Here are some interesting compositions of past U. S. Presidents.

The first composition I'll admit is less than remarkable, but the story is worth telling. This portrait of Lyndon Johnson by Peter Hurd was meant to be Johnson's official White House likeness. But that plan was quickly scrapped after Johnson declared it "the ugliest thing I ever saw." Soon the pun was making the rounds in Washington that "artists should be seen around the White House--but not Hurd." How would you like to have that pun hanging around your neck?

When Hungarian-born English artist Philip de L

Hovsep Pushman 1877 - 1966
 

I've seen this man's paintings somewhere, but I can't remember where. What I can remember is that they were mesmerizing. What I remember most of all was the surface texture and how it glowed from within. In a past life my master bedroom was designed in all things oriental. If I were to win the lottery I would populate my bedroom walls with Mr. Pushman's paintings, particularly his still lifes. I might even take them down the hall to other rooms.

Hovsep Pushman, later a naturalized American citizen, was born in Armenia in 1877. At age 11, he held a scholarship at the Constantinople Academy of Art. By 17, he had gone to the United States and started teaching art in Chicago. He studied the culture of China, immersing himself in oriental art and perhaps philosophy. He then studied in Paris under Lefebvre, Robert-Fleury and Dechenaud. He exhibited his work at the Salon des Artistes Francais in Paris, winning a bronze medal in 1914 and a silver medal in 1921. He also was awarded the California Art Club

I think that if someone were contemplating being a portrait artist, that someone could do worse than begin by painting still life's. There is much similarity in the meticulous set up of a still life that informs the portrait artist.

Here are a couple of the still life's for which Hovsep Pushman is better known. Both oil on panel.

1- Austere Solitude 29x26
2- Serenade to a dream 28x23

Right you are, Mike.

I can feel the depth and each object seems to occupy its space. Indeed these paintings illustrate all of the elements that a portrait artist tries to achieve.

John,

To me composition is made up of two main ingredients: the shapes of those things which are being portrayed, with their relationship to each other, and the light which falls upon them.

When these things are well considered some of the other very important aspects begin to fall into place, like values, edges and focus, which can all be a byproduct of good arrangement and good light.

These things are exemplified in the figures, and especially the still lifes above. Each of the figurines and objects is lit and shadowed in their own right. There is little difference in this set up and the set up for a portrait of a live person.

These exercises in "real space," I think are the backbone of a successful portrait. To often we try to piece things together after the fact, create the design as we go. When we proceed in this manner much of the essence of space, light, shadow and atmosphere are not carried forward, mostly because it was never there to begin with.

I would be very surprised if Mr. Pushman painted from anything less than the full set up that we see above, laid out with perfect lighting and all the atmosphere (real space) that now comes through. No matter how you proceed to paint, no matter your method, the set up that preceeds it is the same.

My Past Dreams 21x16 oil on panel

Mike,

I agree whole heartedly although, if asked, I would explain composition differently. I agree with your perspective but I would say that composition is like a road map, it directs your eye around the canvas in a pleasing and almost subliminal manner.

The absence of the other aspects that you point out can hinder the composition by throwing up stop signs and detours, spoiling the journey.

In my simple opinion there are other 2 dimensional art forms that can ignore these aspects by substituting other points of interest such as exagerations, distortions or just imagination and still incorporate good composition. And this, I believe, helps to prove the point of portrait art and still lifes' similarities.

Below is a painting by Jerry Weiss, 40x30 "Man with a cane" o/c, a current SOG member.

Ever since I first laid eyes on this painting a few years ago I have been coming back to it over and over.

I should state up front I am not trying to correct anything here, I think it is great just as the artist created it, I'm just trying to get to the reasons why the composition affects me the way that it does. If I can understand it more fully maybe I can unlock some door.

This design creates some kind of tension in my mind. Maybe tension is not the best word, maybe a sense of wonderment would be better. But, I can't successfully articulate to myself the reasons why. Maybe it is because I am unable to instantly resolve all the facts that I continue to be fascinated. Maybe this is part of the key to it's success in my mind, the ability to withhold some parts of the formula such that my mind wants to continue to solve the mystery.

As I study it I ask myself -- is it the close relationships to the edge of the canvas? I then try and imagine the painting with more space on all sides and all issues at the bottom fully resolved. As I contemplate that imagined image I think that it would change things somewhat (probably significantly). But I still don't think that it resolves all my questions.

Maybe it's the seemingly precarious nature of his seating.

Maybe it's because he keeps staring at me.

I then begin to settle on the pose that the man has struck. At first it seems awkward, but maybe not for him. He may feel completely at ease. Maybe it's that I would feel awkward if I were in this pose. I just don't know. Maybe it's the way that arm jets out and is propped up by the cane. Very graphic, and undoubtedly adds much to the vision. But I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure it's not the astonishing use of color. It may be in the contrasts, or with his choice of a minimal background.

Maybe it's magic, for me, is that I just can't figure it all out. The fact that I can't completely come to grips with the reasons for why I like it keeps me looking on. I wonder how I would relate to this painting if I were'nt "in the business," so preoccupied with details. I wonder if I would enjoy it more or less.

I can, however, figure this out -- It's not the execution, it's the design that creates my wonderment. It's the decisions that were made before any paint was laid to canvas that cinched it's fate.

Ain't that the truth. Course, it doesn't hurt that the subject is a very compelling-looking man to start with!

It does seem that the paintings we love or the ones we're less than thrilled with (our own work or that of others) were destined to go that way right from the start. Once an artist reaches a certain level of competence with the brush, it's all about what the artist decided to paint, not so much as how the paint is applied, I think.

Mike,

I am compelled by your posted painting to respond. I, too, think a lot of thought went into the design of this piece before any paint touched a canvas.

For me it is a strong and succesful marriage of design and emotion. The first thing that strikes me is the design made up of many triangles laid out throughout the painting to create a beautiful design. Then adding to that the pose of the individual. He comes across as such a strong personality that he captures my attention.

The subject's stare causes my eye to keep coming back to the face thereby sending me on a subliminal journey around the painting. His face, to me, is an important part of the composition. It acts as the catalyst.

I feel that the pose is contrived a bit, especially the stool or chair. It appears to be at a wrong angle.But I respect this manipulation because for me it reinforces the design. And the deliberate lack of detail of the stool helps my eye flow better.

Thank you for posting this. It is inspiring.

And since this piece was painted by another and a current SOG member, my apologies to you, Jerry, if I misunderstand your intentions. But I can't help but think if you were to read this you might laugh at my completely uneducated reaction.

When I first began reading the forum I read a statement by Karin Wells which went something like -- Anymore, it's much more important what I paint than how I paint.

I thought at the time -- what a curious statement to make. Some things get stuck to my brain and won't dissolve away, this was one of those things.

As I have tripped merrily along in my education I have come to appreciate the meaning of this more and more. My conclusion is that it is all about the design choices up front (be as I say, not as I am). Painting is crafty stuff and can be caught up.

I would concede that at some rarefied elevations, after such matters of design have been overcome, the application of paint could become an art form. But if it were acquired from a menu, in a sequence, it would come somewhere around the dessert cart for me.