Composition - examples of note

[Mike McCarty]

It seems that no one liked this two person composition of R. L. Stevenson and his wife by J S Sargent, as noted below:

The first [portrait of Stevenson], an endeavor of 1884, now missing and most likely destroyed by Stevenson

[Mike McCarty]

And another amazing watercolor by JSS.

Here it seems that Sargent worked his composition through the use of il-defined shapes of shadow and light. It's amazing how much we are able read, not so much by an images literal depiction, but in the context in which we find it.

[Mike McCarty]

The thread reads - "Examples of note." I suppose they would be more "of note" to the person who posts them, rather than any definitive measure of greatness. Composition, style, and manner of placement being a subjective matter.

These three (all by Philip Alexius de Laszlo, I've got to get over him and move on) are surely "of note" to me. However, I can see how the very stylistic execution of the first two: Lady and Lord Mountbatten 1924 and 25, might not appeal to everyone. As to the last example: La Contessa Annade Noailles, I cannot imagine how anyone could find criticism with this work of art. It seems perfectly done, the way the eyes and hair burn themselves into the paper keeps me coming back again and again.

[Mike McCarty]

This design stuff is difficult to talk about. It

[Mike McCarty]

With the following paintings I feel barely competent to remark on their size: This guy could get an awful lot done in a small space.

Each by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema:

1 The promise of Spring 15x9
2 Vain Courtship 30x16
3 Unconscious Rivals 18x25 w/detail

PS: Don't try this at home, this is the work of a highly trained professional - work big!

[Mike McCarty]

Gee Ma, I

[Mike McCarty]

Here's an article written in Paris regarding Philip Alexius de Laszlo. My notes don't show much more than the quote below, but my recollection is that it was written by a contemporary.

"But do not imagine that fame and success win themselves without effort! In the technique of the kind, the aristocratic or worldly portrait is not easy; quite the opposite, is it not the most difficult one to succeed, since under pains to generate a method, it is necessary for him to discover discreetly the individual character under the picturesque sumptuousness of pomp or the correct uniformity of the distinction? In a ceremonial setting, in an atmosphere of elegance and of courtesy, the angles round off, intimacy blurs or conceals; and, under the peel of varnish, the task becomes more difficult. With his first portraits of high dignitaries and of grandes dames, in the resemblance of a pope and a prime minister, de L

[Mike McCarty]

Ant,

I think I can see your Vermeer point. Can there really be anything new under the sun?

But if you ask me what a portrait painter should portray in order to achieve success in his works, I'd say he must make a mix of the three main ingredients: the way he sees his subject, the way his subject wants to be seen, and the very truth. No photo, no camera, no lens but only an artist can show that.

From this that I wrote above, we seem to be in close agreement here:

I do think the really great artists are / were able to pull off both simultaneously: telling the individuals story while expressing their own vision at the same time. No small matter.

Regarding "the very truth" ... for me truth is seldom an absolute value. I think that there are some truths that can be told absolutely, but these are rare indeed. I will allow you your truth if you will allow me mine.

The last thing I would hope for in this discussion on composition would be to bring in people's opinions on photography.

And speaking of Johannes Vermeer ...

[Mike McCarty]

This first painting by Rembrandt, "Philosopher in meditation" 11x13, is one of the most remarkable designs I think I have ever seen in a painting. This staircase would be a nightmare for any modern day trim carpenter.

And while on Rembrandt here are a few more. This self portrait 35x29 is one striking image. An imposing Orson Wellsian girth, and save for the feathered chapeau, it's rather sparse of arms, hands and other detractors, just the imposing figure of that bell shaped coat.

Personally, I've come around to the thinking that more room around the subject is better than less. It tends to bestow a sense of importance that the tightly cropped designs do not. I'm going to try and battle away from the tight crops, if I can.

And then there is the portrait of Nicolaes Ruts, 46x34 on mahogany, having just been presented with Rembrandt's invoice. Worth every penny no doubt.

And another self portrait etching. I love the hats. I've read that it was President JFK that killed the hat for men.

[Mike McCarty]

Here are some close ups of the above images. And as a closing gesture, I offer each of you the double bird, also by Rembrandt.