|
This is an interesting treatment, with the flags and their import in your father's history. (I immediately wished I'd started painting 20 years ago, so that I might have painted my father's portrait before he died 10 years ago.)
A couple of things struck me about the present layout. The white stripe in the flag to the left competes with the lighted side of the face; you've tried to push that stripe back by glazing over it and though that doesn't keep us from "seeing" that it's a white stripe, there may be other ways of handling it. Second, the horns of the crescent seem to emanate from the portrait subject's head, probably an unfortunate juxtaposition.
Though you may have trouble covering the red (looks like alizarin) on the right, one possible solution might be to reverse the flags, so that the dark of the Turkish flag is against the lighted side of the face, and the white stripe is against the shadow side of the figure. You'll be able to retain the "true" colours of the flags (a little alizarin showing through the white might actually be very effective), while setting up the kind of contrast in value that suggests depth. Another possible set-up is to have the flags hanging on poles (the "indoor" kind), though I admit I'm having a little trouble visualizing how to best handle that. You're a little constrained by space in this case. But this sort of arrangement could still include, while de-emphasizing, the crescent, star, and stripes.)
Speaking of values, right now the brightest, most "attract-ive" shape in the portrait is the collar of the shirt. That, more than the flags, is competing with the face for attention. I'd suggest toning down the collar, and bringing up the higher values on the face, looking especially for the exact location and shape of the highlights. Observe, too, the RELATIVE values of shapes in the same family; for example, the value of the light above the eye on the right (from the viewer's perspective) is probably not nearly as high as the highlight on the forehead, and the transition between that light and the shadow in the temple area wouldn't be nearly that abrupt. (Photographs will make that dark shadowy area look darker than it "should" be, and perhaps also wash out the light to look brighter than IT "should" be; working from photographs requires some learned disbelief in what you're seeing.)
I'll let Cynthia's reference sort out the painting of glasses (I would only mention that Burton Silverman happens to paint a subject's glasses in his video "Breaking the Rules" in Oil.) From a drawing perspective, I would suggest having a look at the glasses for a different reason: they're virtually horizontal, as is a line between the centers of the eyes -- yet the head is slightly inclined toward the left side of the painting. Cover up the eyes and note where the bottoms of the frames sit on the cheeks, respectively. They are quite notably higher, as is the eye itself, on the left side.
One last observation, on the nose. The light shape on the tip of the nose probably comes around too far to the right side (again, from the viewer's perspective), which tends to enlarge and turn toward us that part of the structure. Also, the arc of shadow above the wing of the nostril on the right side is a bit too dark -- it too severely separates contiguous areas of the nose.
Best
|