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.