Posted by Jon Conkey
I thought taking Karl up on posting a picture would be a good thing; I am firmly strapped down and ready. I thank you in advance for your honest and truthful opinion, please do not hold back.
Critique Me!
18 Comments
Comments closed
Wonderful, some art! Jon, what are we looking at here? Is this a life study or from a photo? Is it a one layer study, based on a drawing, or painted directly? Is it recent or old? Large or small?
Also, are we looking at a small detail of a larger work, or more or less a full picture?
Jon, I’m so glad to get to write about something other than a still-life for a change…
Here are some comments on your painting.
1. You create a strong sense of form, a convincing depiction of the structure of the face. If this is from life, you get more credit points than if from a photo, for the same result. Go figure.
2. I think this is probably from life because the ear is not quite right. A bit low, a bit big. Getting the ear aligned is always tough in life portraits with tilted heads. Also, I think the left eye (on the right side of the picture) is a little out of position, a little too close to the nose. That is also a mark of working from life, and adds an expressive element to the picture.
3. Think you captured the sense of the hair quite well.
4. I think there is a little bit too much disparity in the coarse brushstrokes used to create the highlights on the side of the face, as compared to the fine work on the nose and mouth. The latter are quite good, especially the mouth which captures an expression.
5. There is a certain lack of robust quality to the colors, and a certain degree of muddiness. This is something that happens often with oil painting when the colors get blended too much on the palette. I’d like to see more of a commitment to local color, a more committed contrast of warm and cool. As it is, you have warm and cool contrasts spread out all over. This gives a quality of hollowness to the color scheme. However, the warm highlights on the neck and forehead, contrasted with the cooler pink highlight on the cheek, do provide a source of strength. These are the strokes which I refer to as too coarse above.
In summary, I think you have a lot of nice things going on here, but they do not all fit together perfectly. The solution to this is straight forward — a more deliberate approach in color and brushwork, to complement the strength of the depiction of form and facial expression. Mixing some carefully chosen local colors on the palette might help too.
I disagree with Karl’s statement about the colors. I find the colors are spectacular because they emphasize the young beauty of the face without making it cutsy.
I love the pinks, purples and blues. A pensive young beauty!
When I saw it I found this picture very impressive. [This is Karl translating and typing for Hanneke]
What is the age of the person?
Very nicely painted.
Wow! Thank you for all the insightful elements you pulled out for me to become aware of. Yes, it is from life, she is late 20’s, it was painted from a line sketch (5 minutes),(to place the features and general shape of the head), it was completed in one sitting in oil, the size is around 14 x 18 inches on masonite. I produced one of these a day for a month or so, (too difficult of a task to maintain), I tried to move very quickly, under four hours complete, (my attempt to paint like Franz Hals). Which may explain some of the misplaced features. Some were hits, others misses, during these studies.
Karl, I have never had anyone critic my work in the professional manner you have, I have truly missed out. Your comments are profound, because I had similar thoughts about color issues as I was painting this series of heads. I agree about focusing my colors from the start; Normally, I have been starting with a single, (middle tone), and mixing all other colors off of that batch (which gets muddy towards the end). I have wondered if creating piles of a light, a medium, and a dark, would aide in keeping the color more focused and clean. Worth experimenting for sure! All in all, it is like taming a wild horse.
Birgit, You proved to me that regardless of color issues, with some skilled and handy…”darn lucky” brushwork, I was still able to pull off the delicateness of this gals features, enough to reflect her true natural beauty. I love to have the model look away and down; it brings that “pensive look” into play, I have used this in some of my other work as well. Ironically, I purposely mixed the background color into her hair and flesh to bind the two together as “one”. Singer Sargent did this quite a bit, and I was taking liberties due to an article I read of his.
Hanneke, Thank you as well, this one was a real turning point in my work, I am still learning the art of “oils”. I have never worked in a medium that allows so much freedom of expression, at the same time, so elusive to control.
Hi Jon,
After looking through your site, I saw that you were engaged in the wonderful experiment of doing a painting every day. That’s a tremendous thing. I admire the focus. I’ve never been able to pull that off for more than a few weeks.
I am also realize that kind of output means f a a a s t painting.
You manage a deftness and economy that is truly refreshing amidst so many pathetic examples of overworked, naive realism. This painting is totally professional. You show real class. This is a bravura style, and I basically just love it. This painting looks painted. There is no hesitancy, no second guessing. Pure action. Exquisite. Better by far that the great run of work seen anywhere. I particularly like the dynamic area between the hairline and the cheek on the right side of the model’s face while the shadow under the right eye, the modeling of the nose and the delicacy of the lips are truly gorgeous. Karl does not care for the disparity between the two areas, but I think they improve the painting. There’s a little imaginary world in those shadows. Nor do I have a problem with the colors, except there seems to be a slight magenta cast to the whole painting. That could be the photo, so I sort of filter that out.
As a portrait, however, I’ve looked and looked at this woman’s face, and very little is revealed about the sitter. Certainly, she has a classic beauty. The zingy brushwork does not interfere with her lovely complexion. There is a 1950’s movie star quality to her features, but I can not tell anything about her. Is she just sitting there letting herself be painted? She is a mystery, and yet, I confess, I am not very curious about her. There could be an enigma, but there isn’t. She seems not quite comfortable, not quite edgy. If I knew her, I could probably read more into this painting, but I don’t know her, and this painting does not quite introduce her to me. I see from your comment that you were going for a “pensive” look, but there is just something… blank about her brow and eyes and lipline… it’s just a tiny thing, you know? The difference? Like just a teensy bit more expression would have done the trick.
It is clear to me that you have the skill and talent to pull off probably anything you set you sights on. I’d like to see your sweet brushwork capture a fleeting instant, a flash of eye, a wisp of hair in the wind, a pouncing cat, a laughing child… That sort of thing. Not many painters could handle that. You could.
Keep up the good work, and well done on having the gumption to post some art.
One comment about internet as frame. Notice how the entire feel of this site is altered by Jon’s picture when it appears at the top of the page. This is because of the intentional minimalist layout of A&P. If there were more graphics on the page layout, then Jon’s image would be more contained.
I like the way Jon’s image alters the feel of the site. This is a the purpose of art, after all, to influence.
If there were an image in the right-column post, it could be distracting. For this reason, I think the right column can be best used for text-only pieces (as with Rex’s post of 19 Oct), or posts that have enough text to cause their images to be “below the fold.” Just some thinking out loud here.
Jon, this is a good-looking little painting. I disagree wirh Karl about the color. There are endless palette choices one can make, and I think yours are just fine. Here are some of the things I think are working:
_ The subject fills the frame well, and creates a tension between positive and negative space. One thing that really helps is that you’ve got the hair just touching the frame on the right, and it comes close to, but doesn’t touch the frame on the left. This creates an interesting negative shape from the background, and also an effective focal point (on the left), of which you’ve got several, to guide the viewer’s eye around the painting.
_ You’ve integrated the subject and background well with your brushwork, especially the way you’ve painted back in with the background to define the contours of the figure. It helps that the foreground and background values shift, so that in some places the figure is lighter than the bg, and in other places darker. This creates depth and a sense of air around the figure.
_It’s also good that you’ve got light reflected into the shadows showing us the detail there.
The one criticism I have is regarding the transitions between light and shadow in the center and right side (our right) of the forehead, and the brushwork of the highlight on the right cheek. In those areas the directionality of the brushstrokes seems to sit on top of the image rather than integrate into it, which I find distracting. It’s not like you need to do that to make it more painterly, because you’ve already done that convincingly in all other areas of the image.
Anyway, good work! Hope these notes are of some help.
Hi Rex, First, thank you for your fine words of encouragement! I have enjoyed reading your posts and was hopeful you would share your insights. You are right about the “painting a day thing”, it is hard on several levels; time, motivation, and freshness of content. I have sometimes wondered if it may be a bad thing; namely, keeping me from spending more time on single works, while being obligated to show my daily painting,(even if it is not very good), and trying not to fall into the trap of painting what one knows over and over again, (as Sargent used to say of his contemporaries). However, I have made the committment for one year, and will honor it,(I am over half way through). I know the practice will help me learn to work with oils in a far better technique than if I did not persue this goal. The humility of letting everyone see my “duds” as well as the good has been equally good for me,(the honesty is really hard to except at first). It behoves me to really try to do a nice painting,(so folks won’t laugh), but not to let each painting define my whole work. Basically, just do it, let it be, and move on to the next.
To help profile this sitter a little more, this gal “Olivia” is smart, shy, and was a little nervous at being stared at while being painted, Therefore, having her look down and away helped hold the “natural modesty” of her demeanor as I tried to capture “her quiet way”.
Any “50’s style” in my portraits is directly due to the flattering way that era portrayed women, the influence shows up in my works from years of drawing in the style of, (Vargas, Petty, war posters, etc.).
I will definitely consider your idea of the “flashing eye”,”wisp of hair in the wind”, or to capture a “spontaneous laugh”. The “laugh” is a little harder to do from life, and would take some effort on the model’s part to hold a “laugh” for a period of time, (to allow me to register the facial continence in drawing and paint). I do see what you are saying, and immediately think of some great masters who did this wonderfully. You have lit the match!
Karl, thank you for the offer to allow me to place a work on your site, the richness of the commentors is beyond what I had imagined,(I was scared); in art school,(my experience, not necessarily everyone’s), many critiques were trite, shallow, cruel, and empty to any sort of constructive criticism, I have not had the priviledge of “skilled criticism”, which is really too bad. Seeing how much of a resource one has when others are allowed to comment freely and “intelligently”; lights get turned on, answers are found, and goals may be easier to reach. Now, I feel I have something interesting to write about for a post.
Hi David, I had to smile when you mentioned the brushstrokes sittng on top of the face,(like “the jig was up”, I had been caught); they are there for the very reason you mentioned; to make it look more painterly. I had this idea in my head when I was painting to be loose and free,(like Franz Hals), so when it looked “too smooth and worked”, I added some “strokes” to make it look “free and spontaneous”, which may have actually done the opposite, (someone even asked about the “scar” on her neck).
I have since learned a bit more about how to achieve that “quick look” in a less distracting way, yet retaining the freshness of the “touch”, which I consider so important. I appreciate your comments in regards to the balance of my painting, esp. placement of the image on the board, and the interest of the negative spaces. You may know, being able to place the image in the confines of one’s space is an art in itself, and one that takes a while to achieve; I even know some folks who will cut their work down to re-crop the image. This series of “heads” was done to focus all my attention to the subtleties of the head, and to learn to paint them loosely with the required detail in the right place,(some are very loose, even “sloppy”). The learning that came from “them” however, was profound. Cheers
Hi Jon,
I really wanted to get back and comment on your comment sooner, but today was spent chasing the light with a lot of gardening. The plants, not being able to attend to their own needs like people can, could not wait. Now, every muscle in my body is marvelously sore, and I have some time for a note.
First, I cannot think that the painting a day thing is bad. Sure, you’ll have some duds. Van Gogh had a lot of duds too. But the fluency developed is worth it. Many others have commented that duds are sometimes more educating than successes. Yes, one has to often go with what one knows, but a lot of great artists have done countless variations on simple themes and produced great work. Trying to always be totally inspired and original is grueling and moreover, a completely unrealistic expectation.
Thanks for filling me in on your sitter. Here’s an interesting thing: Every thing you say about her and the session comes through in the work, so you were completely successful in capturing the moment and the spirit. Now I want to take back what I said; see, if I knew her, I would say, “That’s how Olivia is!”
Portraiture has always been my cash cow. It’s a great way to make a living. You make lots of friends, and the money is good. One of the main reasons I’ve been able to work without a gallery for years is the portrait commissions. You get enough of ’em hanging in people’s homes and stay in touch with your customers, and the commissions just roll in. I’m sure you know how portraiture is a collaboration between the artist and the sitter, but not everyone understands that. The best portraits always come from the best models, and some people are naturals. The models can warm up. They get used to that disconcerting stare that artists have. They see how you portray them, and they have ideas of their own.When it gets to be a grind, you take a break, do some landscapes or some experimental work, or gardening… We all have our ways of refilling the well.
Regarding the fleeting moments, have you ever tried memory drawing? You know, you just take a glance and see if you can draw it without looking again? Yeah, you end up just making stuff up, but so what? If it looks good, it IS good.
Cheers,
Rex
Constraints, such as making a painting a day, can be valuable. But I think it is also important to keep the larger artistic goals in mind. These include, full expression of your statement, and selling the work. The latter may sound too commercial, but without selling, you can’t really be able to devote full time to being an artist either.
To me, this portrait is a good under-painting. I don’t see it as a finished work, or as an example of something that is going to make Jon rich or famous. It is a study, and a good one. But studies should be studies for something more substantial.
Hi Rex, I can appreciate the connection you have gained to the “Earth” through your landscape work. It is amazing how one may become attuned to subtle needs of plants and learn to read their foliage. It is much the same in painting from memory, which I have done many times.
Painting from memory may help us to become aware of the “minutia of details” that makes a subject look believable; namely, the subtle planes of the mouth, eyes, and nose. Portrait #143 on my blog “themeworks” is such a portrait.
Hi Karl, I respect your opinion very much, could you perhaps let me know of a portrait that you believe to be of the highest quality; a benchmark portrait,(I realise that it would be your opinion, and not necessarily what the whole world believes).
I say this because, as an artist, I have seen paintings so real that any sign of the artist is missing; therefore, the artist has left nothing for the viewer of “themselves” to be shared. Furthermore, by painting “Too realistically” the artist becomes lost in the sea of others who have done the same. My case in point, is being recognizable more important than painting a perfect likeness? I find my greatest struggle as an artist is not actually painting a good portrait, but in fact, painting a portrait that others will see as mine. Does this make any sense? Should I attempt to paint exactly what I see, or should I exxagerate what I personally want others to see in my work? It is a paradox of sorts.
Jan van Eyck’s painting of his wife is my favorite portrait.
Jon, I’m not telling you how to paint, of course. If you look at van Eyck’s painting (circa 1437), you would never call it realism. But I find it great.
This painting was likely made in two layers, an under painting and an over painting, in oil, in different sessions obviously. There would also likely have been an underdrawing. On various portraits, van Eyck did more or less work on the underdrawing.
I just wanted to tell you that I looked at this portrait and enjoyed it immediately, love the unhesitating brushwork, and the harmony of colour. I do agree with one of the other commenters though, and that is that it is hard to figure out anything about the personality of this model, she remains a mystery, but a beautiful mystery. I personally love your painting style, as I also do oil portraits from time to time, and find them the most fun of anything i paint…mostly because it’s a challenge to get the spirit of the model. Good luck with your painting Jon.
Karl, There is real intensity in that painting of Van Eyck’s. Those painters had exceptional skill in capturing facial continence, they seemed to make the sitter look very dignified, or any other way they saw fit. That one is definitely a masterpiece, those Dutch painters had a monopoly on “great” work. Cheers