Portrait Critique

Mike McCarty · 03-09-2002, 12:40 PM

I posted this portrait in another section of the forum. Having popped off quit a bit lately it seems only fair that yuz giz take a whack at me. Did I mention what warm and delightful people you are? And caring, did I mention caring?

Karin Wells · 03-09-2002, 09:47 PM

You have done a lot of things right, good lighting and composition, the skin shadows are just right (most people get 'em too dark), and that blouse is wonderful.

Here is my suggestion. The area at the bottom of the canvas doesn't explain itself. I'd simply like to see it more "finished" looking, i.e., bring the blouse all the way to the lower edge of the canvas.

Jeanine Jackson · 03-10-2002, 12:51 AM

Lovely!

I would slightly tone down the whites of eyes to no brighter than highlight on cheeks, and teeth cylinder going back into mouth and under lips...

Mike McCarty · 03-12-2002, 01:02 AM

Thanks to both Karin and Jeanine.

I think the brightness of the eyes could well be toned down. And I agree about the teeth and lip.

I remember when I was creating this piece I had just discovered Harley Browns web site. Wow, I thought, I would really like to paint like that. All those loose swervy lines seeming to go nowhere but looking so good once they arrived. I have always struggled to be more loose. It's the style that I admire most but my mind just can't seem to let go. It may well be that I crossed the line when I "got loose" with the bottom of this piece. At it's best it would be a matter of "a difference of style", at it's worst it's just goofy and as you put it "unexplained."

Thanks again, Mike

Lon Haverly · 03-13-2002, 01:09 PM

I like the way you painted the lady, the hand and wrist with the realism of even the blood veins. If this were my piece, I would not be quite happy with the background. It is brighter than the hair, which is subdued. Perhaps the background was painted after the portrait was done, rather than as it went along. It seems to crop the figure, rather than enhance it. I think I would have incorporated the background into the figure a bit more perhaps by color choice, or perhaps by painting it as the portrait evolved with some of the feeling that is in the portrait itself. It does not have the same feeling that the figure does. There could be more softness in the background, to go along with the soft expression in the figure.

Mike McCarty · 03-13-2002, 02:51 PM

Quote:

I would not be quite happy with the background. It is brighter than the hair, which is subdued. Perhaps the background was painted after the portrait was done, rather than as it went along.

Thanks for looking at my work Lon. I'm a little confused by your comments. About the background being brighter than the hair? I don't see it that way on my monitor. I see it much darker on my monitor. And actually is much darker in the painting than the hair or the figure. In fact my monitor is showing a pretty good representation of the piece. As far as incorporating the backgound into the figure, I thought I did that somewhat on the shadowed side(viewers left.) The background wasn't done as an afterthought but, good or bad, purposefully in that manner to bring up the figure and the highlights on the right side. I don't mean to dismiss you're criticism, maybe if someone else could comment on how they see these things on their monitor. Maybe we could get a calibration. Please?

Thanks again.

Leopoldo Benavidez · 03-13-2002, 04:05 PM

Hi Mike,

I think you have painted a wonderful compo and have done a great job on bringing this person to life.

Two things bother me as well. They have been mentioned before and that is the eyes and the bottom of painting. Particularly the eyes! They are too white! When I look at this painting those eyes are the first thing that jumps out at me. The whites of the eyes are actually four different individual values and can be more of a flesh tone. Tone them down and they will become more seductive. In your case, we are seeing only two white areas. Remember the subtle cast shadow on the white areas from the upper eye lids as well. The bottom should be continued because you finished the rest of the painting, it could be different if you were more sketchy in the upper painting as well. The hair and background are fine with me...L

Lon Haverly · 03-13-2002, 05:03 PM

Darker, yes, but a bit vivid for the more subtle color of the hair. Perhaps toning down the brown or graying it a bit would create a more pleasing background for ths subject then the sienna and umber right out of the tube. Food for thought. Backgrounds can ruin otherwise lovely pieces.

Mike McCarty · 03-13-2002, 06:40 PM

Leopoldo,

Thank you for your criticism. I do agree about the eyes as was pointed out earlier. And your clarification about the bottom of the canvas makes sense to me. Had I taken a similar approach in other parts of the painting it may have had a better chance. Finishing it out would be the best approach at this point, as Karen pointed out earlier. Sometimes you stretch a bit and stumble, but you pick yourself up a little wiser. I'm thankful for your comments. You should post your self portrait for the benefit of the others in this forum.

Thanks again, Mike

Leopoldo Benavidez · 03-13-2002, 07:30 PM

Hey, Mike is that a cigar in your hand in your tinyhead or is that a paint brush you are chewing on?

Okay, but the self was done in 1989, my first portrait....L