Something...

There's something terribly frustrating about not being able to figure out what's wrong. Or why I can't get it right.

It might be because I'm working in such a large format (4x6 ft.) - something I'm not used to. Or maybe I'm just being overly critical of my work and the next time I look at it, everything'll seem fine. I dunno.

There's just something I can't seem to work out on the right shoulder. I've even considered tracing the left and duplicating it on the right, but that's not gonna happen.

The model wasn't perfectly centered under the light, that much I can tell from the reference photos. The photos don't seem 'wrong' but this painting sure does… somehow…

Oh well… we'll see where the next session leads.

Cheers!

Artists Have Heroes Too

Detail from a 1918 Leyendecker painting
for The Saturday Evening Post.

Can't really say what drew me to J.C. Leyendecker's work way back in ye ol' college days, but unlike a passing fancy with Salvador Dali in high school, Leyendecker's appeal endures.

Most wouldn't be able to tell a Norman Rockwell from a Leyendecker - both doing roughly the same type of work for magazines and advertisers before photography came of age. What sets Leyendecker's work apart, and which I find most appealing, is that unmistakably quiet, other-worldly haughtiness or aloofness in the faces of most of Leyendecker's subjects - one that's automatically quite charming and captivating at the same time. (I'm excluding, of course, the baby cherubs, children, and adolescents painted for Kellogg's advertisements and the Spring editions of The Saturday Evening Post.) And whether it's because of these expressions or the staging of his subjects, there's always just enough there, (or not), to make you wonder what else is going on, (or, 'What is he thinking'), or that leaves a lot to the viewer's imagination/interpretation… something I already seem to be doing second-naturedly… to draw the viewer into the art as much as possible through a subject's expression or what doesn't appear.

While I look to Leyendecker as an expert in these regards, and also in rendering light reflected by a subject's skin, and his ability to blend color to create the illusion of a flawless skin, I also understand the stylization of most of his figures - Normal Rockwell prompted to say, "he could never paint a woman with any sympathy." (1)

It's here I depart not only from Rockwell's inept critique, but also from my hero's approach.

My goal is to present the natural handsomeness of my subjects, more or less as they are, and in spite of their apparent imperfections.

Cheers!


(1) Schau, Michael. J.C. Leyendecker, New York: Watson-Guptill Publications, 1974. p33.

Face First

So after a couple relatively minor but time consuming setbacks, (mostly Weed Ordinance Violations - mine and my sister's - long story - and every piece of lawn equipment biting the big one at the same time), I lost a good three+ weeks of painting. We're talking several acres of yards here and clearing five fallen trees.) But thanks to friends lending their equipment and some invaluable help, I'm finally back in the saddle again and can report at least a little progress having been made with the painting at hand.

After a point, I seem to start concentrating on the face, working outwards from there, leaving everything else until later.

Then there's the feet.

I abandoned one painting (temporarily?) because I couldn't get the feet right... that 36 x 24 incher. And I noticed today that I'd left the feet in the current painting 'in sketch,' not even bothering to fill-in the basic shapes.

Personally, I don't find feet that interesting, and can only recall seeing "an attractive pair o' dogs" in real life only a handful of times. (And trust me, mine aren't it. :)

So the latest? You guessed it... the feet!


Cheers!