It most certainly is, Mike.

I agree with the arrested action in general, but I'm thinking of a piece by Sargeant portraying a famous writer, who was in constant motion, pacing the floor. And that is the way he portrays him, and - it works.

I think a portrait should reflect the personality of the sitter. There are exceptions to almost every "rule".

For example, If a person smiles frequently in a broad toothy grin, and it is the most true reflection of their personality, then anything else may strike a false note to those that know them.

A commercial piece is always a balance between what the ones paying want and what the artist recommends.

I am of the opinion that one could paint a portrait a month for the rest of their life in nothing but the head and shoulder pose and still not complete all the possibilities.

One of my many mistakes as I began to focus on portraits was to try and paint the sweeping cinematic compositions like some of the masters above. I wish I had started from from the center and worked my way out, instead of the other way around. It seems that the more challenged the artist , the more they are apt to take on the impossible. It seems counter intuitive that it would be that way.

Here are a couple of head and shoulder paintings by Lord Frederick Leighton. These compositions, of the same girl it would seem, are anything but typical. And then the last by Wm. Bouguereau. What in the world can be said about this painting?

Bouguereau was clearly experimenting on Vermeer's GWAPE pose. Even Lord Leighton's black backgrounds reminds that painting (or at least he was trying some sensual, perhaps implicit, approach).
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.

Ant

Ant,

I think I can see your Vermeer point. Can there really be anything new under the sun?
From this that I wrote above, we seem to be in close agreement here:
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 ...

Saturday morning matinee
 

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.

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.

I just saw that Rembrandt of Nicholaes Ruts at the Frick in New York. After three days of museum hopping, that was the painting that stuck out in my mind. Nothing else came close.

I wonder if there is anything about Rembrandt that was not said before. One thing that amazes me is how his style - and, of course, the use of light and shadows - is connected to Caravaggio's since Rembrandt never left Holland (or did he?). The Italian was the first one to create such dramatic chiaroscuro effects and died when Rembrandt was only 4 years old or so. Some dutch painters started developing the Caravaggio approach in Rembrandt's era so maybe he captured it from his fellows.

Ant

I too wonder how this kind of information was disseminated back when. It leads me to believe that it is possible to come to proper conclusions while stewing along in one's own soup. I also wonder if these genius painters would have been better, or worse, had they had the benefit of so much information. In our age we have the benefit of almost ALL that has ever gone before us, and yet there is not a Rembrandt or a Beethoven on every corner.

It makes no sense that painters and musicians from hundreds of years ago would be so much better than anyone living today. They had so little to draw on and we have everything. I tend to conclude that it is a combination of three factors: a purely genius mind, combined with an appreciative and supportive social culture, and the absence of our distracting modern life. I think there are the genius minds living today, but the other two factors detract from the sum of the parts.

I doubt it Ant. It is Rembrandt that will continue to speak. People like me can only post his paintings in a convenient place.

And lest we begin to take ourselves too seriously, here is a drawing by Claude Monet: Petit Pantheon Theatral 1860. I think I can make out Leon Russell down at the bottom, Golda Meir, and possibly Richard Nixon, but the others escape me.

Terrific Thread!
 

Thank you for this thread, Mike and contributors... No amount of care and intelligent thought were wasted on the samples provided and comments made.
Grateful and inspired,
Jeanine Jackson

Jeanine,

Thank you for your kind remarks.

Just for you I offer this beautifully understated Edward Burne-Jones pencil drawing from 1896.

Now this hat fits me all right, yes it does. The variety of things that my mind interests in seem to always carry me away from my focal point. Astronomy (I have a 10" Newtonian and large admiration for the skies), racing sports, movies, and so on. I am not kidding when I say that sometimes I wish I was back in the 17th century, when the artist would spend the whole day painting, and great part of the night talking art with his fellows, and that was it.
But here I am, before this computer, reading you and watching all these great pictures. Then it also comes to my mind that an important part of my clients come from different places around the world, with long distance commissions via Internet. Would I, or my art, survive without the modern technology?

Regards,

Ant

Ant,

I can only offer this, the opening line of the Dickens "A tail of two cities," describing England and France in the year 1775:

IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

*****

And just when I was trying to battle out of my closely cropped period I happen upon this, from Jean-Leon Gerome, 0x15. This is enough to make a grown man cry. I am particularly drawn to these poses of children which show them at their less than chipper state. I have done more than a few of these myself.

Gerome
 

Pass the tissues, Mike! Wow!

Coming back to the original composition subject, could it be said that within a single-subject painting, we find primary compositonal elements that can and should be counted?
In the exquisite Burne-Jones drawing you so kindly posted for me, I saw the whole, and following the initial "Ahhhh" response, I saw a composition of two eyes and a muzzle (mouth and base of nose as one element) forming a gorgeous triangle.

Ant:
We are in the midst of a post-Ernesto power outtage in CT. It is a clear reminder of how dependent we have become on tech. I'm going to log off, conserve batteries and go paint!

Jeanine,

Thanks for taking the hurricane heat off us Floridians.

As I continue here, practicing without a license - I'm not sure that "counting" is the necessary exercise. In the E B-J pencil drawing, his

[quote]mechanisms to focus the viewer

Point where lines are crossed or getting close, triangles pointing and anything happening in the middle part of the composition, as opposed to the outer parts along the frame.

Ps. Thoughts about the "Golden Section".
If the compositional center of interest is placed in the center of the picture it tends to lock the focus to that point because there is no natural direction to go. The eyes have found the "true" center of interest and no need to go anywhere else!
The Golden Section is an unbalanced division that encourage the eyes to search around and in that way incorporate the whole painting in the center of interest.
The golden section is a center that is closer to the middle than to the frame.

Finally, the bus!

I dodged a couple of beer bottles, and took a peach right to the kisser, but all is well again in mudville tonight.


From The Sporting News of January 20, 1906

Casey at the Bat
by ERNEST LAWRENCE THAYER

The outlook wasn't brilliant for the Mudville nine that day;
The score stood four to two with but one inning more to play.
And then when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,
A sickly silence fell upon the patrons of the game.
A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought if only Casey could but get a whack at that --
We'd put up even money now with Casey at the bat.

But Flynn preceded Casey, as did also Jimmy Blake.
And the former was a lulu and the latter was a cake;
So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat.
For there seemed but little chance of Casey's getting to the bat.
But Flynn let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, tore the cover off the ball;
And when the dust had lifted, and the men saw what had occurred,
There was Johnnie safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third.

Then from 5,000 throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It knocked upon the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,
For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.

There was ease in Casey's manner as he stepped into his place,
There was pride in Casey's bearing and a smile on Casey's face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Casey at the bat.

Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt;
Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt.
Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,
Defiance gleamed in Casey's eye, a sneer curled Casey's lip.

And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,
And Casey stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped --
"That ain't my style," said Casey. "Strike one," the umpire said.

From the benches, bleak with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm waves on a worn and distant shore.
"Kill him! Kill the umpire!" shouted someone in the stands,
And it's likely they'd have killed him had not Casey raised his hand.

With a smile of Christian charity great Casey's visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;
He signaled to the pitcher and once more the spheroid flew;
But Casey still ignored it and the umpire said, "Strike two."

"Fraud!" cried the maddened thousands, and the echo answered fraud;
But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed.

They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Casey wouldn't let that ball go by again.

The sneer is gone from Casey's lip, his teeth are clinched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate.
And now the pitcher holds the ball and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey's blow.

Oh! somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville -- mighty Casey has struck out.

How do you describe or distinguish the style of Rembrandt,Vermeer, Sargent and Bouguereau?

I don't, I can look at those masters paintings forever and never finish experiencing new quality's.
It is not possible for me to frame them and say; that's how they are.
Of cause, if I had taken lectures I would have had some phrases to nail them to the art history, but I don't think that's good enough.

My point is that; if one really understand a thing one will be able to do it, and I don't paint like Rembrandt or Sargent :(

If I could ask the question a little differently:

Does style in any way alter the compositional choices that one might make?

I tend to think that style has little or no effect on composition, at least in the mainstream. When thinking about style the sand can get soft very quickly if you don't set some kind of boundaries. If you compared styles of the far left to those of the far right you might begin to infringe on some design choice, or alter some perceptions, I'm not sure. You can't be too absolute in your thinking.

As I ponder in my mind's eye the styles which we most contemplate here I don't see that style has much impact on design choices. We still have the same basket of can's, don'ts and should's to deal with, whether we are very realistic or highly impressionistic.

Since we view composition mainly with a blurred eye a lot of the "style" tends to get lost anyway, and what we are left with are pretty much the same shapes and masses.

Anyway, when a person that practices a particular style begins a project they would only be thinking and seeing, in terms of composition, with there own stylized eyes, and not thinking -- well if I painted in this style I would have made that choice, or if I painted like that I would do it like this. And so as we view the finished work we must accept the style that's offered and judge it as we will.

The more I think about it I don't know if my question offers any practical benefit in it's answer, or even if I've answered it necessarily. It's easy to stray when thinking about composition, it's hard to grab hold of something which offers so little absolute Truth, or absolutely False.

"When sitting for a painter you should absolutely never turn your back to him/her such that your back would be painted more than your front." This seems perfectly reasonable on it's face, and yet that would exclude one pretty nice painting back up the road a piece. We tend to lean toward things that offer a handy yes or no.

Here's a handy "yes" for me. I like this painting by Juaquin Sorolla y Bastida called: "Cabeza de Italiana" 23x16. The composition is fairly straightforward, but it's the style that keeps me hangin' on.

When I see Sorolla I also see Nicolai Fechin.

Here is an interesting compositional concept -- the triptych. This one is again by the Spaniard, Juaquin Sorolla y Bastida.

The size of the full painting was a little odd so I've tried to break it up into three to give a better look, but the three together: Tres cabezas de estudio, is the entire painting. He still reminds me of Fechin. I probably should say that Fechin reminds me of him.

And another interesting variation on the triptych by our friend Scott Bartner.

This not only shows where he ended up, but also the phases in his process.

I found these comments by a Mr. Damon Denys regarding composition. I don't know anything about Mr. Denys except that he fancies himself an artist and a writer on the subject. I thought some of his comments were interesting so I'll share this excerpt here:

Mr. Denys --

When judging a composition, however, one must keep in mind that the quality of a composition and the quality of the theme being presented are two different issues. It wouldn

Nice quote with some interesting ideas.

I wonder about this thought, though:
What about unintentional ie. subconscious selection? If an artist points his or her easel or camera at a group of trees he's selecting something. What he chooses to include or leave out, how closely he wants to focus on the trees or their surroundings, etc. The decision may all happen in the blink of an eye and he may not be aware of a "selective, intentional arrangement" but it's still "composing", I think.

Michele,

I would point out that wether conciously or subconciously, the choices we make are our choices, they help define who we are.

Mmmmm. It seems that I have condemned myself to all of my sins so let me rephrase, "The devil made me do it."

Thanks, Mike
 

Mike, this is one of the interesting, informative and enjoyable threads that I have read. Thank you for all the examples and thoughts that you have written as well as elicited from others. Earlier, I had asked for books or other sources of information about composition. Your writings and painting examples have been very helpful.

You are very welcome Ms. Carol Norton. Just jump in any time.

Michele, John:

[QUOTE]A random selection of elements, or even a specific selection of elements combined in a random manner does not qualify as a selective arrangement.

inclusion of inconsequential elements will inhibit or destroy the unity and hierarchy in the painting, which, as described above, can only harm the composition as a whole. An expert visual composer doesn

[QUOTE=Mike McCarty]This guy surely holds the record for number of paintings of whacked off heads. Oh well, since he

Very well put. As you may know, Monet and Renoir painted together often and there are two paintings (in different museums, unfortunately) that show how they approached painting "the same thing" on the verysame day. The subject matter was a group of people standing near the water. As you might guess, Monet's painting emphasized the water and Renoir's emphasized the people. Two totally different approaches to the same "content".

I know what you mean LInda, I had a squirrel that would "ride around" inside my shorts. I had to let it go, you know, with winter coming on. You have to anticipate with animals.

And speaking of perspective, I'm pretty sure this is another one of your favorite artists: Sir Henry Raeburn with Colonel Francis James Scott, 50x40. I guess we would call this the "heroic" perspective, looking up to the Colonel as we are here. This bestows more of a sense of stature befitting a man of rank and title.

And then there's The Reverend Robert Walker Skating, also by Raeburn. Far from a state of repose, and well representing the "arrested action" compositional faction, this painting is carried completely by the action. There is nothing else, it is completely sparse and minimal in all other aspects and yet it has just enough, a simple lyrical charm. It contains no inconsequential elements.

I am intrigued by Mr. Deny's use of the word "hierarchy." I take him to mean that through the use of our focusing tools: value, edges, contrast, etc., we establish a hierarchy of importance leading up to (usually) our subjects face and eyes. It's a good word slection, I think, akin to what we might call "focusing" the elements.

And then a couple more by Raeburn which display a hierarchy of elements.

Mike,
Here is another painting to add to the collection. It is the Calmady Children by Sir Thomas Lawrence. It is said to be the most copied painting in the world.

The composition of this painting is stunning. Lawrence uses an upward and inward diagonal to trap the views look on the face of the youngest girl. This is created in part by the use of flesh tone values starting with the highest value on the oldest girls shoulders shifting lower toward the little girl and also the gaze direction of the older girl toward the younger.

I have gotten permission from the Metropolitan Museum of Art to have a private viewing of this painting as it is usually not on display. I will be going to NY this winter and can"t wait to get my eyeballs on this magnificent piece of work.

Richard,

What a beautiful painting, thanks for that. I'm surprised that the Met would be so accommodating. I'll bet that a tour of all that is NOT displayed would be almost as gratifying.

Here are a few paintings by Edgar Degas. Now here's a fellow that understood a soft edge. This last painting is remarkable for so many reasons. When you consider all that he has accomplished in this composition it is staggering. From this single perspective he has successfully portrayed all the many characters of the evening. Even with greatly different lighting and the vast distances between the subjects he has managed to create more than just a suggestion of each, while drawing more attention to one. Not only is she in the highest key, but with the introduction of the woodwind(?) instrument against her dress (not exactly where he found it I'll bet) he creates the sharpest contrast.

Would you please improve this composition?
http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/databa...ge.asp?id=7755

It's a real study, isn't it SB? Valazques' The Spinners, 46x75.

I might replace the cat with a dog, but this is the sort of complexity that extends beyond my reach. As I look at it I don't see anything that looks discordant. It has some of the same types of eye leading techniques that we saw in some of his other less complex themes displayed above. It's obvious that he put a lot of thought into his compositions. It would not surprise me to learn that the design of this painting took much more time than the actual painting. The better the design, the faster the painting, I think. It also has some of the same compositional qualities as the Degas above in terms of distance and focus.

My own tastes lean more toward the simpler themes. I can find just as much to be fascinated by in a well done head and shoulder pose, but that's just me.

If you have a particular grievance with this composition just jump in SB. Good to see one of his where someone's head hasn't been whacked off.

Here are some paintings by Anders Zorn, Swedish 1860-1920.

This guy was pretty darn good, especially in the watercolor department. The two girls with a fan (lets see, that would make three) is a w/c 54x36 and pretty darn tasty.

And speaking of tasty, this next w/c is so rich I feel like I'm gaining weight just looking at it. It's like eating a banana split right after a big meal. I'd like to see it in person with a great frame, it might loose some of it's calories.

And then there's Gustav V, 201x123, just for the pure pomp of it, as he strikes his 19th century pose - Ahem. Striking, with all it's verticality.

I also like the compositions of the Englishman John William Godward.

This first one is interesting because of the lighting. The face has taken a back seat to the shoulder in the order of things. Normally you would think that maybe he just got bored with painting the same old lighting and thought he'd try something different, but I don't think he was the type to get bored by painting the same thing over and over again. He did so many paintings that were basically the same thing with maybe a ten percent tweak. Even the same model shows up time and again. I couldn't do that, I would get bored. If you take each individually I think they are all very good, but as a collection of work there sure is a lot of sameness there.

These to me are particularly lush. It's possible that the third one has been cropped, It's hard to know for sure, but there are indications. It's not really all that instructive if it is.

Mike,
I believe that all four paintings have been cropped. The reason that I am convinced of that is that this type of paintings are meant to idealize the antique living, note the dress and hairstyle.
Everything would be carefully arranged and proportions would be harmonious all over the composition and not like the snapshot cropping presented here.
My favorite is the third.

Allan,

In searching the web I can't find any other images that contradict the above. However, I do see some of the same images which are shown (cropped?) in the same way. I'm like you, I do suspect.

You can see a lot of similarity between Godward and Alma-Tadema (how does a man become a hyphenated person?). Unfortunately Godward committed suicide after being savaged by critics and reportedly left a note indicating something to the effect that the world was not big enough for him and a Picasso.

Here are a few more, again showing an awful lot of similarity in the compositions with only slight variations in pose and clothing. One actually looks to be reversed. It's said that little has been written about Godward, maybe these images have been manipulated by art dealers, postermakers and other web scoundrels because the poor man had no one to tend his work. I dunno.