My apologies for being so late to weigh in here ! (Negative spaces are one of my very favorite topics:0 ) I have little to add to the already excellent suggestions, just a few bits of information to share. Peggy Baumgaertner offers a guideline that there should be at least a "forehead's height" between the frame and the top of the hair. I think that's a useful thing to consider, although certainly the individual artist's choice has to trump everything else.
Visually, our eyes tend to "sink" objects into the bottom of the frame - that's the reason the matted work should add a little bit of width to the bottom edge of the mat, and if I recall from art history, one of the key considerations to the Acropolis design. The larger an object is, the greater the viewing distance becomes, which I think that magnifies the "sink factor". Balancing negative spaces includes things like the amount of room you give for example, below the fingers, to the left of the elbow, etc. Anytime pictorial elements get to close to the frame they start to gather unwanted attention.
It's also essential (and increasingly critical as the painting becomes smaller) to take into account the 3/8" frame rabbet that will cover the canvas borders once framed. I think most of us have had the experience of placing our lovely work work in a frame only to discover that the the head was chopped, or the arm created a tangent with the frame, or any number of things that destroy the composition.
Quote:
|
Whew, getting a good reference photo is a lot of work.
|
So true, and one of the chief reasons for failed paintings. It's worth every minute you invest into getting the best resource you can, even if you don't end up painting it!
And yes, the cat really does mean a double portrait, in that your reference for the cat has to be just as good as your reference for the subject.