Figure size?

[John Zeissig]

Hello all,

Based on anatomy texts and various drawing books, and supplemented by empirical measurements on several suckers who were coaxed into compliance, I think Sharon's statements on proportioning reflect the collective wisdom of both the scientific and artistic communities. As one who views the world from an elevation of 7.7 of my own head heights, minus one half a head height, it's hard to imagine the umwelt of those who view things from the perspective of the average 7.5 head heights; let alone that of my wife at 7.35 head heights. Nevertheless, the canon of 8 head heights has apparently been in use in art and illustration for a long time, along with rules for tweaking the proportions for special situations. To wit, this illustration from Jack Hamm's "Drawing the Head and Figure", 1963:

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Unless we go after the specifics in front of us, especially in doing portraits, we miss the minor things that make folks recognizable. All humans can ID an old friend from great distances, we are very good at seeing those small things that added together mean total identity. To do any thing else (than to see and paint these) is to paint a somewhat generic portrait, which is too often just a conglomeration of presumations and looks weak very naturally.

[Steven Sweeney]

But that's why they're called "presumptions", no more suspect than a hypothesis. You still have the responsibility to verify the accuracy of what they suggest. No one here has come even close to arguing that the presumptions trump what you see.

Be careful, though -- they might! Not everyone is going to "see" things correctly the first time (and some who think they do, don't), and if they need guidance to help self-assess their work, the presumptions are useful. That's all. They're useful. MOST of the time they result in accurate placement of anatomical features. I've benefited too many times from having them in the toolbox to get particular about how I build a picture. They're tools bought and paid for, engraved with the ID of yours truly. I don't lend them out, but I'll tell you where to get your own.

John --

I have that book here in front of me. It's where I first learned of the head-size relative proportions. I don't recall if Hamm or someone else says that the more "typical" human size is 7.5 heads, and that the 8-head measure is actually somewhat idealized. But who cares? (And who wants to figure out where that .5 head goes in the scheme of things?)

[Linda Brandon]

This has been an interesting post, though I can't seem to get the image of corporate monkeys out of my head (8 1/2", by the way).

Two additional points that might help somebody:

Assuming I have a large enough canvas, when I'm doing a really fast "quick draw" exercise I put my left hand on the canvas and draw a fast oval in the correct location (giving your subject some "looking space" if it's a profile). This gives me some assurance that the forehead won't be lopped off at the top (as in the Hannibal movie). My hand measures 5" so it gives me some room to let the head "grow" as I paint. It also calms me down and shows the canvas who's boss right off the bat.

Along that vein, when painting the figure I put in measuring points based on head length when I block in the figure - so many heads to chest, elbows, knees, etc. I paint the head in first and then re-measure the proportions based on the painted head... since the head tends to grow when you paint it, your initial measurements will likely be off. Adjust accordingly.

By the way, didn't I read somewhere in this Forum that the length of your foot is the same as your wrist to elbow measurement? Not that this particularly matters, mind you, but I think the logic behind human design is fascinating. Peggy, with your medical background, I'll bet you know all about this kind of thing.

Linda

[Steven Sweeney]

By the way, didn't I read somewhere in this Forum that the length of your foot is the same as your wrist to elbow measurement?

If so, then I was idealized at birth. My size 12/13s don't come close to the wrist-to-elbow length.

[Imagine the power of getting so many people to check that out, though, just by posting a suggestion. What else can we get them to do?]

[Michael Georges]

Unless we go after the specifics in front of us especially in doing portraits we miss the minor things that make folks recognizable. All humans can ID an old friend from great distances, we are very good at seeing those small things that added together mean total identity. To do any thing else (than to see and paint these)is to paint a somewhat generic portrait, which is too often just a conglomeration of presumations and looks weak very naturally.

Yea, but Tim, portraiture and figure work also involves anatomy and understanding the proportions and human anatomy can really help you to paint a better portrait - and a beginning student needs to have some way of translating what they see from their eye to their hand - measuring is one way of doing that.

Further, a good understanding of anatomy will definitely help you if you want to do work from your imagination (i.e., figures in action - falling, running, jumping, etc.) - not something that you will have much luck getting a model into let alone holding it for 9 hours - talk about hang time!

While I agree with you that rarely will you meet someone who will conform to these anatomical measurements, they can be useful for beginners to better place features. The thing to understand is that your subject is a person and not just a measurement - thereby, use your measuring to get things rolling, but then you need to refine and really capture what you are seeing. That is where the real work is.

Try drawing children....AAARRRRGGGG!!! Talk about non-conforming features!

[Peggy Baumgaertner]

Hey Linda, how are you doing? This has been a most interesting post. Which all the talk about sight sizing and the idealized "how many heads tall," we've missed two of my favorite methods of placing the figure. Building out from the skeleton, bone, muscle, skin and clothing. (Much as I understand the placement of the heads across the body to make the point, it does creep me out. I think there is also a picture in the book with "eyes" denoting placement of features. It's enough to give one nightmares....)

My preferred method is to grid out using brush measurements, or actually making a grid by using a sheet of acetate and holding it over the subject, transferring the information to produce a "cartoon" of the subject on your canvas. The placement is correct from the first stroke, and nothing moves on you. It's the ultimate control.

Peggy

[Sharon Knettell]

Tim, I love all the variety of the human form, that is why I chose to be a figurative painter. However I find my clients prefer to be somewhat homogenized. I have discovered through trial and error, that it would be a fatal career move to paint them as they actually are.

Sincerely,

[Michael Fournier]

Yes, unless you are as popular and have the same kind of social standing as J.S. Sargent, making the same career moves he made could be fatal.

Regarding Sargent's refusal to change his paintings at the request of his clients:

His refusal more than once led to scenes. On one occasion the lady who had taken exception to the rendering of her mouth became hysterical and fainted. Sargent was the last man in the world to cope with such a situation. A friend who happened to call found him helplessly contemplating the scene. The model was restored to sense, but the mouth remained as it was.

Not exactly the same as idealizing proportions, but I am sure to some degree Sargent made many concessions in his work at the whims of the fashionable of his day. And he did modify proportions at times to suit his artistic vision.

On other occasions Sargent would start over after many sittings.

He did the same with the portrait of Mrs. Wedgwood, and many others. Miss Eliza Wedgewood relates that in 1806 he consented, at the insistence of Alfred Parsons, to paint her mother. She sat for him twelve times, but after the twelfth sitting he said they would both be the better for a rest. He then wrote to Miss Wedgwood that he was humiliated by his failure to catch the variable and fleeting charm of her mother's personality - that looked like the end of the portrait. Some weeks later he saw Mrs. Wedgwood at Broadway, and struck with a new aspect he said:

'If you will come up next week we will finish that portrait."

She came to Tite Street. a new canvas was produced, and in six sittings he completed the picture which was shown at the Memorial Exhibition.

This early failure may have been because the woman painted to capture just her likeness was not a pretty sight. (Remember the Lucian Freud painting of the queen?)

Can you imagine? Assuming each sitting was a few hours, that woman sat for over 20 hours and then was told he is starting over. And we claim we must take photos because clients won't sit for two sittings, never mind make them sit for twelve just to start over and have to sit for six more. Can you imagine how that would affect your career?

I think Sharon's work can speak for itself and it shows she does not paint generic portraits.

We all try to portray the person at their best and sometimes as they envision themselves or to portray a position of power. So using heroic proportions or hiding the fact that they have put on a few pounds is only to produce a better, more pleasing image. What's wrong with that?

[Mike McCarty]

I painted a man in three quarter pose turned slightly to profile. This man was large. Not just his 6'8" height but he had accumulated a substantial circumference. I'm sure I painted off forty pounds from his center. Upon seeing the portrait he proclaimed that I had painted him too fat around the middle! I never came out and said that I had thinned him up considerably.

There is the way you are. There is the way people see you. There is the way you see yourself.