Skip to main content

Face Study: Proportions

In revisiting portraiture I have realized that I made errors in my facial proportions. There are something I utilized that were correct such as knowing that the space between each eye is equivalent of one eye. The main thing I realized I had wrong this whole time was that foreheads are half the length of a face. It baffles me and I think its because in my minds eye a forehead takes up such a small space because hair is covering it. With faces I think it is especially difficult to separate what our minds eye thinks a face is. Which seems counterintuitive to me because we are hardwired to detect faces easily and can even spot images that appear like a face even when nothing is present. Maybe because faces are so imbedded into our minds we tend to generalize them and therefore have a hard time separating our generalizations of what a face is supposed to look like from the realities of the actual structures of the face.

Somethings to keep note:
  • From the top of the head to the top of the eye should equal the distance from the bottom of the eye to the chin
  • The width of the face is equal to about 5 eye lengths. Two on the sides of the face and one between the eyes. 
  • The eyes sit in the middle of the face, the nose is halfway down from the eyes to the chin and the mouth rests halfway down from the nose to the chin. 
I have included the progression of my study of facial structures from skeleton to portrait. I have never worked from a skull base first like this. At first this process hurt my brain because it challenged my usual approach to faces. After a while this approach actually helped me to observe the face as separate structures and not get bogged down into what my mind's eye kept telling me incorrectly about what faces are supposed to look like. As you can see after adding the features I had to make some major structural adjustments by adding to the forehead/top of the head, adjusting the chin and widening the neck. 





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Art Canon

My mind has been blown - the old painting masters Cézanne, Rembrandt and Monet are not all of what I thought they were. I recently discovered that the traditional art historical canon is biased and has created an unrepresentative view of creativity and artistic styles. It has left out entire groups of people only later to place them in subgroups. The traditional canon for art history has favored upper class European white male artists. It is interesting to see that art history has been governed by a select group who overtime decided what qualifies as great works of art and artistic genius. The definition leaves out women and minorities who have not had access to the same resources as men did such as supplies or education but even so they were able to create with items more accessible to them. Yet they are left out of traditional canon as if they never existed. How can we understand culture, history and politics by ignoring these groups of people? - Art is not only a piece of individua

Book Review: "Dear Girls" Ali Wong

I look up to a lot of people whose creative endeavor differs from mine. Ali Wong is a comedian but to me she is an artist. I was curious about her book. I found it to be a whimsical and honest. It's a discussion about her life and her wisdom gained through experiences. I love that she is brutally honest about many things about her life such as experiences with dating, navigating life as an Asian American. I found myself relating to many of her struggles. To the ones I couldn't relate to I want to keep in mind as advice to implement in my life as needed. Also, I like that she talks about her experiences working as a comedian on the road, she talks not only about successes but her struggles along the way. Most of the time when we see celebrities all we see is there highlight reel so I am glad she talks about her struggles. We are all only human and we all experience a range of emotion, I think sometimes we can forget that people who we idolize or see as having "made it&qu