My first post, "Rome Beauties", 72 x 42 oil

[Steven Sweeney]

You mentioned that you "usually hear about the neck," by which I'll assume that what you hear is that it seems long. I admit that it seems so to me as well, but I think it actually has to do with head size, as Daniel suggested. As I look back and forth between the painting and the black and white photograph, I get the impression that if the woman in the painting were to turn her head to face us directly, the head would be hardly wider than the neck. Yet in the photograph of the actual model, it's clearly wider.

Now that may be precisely the effect you intended, and I do not find it disturbing, only -- to apparently echo others' comments -- notable. It does lend an interesting -- and yes, "Sargent-y", look to the piece.

Just out of curiosity, I compared the head height to body length in the painting and in the photograph. The model herself appears to be no more than about 8 head heights tall, perhaps a bit less, but close to what is classically described as typical. (I'm not concerned here about "typical," though; I'm comparing the relative dimensions of the photo and the painting.) The woman in the painting is, in contrast, about 9-1/2, almost 10 head heights tall. It is, I think, that difference, using head size as the unit of measure, that has led you to "hear about the neck".

On the subject of length, the index finger on the model's right hand, resting on top of the belt, appears to be about an inch (or one joint) longer than the other fingers. I doubt that you painted it that way, so I suspect that I'm actually seeing a shadow shape, which might have been a touch lighter near the end of the finger, to better define the finger's length.

Extremely picky, I know, but you're obviously an extremely accomplished artist who undoubtedly values attention to detail (as is apparent from the beautiful works displayed on your website.)

Even with the limited palette, the color in the painting is very beautiful, rich and satisfying. The structure and marbling of the background are both interesting and compositionally effective. I wouldn't have objected if the lower part of the dress were lower in tone, though it is nonetheless a delicate and attractive part of the painting. I have to mention that as I thought about that, I held my hand up to cover the bright bottom half of the dress, and I not only liked the effect that it had of refocusing attention to the face -- it also had the effect of making the head not seem so small!!! Maybe those long long legs are the culprits.

Best continued success.

Steven

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Thanks for the nice reply. I have heard of another guy that people still talk about doing that elongation thing. Mrs. Henry White and the above mentioned portrait are a couple that come to mind. I think Boldini WAS one guilty as charged. I do not think Sargent was. I really think people vary in size and shape and it is capturing these variations that constitute a "likeness". I have never felt a "head" was all that accurate of a form of measure. If we artists start measuring heads, which would be an odd hobby, we would find that human heads (even grown-ups) vary widely.

This work above usually draws remarks about the neck which is why I posted the photo. I really like talking to pros and only mean this as a running conversation...not anything else. I draw people and still lifes and apple baskets all the same way...straight across from the model. I'll look forward to more, thanks again, Tim

[Timothy C. Tyler]

That finger does look bad. I hope it is the photo too...thanks by the way for the last post, I was typing while you were and we were both talking about measuring and heads - kinda erie huh?

[Steven Sweeney]

<I have never felt a "head" was all that accurate of a form of measure. If we artists start measuring heads . . . >

Yes, I agree, Tim. Distilled to its essence, my own realistic representational training has involved studying nature and then looking at my drawing or painting and seeing how it differs from what I saw in nature (whether portrait, still-life, or landscape), and then trying to minimize or eliminate that difference. If we begin to rely too heavily on formulas, we start drawing and painting what we (think we) know instead of what we see. You beneficially provided the B/W photograph, which I accepted as "nature", and I detected a difference between that and the painting. I meant only to employ the head-height measure to examine the *relative*, not absolute, anatomical proportions.

Some formulaic approaches can be useful, nonetheless, especially in the early stages of the work. Daniel Greene is rather famous for his "presumptions" about the relative positions of facial features, which permit him to get stuck right into a drawing without delay, but if from his close, concomitant observations he can see that the actual model in front of him has features that defy those presumptions -- a high forehead, close-set eyes, whatever -- then to that extent the formula, useful though it was, is overridden.

Steven

[Timothy C. Tyler]

You said it better than I did. This group is full of people who write, right well, and can also communicate on canvas. It reminds me of when a great musician (classical, for this point) is being interviewed...you know, they really know, what they're talking about.

[Catherine Ingleby]

Dear Tim,

After your generous advice on my posting I thought I'd add a few remarks of my own. I'd love to know if you work entirely from life or also from life size (or otherwise) photos. I also use the technique of sight size (if you can simplify painting why not do so). In fact I've just been to an exhibition here in Florence demonstrating all the tools, techniques and theories that the renaissance artists used to use, the Camera Lucida being one of many, but I diverse. What struck me immediately in the painting was the relation between the proportion of the hand and the face, either the model has large hands or, as seems more likely, the face is slightly too small, accounting for the too long neck. I ask if you used photos because they so often distort proportions, especially if the model is leaning slightly away from you.

Is there any way you could post a close up of the face?

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Here's a photo showing a device I thought I had invented only to find that artists have been using this for centuries. Can you see it in the photo?

Again as to size heads...here's my argument and defense of my humble drawing. The human head varies from male and female greatly in size. Just speaking within males for example head height might vary as much as 4" (from top to chin) This is not all related to statue (body height). We've all known "stocky" men with large heads that are 5'2". Some tall men have really short round heads and so on.

Now doing the math using 4" of variation, eight: heads could be off 32" as compared to overall height. I don't know if my point is very clear because it involves math. My defense is for others like Sargent who has been accused of doing the same thing--and I feel unjustly. There really should be no formula. A lot of artists have formulas for color and drawing and I think their work is weaker for it. As to the hands I will make fingers a little longer for the sake of expressiveness. We know Rodin did this on for effect too. This I do. There is photo of the subject with her neck on the post...the drawing looks a little off there too, but it makes her striking don't you think?