mcleay's highlanders

**madmacs** · 7th July 11, 06:11 PM

I was just stuck today by how out of proportion the heads look on kenneth mcleay's highlanders... almost look like they were photoshoped on...

I know that there were problems with sittings etc, but it almost makes one wonder if they were the bodies that go with the heads...

**longhuntr74** · 7th July 11, 06:30 PM

I've always thought that the feet look disproportionately small...especially at the toes.

**Tobus** · 7th July 11, 07:23 PM

The heads always struck me as too small as well. Could be just the artist's personal perspective of what looks ideal on a man. Artistic licence, ya know...

But the feet look more correct (though not in all cases). I have noticed the same thing even in early photos. Shoes are more substantial today, or men have developed proportionally larger feet in the last century. But I swear, feet always seem smaller in those old paintings and early photos, compared to today.

**rsvpiper** · 8th July 11, 06:22 AM

[ But I swear, feet always seem smaller in those old paintings and early photos, compared to today.[/QUOTE]

I recon most would have only stood about 5ish foot tall so i doubt they would have large feet(unless they where a hobbit!), If you go on the thought trail that most men today in the western world are now near to 5'10-6' foot, due in part to our much better diet(more food) thus our feet will get proportionately larger err.... well some times

I'll get me coat!

**creagdhubh** · 8th July 11, 06:36 AM

Greetings,

Very intriguing topic! Kenneth MacLeay, RSA (1802-1878), and his wonderfully painted watercolour portraits of the Highlanders of Scotland (most prominent clans at the time) and several Royal Retainers such as, John Brown and his wee brother Archibald Brown, are not out of proportion in any way, but I can easily see how people arrive at that point. Take it from me, an art educator with a Bachelor's of Fine Art in Anatomy Drawing & Oil Painting, and a Master's of Art in Education. Not attempting to show any pretense here, but I have studied under brilliant, exhibiting artists and professors of art such as, Victor Wang, Tim Liddy, Jim Dine, Hank Knickmeyer, Chuck Close, and several others, throughout my professional tenure as an art student and educator. I was classically trained in the 'old master's' style and approach to visual/studio art, which was extremely strict and regimented - an aspect I am sure MacLeay was quite accustomed to during his tenure as an art student in Scotland, England, France, and Italy.

Typically, when either painting or drawing (basically, drafting on paper or canvas) the human figure, the height is around eight human heads tall - naturally, this isn't always the case, since people come in a variety of shapes and sizes (subjective to the artist), but this is an age-old formula that most figurative artists follow, to include the 'old masters' a term I mentioned earlier; these were famous artists such as Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Vermeer, Titian, Caravaggio, Van Eyck, etc. I think to the 'untrained' eye, many of MacLeay's Highland sitters may appear to be disproportioned, but if one looks very closely and has knowledge of human anatomy, they are most definitely not.

I think this illusion of the heads being too small, the feet and hands looking a bit strange, is created by, in my opinion, the distinctive Highland garb and all of the varied accessories in which a good majority of the Highlanders are wearing -these highly detailed areas distract the eye as it moves across each portrait and appears to distort the proportions of the head and extremities in relation to the core components of the body. This is my area of expertise and visual art is truly a life-long pasion of mine, so please trust in my credentials and experience as an artist and art educator. Kenneth MacLeay's portraits are indeed proportioned correctly and expertly painted, yet let me also say this, every artist, whether a painter, sculptor, or draftsman, uses their own, unique and individual approach to creating their art - with much of this determined by their educational background and how they were instructed. It is factual, that Kenneth MacLeay attended very prestigious art schools that had curriculums based in the 'old masters' approach.

In addtion, I find it interesting that the actual size of each individual portrait was not very big, making it even more difficult and challenging for MacLeay to paint in watercolour. I believe each portrait was around the size of a sheet of 8X11" paper...small brushes required...wow!

Slainte mhath,

**Tobus** · 8th July 11, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by rsvpiper

I recon most would have only stood about 5ish foot tall so i doubt they would have large feet(unless they where a hobbit!), If you go on the thought trail that most men today in the western world are now near to 5'10-6' foot, due in part to our much better diet(more food) thus our feet will get proportionately larger err.... well some times

I'll get me coat!

But wait... you're still saying they would be proportionally bigger. I'm saying that if we look at modern photos and compare them to portraits/engravings/photos from a couple hundred years ago, the feet are proportionally bigger today. That's been my impression, at least. It's not a hard-and-fast rule. It could just be that shoes are more chunky today, I dunno.

The average size of people trending bigger would not explain it if the proportions remain the same, correct?

**madmacs** · 8th July 11, 11:16 AM

I knew about the 1/8 rule, and it also looks to conform to the shoulders being 2 heads... Still looks wrong though...

As you say it may just be an optical illusion, or the minor diffeences may be exagerated based on scale... I dint think that it takes away from the paintings or the artist though... and if we're comparing to picasso or pollock (not a huge fan)... Nuff said...

**TheBrus** · 8th July 11, 11:33 AM

I looked at a few, and they seem fine to me, but I'm wondering if posture has anything to do with this. Many people carry their bodies very casually today. As was explained to me by a Scottish country dance instructor, Northern Europeans--Scots included or especially?--tend to dance (classically, anyway) with a very tall, square upper body posture. This is compounded by the fact that they wear so many clothes. How much of this is actually their posture and their clothing? I know that I am only 5'6" tall, and I can affect the impression of being taller because I dance with that same elevation through my upper body.

Just my thoughts.

**creagdhubh** · 8th July 11, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by madmacs

I knew about the 1/8 rule, and it also looks to conform to the shoulders being 2 heads... Still looks wrong though...

As you say it may just be an optical illusion, or the minor diffeences may be exagerated based on scale... I dint think that it takes away from the paintings or the artist though... and if we're comparing to picasso or pollock (not a huge fan)... Nuff said...

I agree. As far as other artists such as Pablo Picasso and Jackson Pollock are concerned, they are simply different artists, with a very different conceptual frame of mind. However, in speaking of Johannes Vermeer, or any other great portrait painter of much earlier centuries than of MacLeay's time, they have more in common with MacLeay, in terms of the style and approach to their painting, versus many of the 'modern' artists like Picasso, De Kooning, Braque, Degas, Benton, etc, etc - even when these 'modern' artists were creating traditional portraits in the very beginning of their careers. I can go on and on, but I'll spare you the 'boring teacher' cliche!

Cheers,

**rsvpiper** · 8th July 11, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Tobus

But wait... you're still saying they would be proportionally bigger. I'm saying that if we look at modern photos and compare them to portraits/engravings/photos from a couple hundred years ago, the feet are proportionally bigger today. That's been my impression, at least. It's not a hard-and-fast rule. It could just be that shoes are more chunky today, I dunno.

The average size of people trending bigger would not explain it if the proportions remain the same, correct?

No i still think they would be smaller, as the general frame of people then was smaller than today, Look at people in there 70's/80's they tend to be around 5'5
but don't have size ten feet as a rule, A point too on the footwear i would suspect that the hand made shoes of that time would not be as substantial as today's so yes i would say your right with that point. Adding to the fact that many of these guys are people of standing and as TheBrus said they may carry them selves far better than we do today, Which to be honest isn't too difficult.
Having said all that i'm probably well off the mark