Winning Portrait

[Planopiper]

You can nit-pick about the details of how he's dressed, and I doubt he actually plays those pipes next to him, but it's a beautiful portrait. Very nicely done.

[ByDand]

It is indeed a very nice portrait, however, I do like Glassman's sporran on him a lot more. Way to go Glassman

[davedove]

You can nit-pick about the details of how he's dressed, and I doubt he actually plays those pipes next to him, but it's a beautiful portrait. Very nicely done.

I have to agree. You can nit-pick all you want, but he still looks nice.

Well, the sporran peaking through the jacket is kind of funny looking.

[GlassMan]

I think it is a very nice portrait as well.

But as an artist I have a few nitpicky problems with it and they all revolve around perspective.

I'm marking up the modified portrait, so don't think the badger is part of the original painting.

In the area marked A, the rocks which make up part of the hearth appear to be perfectly horizontal. The shadows are minimal and the straight line of the chanter sticking out of the bagpipes appears to barely lift off the hearth surface.

Now move to the left to area B, and there appears to be a slight drop off or angling of the hearth. The horizontal line on the show in profile pulls up higher from the stone than the minimal shadows of the stone itself would suggest is proper. The lack of shadows on the stone gives the appearance that it is nearly flat, but the sole of the shoe has an increasing distance between it and the stone, far more than the slight curve of the foot should create.

Now let's continue the journey leftward to area C. At this point, with the heel of the show resting flat on the stones of the hearth, the foot extends forward and casts a shadow the size of which one would expect when standing on the edge of a stair step. The stones don't display a similar set of shadows giving them the appearance of being vertical instead of being flat.

And now to area D, where the hearth is once again at right angles to the wall.

What's the problem? As a protrait painter, the artist probably painted things exactly as seen. However, what looks normal when viewed in person in 3 dimension can look odd when transferred to a 2 dimensional canvas. That's when it is important to pull back from reality and add visual clues that. Without that third dimension we lose subtle visual clues that just can't be captured on canvas and this creates the optical illusion of the changing perspective of the wall.

The problem is only heightened by a confusion of light sources. Take another look at area B. The shadow of the foot actually protrudes past the foot to the right by a small degree. If in one direction a shadow is longer than the object casting, then the light source is in the opposite direction. So here we are being given a subtle visual clue that the light source should be to the left. Now look at area C, the shadow goes straight down. That kind of shadow is cast either by a horizontal projection from a vertical object, or when the light source is directly above an object angling up from a horizontal plane - but area B is giving a slight hint of a light coming from the left and up in area E and higher the light source is obviously coming from the right! So that forces us to choose, between an impossible confusion of light sources or the assumption that the hearth deviates from true horizontal by wildly varying degrees.


How to fix it all? Add surface irregularities to the stones that allow for great potential for shadows on the surface. By heightening the surface irregularities the artist would provide opportunities for the smooth surfaces of the stones to have shadows that would mimic and size and angle of the shadows cast by the subject. This harmonization of shadows would then cause the viewer to definitively see the hearth as horizontal instead of being forced to override the visual perception with our pre-conceived knowledge of how a hearth is constructed. Of course, the artist also needed to stick to one light source. More than likely the artist was painting from a live model and the light source shifted with each sitting. Being an absolute realist, the artist simply painted exactly what was seen.

Boy, was I being nit-picky. But even with those incredibly minor problems, the portrait is smashingly good. The realism is amazing. The artist did an incredibly good job at capturing exactly what was seen. And after all, a portrait artist is paid to capture exactly what is seen.

[Sherry]

I don't think it's so nit-picky, Phillip. Those shadows bothered me a great deal, too. The artist should have adjusted for the look of the different planes--unless (s)he wanted to pull some Escher-like fun on the viewer. :grin:

[kiltimabar]

I think it is a very nice portrait as well.

But as an artist I have a few nitpicky problems with it and they all revolve around perspective....



The realism is amazing. The artist did an incredibly good job at capturing exactly what was seen. And after all, a portrait artist is paid to capture exactly what is seen.

Speaking as a non-artist:

I agree it is an amazingly realistic portrayal. But I always thought if you wanted a picture exacty as it was you'd be satisfied to get a photograph (and even they can be quite creative in adjusting reality) so if a portrait is done it is for the purpose of putting in those touches that would emphasize more subtle appearances and inner qualities.

To me it looks good. I never would have conciously noticed the perspective details you point out.

[NewKilt]

That's a beautiful portrait. Wrong type of jacket, but what I really admire is the color scheme. I can see why it won.

Darrell

[bikercelt1]

Wow! What an amazing evaluation Phillip! Those details just sailed past me. I could sense that there was something not quite right about the stonework at the bottom and now that you described it I can see it clearly. Thank you. I guess this is another example of the diverse skills of this community.

Jamie