I would set it on a timer and have everyone mug and throw pop corn on cue. Not too worry about composition, just a fun documentary moment of the family. Pick your best shot, put it in a frame and hang it on the wall.

I would like to offer to you, from a once-was Texan to a used-to-be Yankee, a double coyote dare.

Pick one of those popcorn throwers, put them in a collared shirt of your choosing, and do a head and shoulder three quarter portrait.

[Linda Brandon]

JSSargent
W. Graham Robertson, 1894
90" x 46"
(Tate, London)

[Michele Rushworth]

Nope. It's a three quarter length of a man in black on a black background, a pianist friend of Sargent's. I couldn't find it online, though it is in one of the Ormond books.

[Kimberly Dow]

OK - Mr. Used-to-be Texan - your trying to tell me that a casual arrangement like I mentioned could not be called a portrait? If we are all looking at the viewer? Maybe outside somewhere scenic?

Can someone start a thread on this? I want to see examples of good portraits that are different or casually arranged..with at least 3 people. Show those that you'd consider portraits vs. figuratives.

For example: Linda Nelson had that long tall portrait of a large family - great composition. They are all interacting nicely. Why would that be a portrait and not one like I described? The main difference is that we wouldnt be standing...?

OK, Mike - I'll do a collared-shirt one of one of my family just to prove I can if you'll start that thread for me.

[Mike McCarty]

OK, Mike - I'll do a collared-shirt one of one of my family just to prove I can

You don't have to do that, I'm sure you could do it. I was just having flashbacks of your last "many figured" project.

What you were describing was an indoor scene with a bunch of folks sorta knarled up, these (if there are any of these) can be tough to light and difficult to compose at best. That's not to say that you couldn't do it, but, it might take a village to pull it off well.

[Geary Wootten]

Originally Posted by Michele Rushworth

I like the first one, painted exactly as shown. Reminds me of a Sargent painting in the museum here in Seattle.

Michele,

Is that at the Frye, or at SAM? I've seen Sargent's "Mrs. Fredrick Roller" at Frye.

Gear