Ben and Samantha
 

Here's my latest. Please let me know what you think of it.

The painting is 30x40".

Thanks!

Here's the first closeup.

And the second closeup.

Michele,

You show a lot of grit posting this fine painting in this section, you are to be commended. It will be most helpful to everyone to see a critique of this lovely painting.

My own nit pick would be as follows:

You may want to distinguish the boys left nostril a little more. I'm sure it is mostly lost in the light but maybe not quite this much.

The boys right ear could use a little more modeling and maybe a reduction in contrast within that form.

The love seat arm on our left at the top, I think this could benefit from a more gradual rounding of form as it falls away.

I find that the composition might have been more satisfying if you had omitted the cushion in front. Maybe there were considerations that are not obvious.

In my opinion, this is a very fine portrait. The childrens faces are wonderful. Congratulations!

Hi Michele,

I feel a bit awkward to comment on this quality of painting. But since you placed it here, my personal remarks.

You paint the eyelashes very solid. I would prefer to paint them as a series of accents, to break up the solidity.

There is a strong division between the white of the eyeball and the pink or the reddish accent of the corner of the eye (towards the nose). Maybe an accent of a subtle mixture of grey and pink would make this transition a little softer.

For some reason the boy's eyes look very blue to me, maybe a bit more greyish blue would make it even livelier (but it's hard to judge, not having seen the painting in real life.)

The background looks very warm to me, but I like it, it enhances the atmosphere.

I like the contrast between the rougher treatment of the seat and the more refined modelling of the faces. Maybe an even more extreme contrast in the handling of the paint would be possible and bring even more dynamics to your paintings.

Since you placed a book there, playing with the lighting and showing the effect of the light reflected by the white of the pages of the book would have been an option (a subtle lighting of the faces from below). Rembrandt used this effect more than once.

I like the painting very much. The composition of the two figures, the way the boy has his hand on his foot, the placing of the book, the way the girl looks up. (For some reason, I think of the option that the boy looks up with his eyes to where the light is coming from instead of looking in the book, (without changing the position of his face) but I don't know whether that would have been better, perhaps not.)

I hope I didn't sound too nit-picky, since I'm commenting on a very good painting.

Michele,

I am so impressed with the girl's mouth especially. The tiny glimpse of teeth is perfect. In the close-ups they look so soft. Beautiful. I cannot critique this, but I can tell you that the girl has an almost identical twin - my niece used to look exactly like this. She's now a 17-year-old terror.

Beautiful Michele
 

I certainly would not attempt to critique this. I remember your portait from a couple of years ago, and you're really accomplishing what you set out to. I love both faces, and the looser handling of the rest. It is so hard to come up with a believable pose between siblings, this looks fresh and real.

Jean

You are all too kind! Thanks for your suggestions of the changes in the small areas, but I think there's something very big that I'm missing.

Here's what I'm aiming for and I don't know how to get there:

Michele,

You could start with less attractive children to begin with. ;)

Hey that's what I was going to say!

But seriously folks, why don't you try it? When I look at your painting and the JSS painting for technical similarities, there are a lot, IMHO. And I know there are technique gurus on here so I won't even give it a whack. But, the hand you have on the boy's foot, the treatment of light and shadow on her face, these things, I think are awfully well done. From my monitor, there's no glaring difference between your handling of those subjects and his - it seems graspable from where you are now.

(Ooh, please don't anybody beat me for saying that! I do realise he is a god.)

Your scenery is casual and common, both the pose and the objects. The overstuffed armchair, the brass lamp in the background, the bare feet and the book - I could have those in my house. I don't have a Kazakstanian (or whatever) rug draped over a bench, though, like he does. JSS' children are formally dressed, in high contrast to each other and the background. Their facial expressions are serious, and their relationship to each other is in opposition (body positions), whereas your pose is natural and chummy.

If you took these kids, made them look dour and unfriendly, warmed your light source, threw in shinier, redder skin and wetter eyes, and created a scene of uncommon luxury, I think you'd be smack in the running.

Hi Michele,

I love the feel of this painting: cozy, snuggly, fresh. The composition adds to that impression, and I think that cushion edge helps to visually "nest" these children. You have captured a wonderful relationship. I like your paint handling, too.

Kim and Lisa are right about Sargent's subjects. They look as if one of them lit the parlour curtains on fire and each is only too ready to implicate the other. (But I like his painting, too.) Stylistically, his is a more "dramatic" painting than yours, both in terms of value massing and in color selection. (Is this what you were asking?) If these were my children, I'd rather see them snuggled together - I'd chose the portrayal of a close relationship over the "drama".

Hi Michele,

If you don't want to have digitally altered versions of your painting in this thread, feel free to remove this.

I tried to change certain things in your painting to show what might take you closer to Sargent. These are just suggestions, of course.

I darkened the whole image and made the white clothing of the girl lighter, so there is a sharper, more dramatic contrast.

I made the pants of the boy black, instead of blue. Both children have blue pants in the original version, but making the boys pants black makes a stronger division in
values.

I made the seat lighter on the right side, this gives an opportunity to get a very dynamic brush-work in the painting. And creates a more spatial impression, I think.

I made the pants of the girl of a deeper blue, and made it darker in some areas.

I created a 'line of light' in the edge of the white pages of the book.

In the background, with the Sargent as an example I made the red background even warmer and lighter.

I made the shadow-side of the children's faces warmer.

The grey clothing of the boy, I made it a little bit darker.

I darkened the foot of the boy a little bit, and lightened the hand of the boy a little bit.

I darkened certain pieces of the painting in the background, and lightened other pieces.

I darkened the left side of the seat a little bit.

Of course, this is easier than painting it ;)

I really like your painting as it is, but you asked for it ! :D

Peter

I really like your modifications, Peter. I think it brings more unity to the piece. Thanks!

Update
 

Michele,

I'm looking forward to the completion of this painting. I hope you don't get too "Sargentesque" though. I love the warmth of this one and got a good laugh out of Lisa's comments.

Jean

Hi Michele

I love your painting! - I think it's great as it stands.

Congrats - this will be a great one to attract commissions in my opinion. Maybe do a postcard and send out a mailing?


Linda

Michele,

You have done a beautiful job on this painting. I would have to work way too hard to try to find something I might add.

...

Timothy (Tim?),

You don't come around here often enough! I loved your painting of John Henry, and I was hoping you would be a more active participant here.

It will be fun to follow your budding career and to learn from an up-and-coming master.

Jeff

Thanks, Tim, for your input. I delivered the painting to the client (with a few small changes compared to what I first posted) over the weekend and she was delighted. However I am still most interested in the ideas you and Peter proposed regarding lighting, for my future works.

Sargent was indeed a master at lighting. I particularly like his few paintings which were lit by artificial sources.

In this painting I did of the two kids, the relative strengths of the two light sources made it a softer less dramatic painting than what I'd like to explore in the future. The kids were in a room near a very big window (the large, cool, and diffuse light source from the right). The lamp was much weaker in comparison (the smaller, warmer and more "specular" light source from behind them to the left). Changing the relative strengths of those light sources makes for some very interesting changes in mood.

Much as I love window light, I love drama in lighting even more. Eventually you'll all see a painting I'm working on that is lit only by the smallest, warmest light source possible: one candle.

I remember Marvin pointing out Eakins' comment that light is the big tool. It determines so much in the mood of a painting, the direction in which the viewer's eyes move through a piece, the sense of form, etc. Perhaps light is THE very biggest tool, the MOST important aspect in any painting.

Hi Michele,

I love your painting as is. Your work is softer then Sargent's (I prefer softer), and as was pointed out, the only real difference is "contrast".

If you wanted your painting to look more like Sargent's (I still prefer yours), deepen the shadows and brighten the lightest lights.

Dan

I'm glad you did not change it, the pose and subject matter agree with your treatment. That Sargent style drama is for another different painting you will make in future.

The guys gave you a nice demo though to answer your quesion.

Beautifully done Michele!

...
 

...

..
 

...

...
 

...

I used to think drama in lighting and tone was just about contrast (that's certainly a part of it) but now I think it's mostly about large masses of darks. (Think "chiaroscuro".)

I think for future paintings that would aim for this sort of drama, I would probably use a small intense source of light. A small window in an otherwise darkened space, like Rembrandt often used, or a single very small and concentrated artificial light source would do it.

Here's one of the reference photos I'll use for the candle painting I referred to earlier. (I would, of course, paint the actual candle flame, not show it all blown out as it is in this exposure. Also, the color is distorted in this shot, I'll be doing life color studies.)

Tim, you hit on something that I've been aiming for and haven't quite got yet and that is "solidity". There's something about the Sargents that give the pieces a feeling of solidity that I don't quite understand.

I think this is a subject that's worthy of its own thread. Tim, tell us what you mean by unifying light and dark. I can see the superioity of Sargent's light, but I can't tell you why it's superior. If I were bent on unifying my values, how would I do it?

Tim,

I made it sound simple to avoid writing a short book. Contrast and softness in relation not only to light and dark but as in the intensity of color.

If you "glance" at Michele's painting and and "glance" at Sargent's, that is what stands out.

Michele, I am sure, understands what I was referring too. The mastery shown in her works would indicate this.

Dan

Hi Michele,

Someone like Rembrandt used to hide the flame to be able to paint the other details with the full possibilities of tone and colour. When one paints the candlelight itself also, the other objects must be painted in a much lower key in values to be able to paint these objects and the little light-source convincingly. Like Gerard dou did.
And Godfried Schalcken.

This is a painting by Rembrandt where he hides the flame itself.

This is a painting by Dou, where the objects are painted close to the light-source, so they still receive enough light to be painted convincingly.

This is a painting by Godfried Schalcken.

I digitally changed certain things in your photograph (again, if you do not like this, feel free to remove this) with the Schalcken as an example. I copied and pasted the candlelight from the Schalcken. I made the image warmer and lowered the key in tone and values. So the candlelight is very light compared to the face of the girl.

I really like your photograph, I think I am going to do something as well in that direction.

Greetings,
Peter

Thanks for these, Peter. Great examples that will help me when I get a chance to finish this painting!

I just found this work Michele. It's very nice. You must realize that part of the appeal of the work is that it is solid. The cools of the group cluster very nicely amid the warms. You cannot do all that everyone suggests without loosing this solidity that is so appealing. Indeed you might want there to be less behind them, the lamp etc might want to be played down-only to enhance (or increase) the existing solidity. The world has plenty of busy fractured paintings already. Yours' looks pretty good to me.

I think this is a pretty sophisticated work. It has a rare quality; CHARM!

Michele, this is a beautiful painting and the children's faces are especially wonderful. I also love the little boy's hand and the way it gracefully cradles his foot, which is also charmingly delineated. The folds in the cloth and the textures are very well done and your use of soft and hard edges is masterful.

Two comments about the way in which your work differs from the Sargent painting you included.

First, at least on my monitor the colors in your painting seem disparate - the blues of Samantha and Ben's eyes and of their slacks have no echo in the rest of the painting so there appears, to me, to be a disconnect and it affects the cohesiveness of the work. Sargent uses a limited palette and employs similar colors and temperatures throughout, which make the painting seem more of a whole. The room in your painting is so warm in color and the children's clothes are so cool that they almost seem as though they're in different universes.

Second, Sargent's faces and figures are obviously posed; they're stiff and formal, which was the style then in classical painting. The immediacy and warmth of the expressions you've captured could never have been attained without some photo references, so you'd have to scrap them and go with long, rather artificial and contrived-looking poses, or photo references that mimicked them, to create the same drama and staginess that Sargent painted.

There is so much to admire in your painting that I would be thrilled with it as is, had I produced it.

Leslie