Unfortunately the modernists were cruel enough to cause that kind of tragedy. Even today they still seem to have bad feelings about painters who know how to paint realistically. Not rarely I find myself arguing with the so-called contemporary artists who label my Art as "classical" in a pejorative meaning. But now, for me at least, they are the old-fashioned ones. If you try to define contemporary art, perhaps you'll be in trouble, giving so many matches in that field. I don't like, nor dislike what the modernists do. It just happens that because their style can accept anything, a lot of non-talented ones keep on going. A realist painter is easier to judge, even by the artist himself.

But back in 1920, poor Godward, lived in a tough time.

Ant

I was struck by the story of W. A. Walker, American, living in that time when all the so called "real" art was being created in Europe. This story of an American making do with the gifts that he had seems to be in contrast to the well studied artists of Paris. Sometimes it's just about the story. The fact that he was a Southern Irishman "posing" might have something to do with my affection for his tale.

Shown below are:

Goin' Home I 12x6
Goin' Home II 19x13

William Aiken Walker
1838-1921


William Aiken Walker was born in Charleston, South Carolina in 1839 to an Irish Protestant father and a mother of South Carolina background. Walker would grow up southerner through and through. He completed his first painting at age twelve and continued painting until his death in 1921 at age eighty-three.

When his father died in 1842, Walker's mother took her family to Baltimore, where they remained until returning to Charleston in 1848. During this period, he began painting rural farm and plantation scenes of poor southern blacks and it was these works that he built his reputation. Something of a prodigy as an artist, Walker exhibited his first painting in 1850, and received his first one-man show at the South Carolina Institute Fair in 1850 and Courtenay

Here's a nice composition, I think. It offers a good bit of peripheral interest which is emphasized, or not, with just the right amount of light; a hierarchy or interest, if you will.

Alcide Theophile Roubadi 1850-1928, "Zizi et su Poupee," 35x26.

It's a very good work, although it gives me the imprerssion of being from a photo-reference, a B&W, of course, making it difficult for the artist to deal with some color temperatures.

Ant

Ant,

You have a much keener eye than I. I would say that the color, apart from the composition, is well within the window of believability.

There is a window, is there not? After all, reality changed for him every second, just as it does for us. Can anyone hope to achieve a perfect moment when that moment will not stand still? Even when It stands still in a photo, as artists we must be given some latitude of believability.

Through the grace of a serendipitous recommendation while I was on another mission, I had the opportunity to visit the Museum of Russian Art today, in Minneapolis, during an exhibition of realistic works. In turn, I very highly recommend a visit by anyone within three hours' drive of the Cities, or by anyone who will be in the vicinity in the next two months.

The image attached is a sad reproduction of a postcard, but I still think it's worth seeing here. I found the composition exquisite. This is "In the Palace of Culture Ballet Class," by Nadezhda K. Kornienko. 1956, 61-1/4 by 71-3/8 in.

In another composition, I might have thought that the young ballerina's gaze was focused into too small a part of the frame. But it is very easy to imagine an unseen "audience" here, much in the way that a perfect short story suggests events that occurred prior to its opening line and extending beyond its conclusion.

By exquisite I mean that I understand that everything in the painting is important, but I only care for and react to the subject ballerina. For the artist to shepherd that focus is, in my estimation, masterful.

That's a dandy, Steven.

More than a few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Hermitage museum in what was then called Leningrad, USSR. Hard to imagine that I could forget something like this, but it was long ago and I've lost billions of much needed brain cells since then.

Catherine II
by Virgilius Eriksen after 1762

Mike,
in my opinion the work is still a nice painting, but some parts resemble to a work from photo and since it was B&W at that time it seems to me he had to make up some colors. Maybe he had the real objects close, but the photo-reference dependence is clearly showing in the light-blue fabric of the little girl's dress. I also find the shadow of the face a bit too warm. Perhaps this digital reproduction is not making justice (?).

Ant

Ant, et al,

First of all I don't have much faith in this reproduction. Sometimes you can get good ones and sometimes not. This one seems dark and I don't have my good edit program available to make it better. I could lighten it up some, but as far as making color adjustments that would seem to be totally arbitrary.

But apart from that -- Let's say that you are right on the money with your analysis. It seems like a very long way to stretch your rubber band, but let's say that your assertions could be proved 100% right. My questions are these:

First of all, who should care? Apart from a couple of portrait forum jockeys like you and I who deal in this sort of minutia, who should care?

Which leads me to this question: Given your proven facts, do you think less of this painting, or more? Or, given that what is seen is within an acceptable range of plausibility, would these facts have no bearing on the quality at all?

Mike,
I hardly find a flawless painting, and never am quite satisfied with any of my own. Roubadi's work is a very good one. The small problem with the light-blue fabric that lies above her knees looks like a photo-reference issue the painter had. And it would only get worse if you lighten this reproduction, so I really believe it's there.
But yes, it is within a very acceptable range of plausibility, and what I think (even if shared with others) would in no way have any bearing on the quality, given that the observers can always have their own interpretation and in most cases they just go Wow! when they see a craftsmen work well done.
And by the way, I think I would never mention this to Roubadi if I lived at his time and could have had any contact with him. Simply because I think I could not have done any better.

Ant

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.

Below is a link to a thread which goes back to December of 2002. For some reason this thread is positioned in the Cafe. There is a lot of good information in this thread which is offered primarily by Peggy Baumgaertner but also with help from friends. It's certainly relevant to this discussion of composition:

Top ten ingredients in any painting

Ah, Mike, this thread was just what I needed. Peggy's 3 value massing was a good reminder to reevaluate the painting I am currently working on.

Thanks for bringing it out of the archives!

Enzie,

I haven't forgotten our dinner and walk on your California beach, and what a gracious host you were. Surrounded by beauty and talent such as yourself, Peggy B, Chris S., Linda B., Johanna Spinks and others, I was but a thorn in the company of roses.

Mike, you are funny! I enjoyed your company as well and hope you come back and visit soon.

This thread has been very interesting to read and I appreciate all your hard work. I am going through the archives looking for information how to deal with a person and a horse composition. It is half way done, but the value massing was a good reminder to go check and make sure everything is where it needs to be. Chris's input about horse and rider was pretty interesting, but I am looking for a circular composition. The horse tilts it's head down towards a girl. Any ideas where to look further?

Enzie,

You might want to post your painting in the WIP section.

Speaking of the equestrian, here's a few compositions. The first two by Janet Shearer and then: Iberian Dance by Lesley Humphrey.

Thanks Mike!

I love the white horse, beautiful! I can't use these images, but thanks for taking the time to look these up for me.

Advice to young artist (in part)
by Sir Frederick Leighton
at the Royal Academy Banquet 1893

In brief, I do not believe - to change the metaphor - that they who, in our time, have wedded their lives to art have clasped to their breasts a lovely but lifeless corpse. To the very young then, I would fain offer one or two matters for thought, if, perchance, they will hearken to one who has grown old in unwavering sympathy with their struggles and doubts. I would beg them to keep ever before their eyes the vital truth that sincerity is the well-spring of all lasting achievement, and that no good thing ever took root in untruth or self-deception. I would urge them to remember that if every excellent work is stamped with the personality of its author, no work can be enduring that is stamped with a borrowed stamp; and that, therefore, their first duty is to see that the thoughts, the emotions, the impressions they fix on he canvas are in very truth their own thoughts, their own emotions, their own spontaneous impressions, and not those of others: for work that does not spring from the heart has no roots, and will of certainty wither and perish. The other maxim also I would urge on them - that true genius knows no hurry, that patience is of its essence, and thoroughness its constant mark; and, lastly, I would ask them to believe that the gathered experience of past ages is a precious heritage and not an irksome load; and that nothing will fortify them better for the future, and free development, than the reverent and loving study of the past.

Lord Frederick Leighton:

Phoebe 22x24
Music Lesson 36x46 c.1877
The Painters Honeymoon 33x30
Self Portrait 30x25 1880

Very well written and great advise to pass on. Mike, where did you find this quote? Did it come from a book and if so would you share the title?

I find it curious though that when artists break the rules and create works that do not follow the "traditional way"of composition for example, it is met with an uproar of disapproval. Just the very fact that the work does not follow the old conventions, rattles the comfortable confines of the cocoon that the artist community has spun for itself.

Yet, if the same traditions are followed the work is viewed as a copy and the artist as one who lacks individuality .

In portraiture it seems that walking the thin line of being creative, having individualistic style, yet adhering to all the rules and regulations of what constitutes great portraiture seems even more of a challenge.

Enzie,

The book is called: "Famous quotes that Mike McCarty found while trolling the Art Renewal web site" -- Houghton Mifflin, third printing, TexMex edition.

The quote above is the last half of his full remarks which can be seen just under Leighton's biographical information here: www.artrenewal.org. Just click on one of his paintings on their home page.

*******

Of course Leighton above is not exactly preaching conformity.

These are difficult concepts to convey. To me, the so called "rules of composition," are more a subset of the laws of nature than of the laws of man. It's not just that some governing board has set out some set of arbitrary rules; they are inherent, and they run deep. They are inherent in the way that humans visually perceive.

I think that if you picked ten bright citizen laymen and set before them a series of paintings, drawings, etc., and ask them to pick out the most aesthetically pleasing, for the most part I believe their selections would coincide with what we artists would agree are the paintings that follow our "so called" rules. I do not, however, believe that the lay persons could well articulate the reasons for their choices. They might say -- It just looked good to me.

If you accept my hypothesis for a while longer you might ask -- how then do they know how to pick? I think they know because they are following what I would call the compositional laws of nature. It has to do with the way we humans see, how we perceive the world through our two eyes that are placed in the front of our heads. Shapes, edges, intensities of color and contrast, and especially the relationship to edges (this is what brings all the senses to bear -- the act of defining the edge) present themselves either in harmonious patterns, or, they do not. Over time artists have come to document some of these more obvious pattern flaws into sets of "rules," but we are just documenting what nature has already lain out, given our human perceptions.

But, alas, there are some practitioners that just don't get it even by half, and they lay down the most awful discords to nature. And, I think, when you don't get it, you don't even know that you don't get it, and so you press on.

I ask myself the question morning, noon and night -- Do I get it? What if I am successfully realizing my vision, but the vision I aspire to is crap? How would I know for sure? Where would I go to get my vision checked? Can a flawed vision be corrected, or is it like the size of your foot, or your height? I think this is one of the saddest things about pursuing art -- you can be perfectly successful in achieving your vision, it's just that the vision you've chosen is universally accepted as not good, and you can't understand why.

Of course it matters whether you are creating art simply for the joy of creation, or whether you seek acceptance outside the walls of your own place of worship.

Also, there is the real possibility that these views simply further the notion that I am more full of it than the upcoming Thanksgiving turkey, but I'm not completely sure, so I press on.

Enzie,

That thin line is ever present. I think it exists in every discipline, from Architecture to wind surfing. The very few that successfully cross the line are revered, most just get shot down.

I think Leighton's advice is good, you should just follow where your mind and heart lead you and be sincere. If we are constantly checking ourselves against some existing yardstick we'll just end up lopping off some body part. The sum of it is much to complicated to absorb, and I tend to over think matters. I think sincerity is as good a path as any.

Henry Thoreau said:

"There is no power to see in the eye itself, anymore than any other jelly ... We cannot see anything until we are possessed with the idea of it, take it into our heads, and then we can see hardly anything else."

Sir Frank Dicksee
The Mirror, 1896
37x46

Sorry Mike, I didn't mean to keep you waiting for a response so long. I had to get ready for the "home boutique"event and that same evening received out of town guest, who just left this morning.


I totally agree with your remarks about the lay person.
Since we were entertaining we visited the Getty on Monday. I was just amazed at the amount of people who crowded into the room to view Impressionistic paintings versus the amount of people who came to view the William Bougerau exhibit, when his work was on exhibit there.

When the Impressionist first started with their unconventional ways of painting, the traditionalist where the first to shun the new ideas, followed by many art critiques, who had to give there two cents of opinion of what constitutes good art. After much negative hype the tables have turned to such a degree that the Impressionist are better known to the layman then many of the traditional Salon painters.

This supports the argument that other artist are the one's who will be the least likely group to offer support when a fellow artist decides to break the rules and head for something unconventional. Time and exposure to new ideas shapes our opinion of what becomes acceptable in art.

I agree further with you that as an artist we have to follow what feels right to us. I am a traditionalist myself, but every ones in a while I will see something that breaks every rule I try to adhere to, with such great success that I even get impressed.

When the rule breakers have a solid understanding of drawing, color theory and composition, the resulting work can be refreshingly new. For lack of a better comparison, I would compare them to really good drivers who have turned stunt drivers. These people all have the solid background on how to drive, but by trying out new ideas and trial and error they make their vehicles do what they want them to. Of course what we, the casual observer don't see, are the way they have manipulated the engines, tires, chassis, etc. to impress us with their skills. By innovative ideas and by doing things that the majority of us would look at as impossible these few are able to command our attention and respect for what they do.

Artists need to gain solid foundations by learning to draw, understand color theory and composition, etc. Then when the necessary skills are obtained , we should encourage the development of new ideas and new ways of doing things, rather then go on the defensive and try to talk artists out of their new ideas. I admire those who are willing to risk and be true to their ideas. Those who can follow their heart with passion are those lucky ones, who will show us new ways of looking at the world.

This first painting is how William Blake looked at the world (or saw the world being looked at) in 1794, The Omnipotent.

The next painting by Lady Laura Alma-Tadema - Sunshine, could have been better, I think. What could have been a very nice scene is spoiled somewhat by the way the face has been diminished on the window side by what looks like the little girls hair. I think this could have been much better if she had left the line of the face cleaner with a higher contrast. The face is now too confused with the hair and other non essential elements.

What else am I to do, the World Series is rain delayed ...

This is by an Iranian painter Morteza Katouzian, the painting is titled "Red Alert". I am sorry, but I don't have a better scan.

Notice how the relative emptiness on one side adds to the feeling of inbalance, things being not right in the world of these figures. Composition wise, he chose not to make them the focal point on the canvas, yet the eye of the viewer keeps going back to the figures, because of the formal triangle composition, which unites the figures and give them higher visual impact.

This artist has the skill to render the human form, but he deliberatly chooses to give the figures an almost transparent feel. The color choices are deliberate, the figures being in soft values in comparison to the almost neon red clouds, add to the sense of danger for the threesome.

Here is a artist that in my opinion breaks many of the rules. Still he was able to create a work that is both sensitive to the plight of the individuals and yet jarring due to the setting he conveys. The artist made his statement and followed his heart!

I take a different view of the composition.

I feel that the artist broke no rules but used them in a different way. There is the strong triangle and he uses the rule of 3's, dividing his canvas into thirds. The strong reds juxtaposed to the human figures create an interest that plays back and forth.

Thank you Enzie for posting such a beautiful piece that illustrates just how well good composition can work.

I look at it this way -- there are story lines, themes, and messages; they can be poignant, disturbing, or wistful, but I don't think the Gods of composition get involved in such matters. I think there's is more the work of shapes and relationships. Also, I don't think they much get into the style business either. Even highly impressionistic work must deal with these same compositional issues. True, the edges may be less defined, but masses and their relationships to one another would still come in to play, especially when we step back and let some of those stylized components fall away.

And too, I hope anyone reading my remarks understands that they are always in the form of a question and up for challenge. If I really step in it I hope someone will come forward and set the record straight. Of course they'll be no fruit cake for Christmas, but you shouldn't consider that, yours is a solemn obligation to the horde and throng.

Even an argument can be well composed ...

Mike--

This post is tremendous...thanks for your generosity and industry in keeping it going for awhile.

I've been downloading the examples to my swipe file as fast as they come up. New treasures every day.

Best--TE

Thank you Tom.

I've learned a lot from the research, I think.

Horde and Throng also thank you (Twins, brother and sister from my fifth marriage. Good kids, love crowds).

Everyone should know by now to take much of what I say with a few grains of salt.

John, now I have to go reread about the rule of 3's! Thanks for pointing that out....

Mike, I have to join Tom in thanking you for the treasures you undig. There are several painting that are just awesome, which I had never seen as well.

I am curious if you wouldn't mind what you have learned from your research. Of course it will be taken with a grain of salt! :D

Mike, I have come back to look at that Dicksee painting at least ten times (and like Tom, finally swiped it). (And what a wonderful thread this is, thank you!)