Backgrounds
 

At the suggestion of a forum member, I'm starting a thread on backgrounds.

I've often heard the comment, "I'm never sure what do do with the background," as though the background were a separate entity from the figure. I've seen lots of portraits in which the figure seems cut out and pasted on the ground, as though the background were a separate plane behind the figure.

The most important thing to keep in mind about backgrounds is that they are not actually separate from the figure. The background sets off the figure, and in this sense forms the "ground," but it is actually the air around the figure. It is three-dimensional space! It envelops the figure, surrounds it on all sides, and recedes from the picture plane to varying degrees.

Whether the background is plain or complex, the same principles hold true. The figure emerges from the ground. It is not in front of the ground.

The key to achieving the illusion of "emergence" is to understand the roundness of the head (or figure) and the colors of the light in relation to the shadow. The side of the face in direct light gives the feeling of solidity and opacity. As the form turns away from the direct light, it picks up the indirect light or ambient light in the atmosphere. This indirect light is slightly redder than direct light. Crossing over the line into the shadow areas, the complement of the indirect light will predominate. This is the color of the shadow. But some of the complement (or color of the indirect light) exists within the shadow because it is the color of the space or air around the figure. Conversely, there is a tiny bit of shadow color in the midtones or areas of indirect light.

If the shadow planes of the head are painted using some of the color of the background, the figure will appear to recede into space. It follows that a simple "background" can consist of a mixture of the shadow color and the color of the indirect light.

I've posted two Sargent paintings. The first is a Venice interior with two figures in it. The figures are integrated into the space because Sargent has used a limited palette with similar colors in the space and the shadow areas of the figures. Only the light areas stand out and establish the solidity of the form.

This is no different, really, than the way Sargent handled this very simple self-portrait. The shadow side of the face is painted in a color similar to the background, so he seems to emerge from the background and become a solid entity through the definition of the light side of his head and jacket.

Does anyone have anything to add? Please feel free to diagree--I'm not claiming to be the authority on backgrounds. Also it would be helpful to see more images.

Alexandra, you've explained this beautifully. Thank you for starting this thread! I know there is probably more to be said about this as far as technique and interpretation and I am looking forward to hearing others.

My question has always been what colors to use for the background in a more formal portrait. I know that one should have it planned from the beginning because the flesh is going to reflect those colors,and also oftentimes the clothing. I am both intriqued and amazed at the beauty of the dark backgrounds I see in the masters, both of old and contemporary and have no idea how one gets that deep rich tone, even like the Sargent self portrait that you posted here.

In addition to any other advice that gets discussed, I would really like to know the palette for those elegant backgrounds, and the method of applying those dark tones. Nothing I have ever done has ever come close.

Thanks in advance.
Dianne

Dianne, those deep, rich colors have fascinated me, also! Every artist has a different way of mixing colors and achieving certain effects. One very important point to remember is that dead color, i.e. straight black out of the tube, straight brown, etc., will not produce rich, shadowy color as well as warm color with some cool in it, or cool color with some warm in it.

To get an idea how I do it, here are two links to posts on greys and blacks:

http://forum.portraitartist.com/showthread.php?t=5572

http://forum.portraitartist.com/showthread.php?t=5156

I never liked painting backgrounds as an abstract colour, because it places the subject in nowhere land. I seldom do it, instead I prefer to place even just a piece of cloth behind the model, so that there is a cast shadow that actually makes the painted person feel more real.

In choosing how to paint a background, not only the light should be taken in account, but also the colours and tone of the face and body.
If there is a strong lateral lighting, for example, a light against dark/ dark against light can be very pleasant to the eye. (background lighter then the shadowed part of the face, darker then the lit one).
Also the use of complementary can enhance the colour of the subject: shadows can feel warmer if propped against a cool background and viceversa.
A tonal or chromatic jump can make the subject pop forward without loosing connection with the background. The chromatic vibration between two colours pitched at the same chroma and tone is very beautiful!

I think solid colour backgrounds have great risk of cutout effect. Plain black for me doesn't do as much as a grey would for your painting.

A background needs to be alive to the edge of the canvas, even with subtle differences, and each bit of it must be important and thought about. Dismissing the background, thinking that whatever colour will do, is a typical beginner's mistake.

Dianne, the answer to your question : you apply it in the same way you apply paint in the figure. There is often, in paintings, a unity of measure, like for example the size of your brushes, or the size of a particular area of flat colour.
This unity of measure should come up again and again around the painting (see Cezanne's brushwork). So if you work- as you should- with brushes as big as possible, you can use the same big brushes to lay the background like a patchwork, comparing each area to the next one.
Easier said then done
Ilaria

Ilaria, thanks for your input. I never thought about the size of brushstroke of the background as relating to the size of brushstroke used for the subject. I will take that into deeper consideration as I work.

Alexandra, those links were very informative. There was a comment that someone made about oiling in the background and it sparked another question that I had. For a while I was using burnt umber as a mix to make my darks until it was brought to my attention that the umber pigments do not retain the gloss as others do. Therefore I was noticing dull spots in my paintings. I have since stopped using umbers in my backgrounds, and actually don't use them at all anymore.

Even though many of the portrait painting backgrounds that I see read black especially on the computer I know they are darks mixed with other colors. I have mixed prussian blue with alizarian crimson, Ultramarine blue with black, ultramarine with alizarin crimson and viridian, and other such combinations and I am still unhappy with what I have.

Ilaria, I think I am leaning more towards how you feel about backgrounds, that something needs to be back there to keep the figure from looking like it is coming out of a void. I have been much more observant about what others do and of course find that there are no rules really as each painting is a unique expression of art. I just hope to acquire the skills to know what will work with what I am doing. I am definately learning that the background is just as important as the foreground.

I have an open studio at my place once a month. I am beginning to realize that I need to invest in some furniture and backdrops for these sessions so that I can incorporate a decent background into my paintings with the proper fall of light and form in relation to the model. What do you think?

Dianne

Dianne, you got the point.
Maybe the best approach is to carefully consider each portrait. At the moment I am painting two young girls, for example. They were brightly coloured clothes and are both very pale with dark eyes. I could really go for a plain neutral background (my linen tablecloth...)
From this you can also understand how important the setting is and how it will affect your work, so, no working from casual photos!

Well done for the open studio initiative, at my school we usually set up with screens, cloths and have interesting chair for the model to sit.
Ilaria

A couple of things I know and generally try to use in painting backgrounds is something I heard from Daniel Greene, and read from Robert Henri . . .

Greene taught that it isn't likely that the model will affect the background, but it is highly likely that the bckground will affect the model. In other words, you'll very likely find background colors on, and mixed into your model's flesh and clothing, where applicable.

Robert Henri (I'm paraphrasing) said that you must keep your eyes on the model while painting the background, otherwise your background becomes a separate painting.

I think both comments are valid and useful.

Actually I have to say I believe the figure does have an effect on the background. It has a definite mass and, if you succeed in capturing the sense of movement, the effect of this mass is emphasized. The mass of the figure agitates the air around it. It might seem purely scientific but I think there are ways that the artist reacts emotionally to this and captures it in paint.

One way is to paint the edges of the light side as broken and, in some cases, extending into the background. I think the painting of light auras, which we covered in another thread ("optical red") is part of this. The light from the figure--and energy, too-- radiates into the air.

Another way has to do with our perception of color. The direct light falling on the figure is usually the most dominant light in the composition. The color and temperature of this light determines the color of the ambient light and therefore the color of the shadow. Ambient light and shadow can be found in backgrounds. It's all a matter of perception, and the scientific factor and subjective factor are interconnected.
\
These things, plus the fact that background color can and should be found in shadow areas of the figure, add up to a very lively interplay between figure and background. I believe that this interplay creates the feeling of "air" or "space." This should hold true whether the background is abstract or specific (as in Ilaria's description).

Here are two examples. The first is a portrait head (detail) by Sargent. There's a really nice example of a red aura on the lit side of her head, and the shadow color in her face is similar to the color of the ground. The second painting is a still life (detail) by David Leffel. That leaf on the right-hand side just shoots off into space, and the light on the left side of the jug radiates into the air. On the shadow side, the jug and leaves pick up the color of the background. To me, these are two examples of how the artist paints air, and how the figure and ground are mutually influential.

This quote by John de la Vega seems to fit in well here:

The first job of a background is to stay back. The second is to be exciting (not too exciting), to indicate or suggest a space, a place as evocative and

Sharon,

Hmmm...when I saw the Klimts you posted before I thought the faces are most definitely the focal points. So in a sense you could say the backgrounds "stay back," though they don't really, because they give the illusion of space since they are abstract mosaics of shapes and colors. This last one is different because the head and the flowers are pretty much equally dominant. This gives rise to two thoughts:

1) It seems there are many ways to make the background stay back. Even if the picture plane is really shallow, and even if we are not creating an illusion of space.

2)I wonder whether the shift in balance between figure and ground is partly what distinguishes a portrait from a figurative painting. Personally I don't think there is a clear distinction between the two.

I would say that Sharon's "figure with flowers" contains two foreground objects and that the flowers aren't background at all.

Would this self portrait by William Orpen be without background :?

The wall and frame, seen around the "motif", is in front of the portrait for which reason I assume that it would not be "background" then, while the motif is the painter in his studio seen as the reflection in the mirror.

He also did more traditional portraits with real backgrounds ;)

The abstract shapes and lights/darks in that Orpen work (the first) is really exciting. Thanks for sharing it

I guess I would call the mirror frame, wall and letters a sort of composite frame. If background equals atmosphere surrounding the subject, then the aforesaid area could also be called "background", but I don't feel it serves that purpose.

When I look at William Orpen's self-portrait, my eye goes directly to the face. So I would say that the background successfully "goes back." Analyzing it further, Julie's frame idea makes sense. I do think the outer borders frame the portrait and lead the viewer into the center, like going through a door. The dark window blinds (or whatever they are) around his head read as background, making his head come forward.

Sharon,
I believe that the 'flatness' is still influencing the majority of western art and I feel that it is desirable to explore the possibility's of it.

Since the surface of a painting is flat I find that one should deal with the two dimensions even when we paint a highly 3 D illusion like a portrait. That would help us to arrange the proportions in a harmoniously way.

Could it be that Asians, like Chinese and Japanese, 'think flat' because their letters are written/painted in two dimensions. Their letters are literally simplified pictures. That would explain why they are so good at it. Just a thought.

I really appreciate that Alex has taken the time to start a thread on backgrounds. Being good at ones craft takes a lot of time and dedication as most would agree. What is the subject her backgrounds and how to or backgrounds and the philosophical view?

The backgrounds in the east and the backgrounds in the west. I guess it depends on the individual what one prefers. Again it all depends how one wishes to compose the background and subject. Whether to give one or the other dominance or equal value. Sharon posted some beautiful works of art and so did Allan. In Sharon's last post there is a definite distinction between subject and background. Whether the background stays back or it is composed around the subject that is totally the artists choice of like or dislike. Where light comes from within a work of art is the choice of the artist whether he/she be from the East, West, North or South.

Allan, would you please tel me where you found these beautiful works by W. Orpen?

Mischa,
I have a book about Sargent, The Later Portraits, in which there is a black and white photo of a portrait by Orpen. The sitter is Sybil Sassoon, she was painted by both Orpen and Sargent the year she married Lord Rocksavage.

I did not know Orpen before so I searched the Internet for William Orpen in the Picture section and found one here and another there, I can't remember the addresses. Good luck.

Ps. I never found the portrait of Sybil Sassoon in color

And I do too. I will delete my posts that seem to conflict with Alex's original direction.

Backgrounds
 

I am posting some choices one thinks about when considering background. Naturally, many more possibilities can be considered but these are the simplest choices in this case. When considering other more complicated backgrounds one should first the mood, the balance or the relationship of the elements in the background to the subject. There can be and often are many elements within a painting and most often but not a rule one element dominates.

Allan posted a masterful work and example of different elements in a background. Here one must consider what the dominating subject is and I am sure there could be a debate in establishing this point. Still, debate should not be the point rather a understanding and ideas on how it all works. Let us say the figure of the artist is the subject and not the mirror or the letters etc. etc. Here we see the artists careful consideration and the flow of light upon self. The hand in front seems to be the lightest part and respectfully the front of the overcoat. Now, when considering the head or the face we can see that it is in shadow and it could work fine with the light of the window. When we look at the hat it seems it would be to dark against the light of the window and it probably would dominate. Let us say it is the light of the window behind and not the dark of the shade, the hat the value of the hat would change at least the edge would have a halo then.

We could go on and on for this painting has so much to offer and teach us. So, when learning about backgrounds and what makes them work its best to start simple. One can start simple in black, white and gray or in combinations of simple colors. A understanding of how color relates is important and by experimentation this can be better appreciated.

Sharon has posted some excellent examples of subject to background relationships. There are many good points one can absorb when Eastern art is considered the technique, the use of color and color relationship. Many lifetimes of observation and study is at our fingertips here. How and what one wishes to accept and incorporate is the choice of the individual. Sharon has found her nitch and incorporates and balances these ideas from the East quite well. kudos Sharon.

For the benefit of us who are new to this field of backgrounds, I would appreciate a balanced meal. When considering composition as it is introduced in the relationship to background again one should start simple and it does take years of experimentation before one fully understands the balance between all elements within one painting.

If you are lassie and you would like a quick fix, to solve a problem, then find a painting that is close to what you have and see how you could use the ideas.

Alan,

That is a stunning Orpen, a visual challenge and a color delight.

I have a book about Orpen - I am a big fan of his. If nobody else comes up with anything here, I will take photos of the pictures in the book and post them (maybe on a new thread?) in the next couple of days.

Fund a excellent web page featuring many artists in the US and Europe http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

type William Orpen in the search bar.

My intent was to get everyone to contribute their ideas on backgrounds--NOT to preach. As I said in the first post, I'm not trying to be the authority on backgrounds, or anything else for that matter. So, Sharon, please do not delete anything. I find it all fascinating and thought-provoking.

Two other by Orpen.
One with a light background and one dark.
I think that the choice of background is based on the needs of the painting, the background is there to emphasize the person.
If he had chosen the dark background behind the black suit it would have been a very dark painting.
For the same reason i think that Orpen left the lower painting in the vignette state and left some of the white canvas. That way he have the dark background to emphasize the head and the light canvas to secure that the general impression of the whole painting is not too dark.

Backgrounds
 

Allan, i hope you found the Orpen page ok and it is to your liking. Her is, I believe, a excellent example of background and subject unity.

Mischa,
I found it now, there are many wonderful paintings in a fine quality. Here is the the site: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ca...:William_Orpen

Who is the artist of your woman portrait ? It looks a bit like Sanden's technique.

I have a number of portraits by this artist but for the life of me I cannot tell, by the signature, who it is. I think it is a living artist though and I do not think it is Sanden.

The style and signature look like Jamie McMahan. www.jamiemcmahan.com

Yes, in fact, it is on his "Individuals" page. (Sure is nice work)