Painting Hair

The color of the hair has a lot to do with its reflectivity. If you can handle the relationship of warm and cool colors in flesh tones, by all means do so in the hair as well.

Copyright, Jim Lane

Boy, 1972, (watercolor), Jim lane

In delving into this topic, I think it best to first set some parameters. I'm not talking about painting fur. That's a whole other topic dependent of the owner of the fur. Furthermore, I'm not talking about the current trends toward spray painting actual hair. That too would be an interesting topic, but not here and now. No, I'm talking about the techniques involved in rendering hair that looks natural, given the context of the painting. What that doesn't mean necessarily is realistic hair. It does mean that the artist allows his or her style to permeate the entire painting including the hair both in terms of color, technique, and textural details. Painting hair usually involves painting a portrait or a figural image of some sort. The important thing to remember in terms of the "how to" aspect of painting hair is that the hair is but one part of the painting, and often a relatively small part at that. It is, to perhaps oversimplify a bit, merely an attractive visual texture covering parts of the head. How it's painted depends totally upon the medium, the hairstyle, the lighting, the artist's painting style, and the state of the hair (wet, dry, gelled, windblown, dirty, clean, frizzy, etc.).



Drawing the overall shape of the hair.

Adding mass, texture, and suggesting highlights.

As with most forms of painting, it's premature to talk about daubing around with a pigmented brush without first discussing adequate drawing. How you define "adequate," of course. depends upon your painting skills. The better painter you are, the less drawing you need (down to none at all, in fact). The illustration above demonstrates the first step, outlining, with minimal detail, the overall shape of the hair. I suggest this be done before any facial features are added. At this point, details often end up being erased, sometimes ruining the surface of the paper. Although I usually have a complete, detailed drawing before I start painting, it's my own preference to complete the painting of the background, the hair, and often most of the body before any facial features are painted. As a general rule, draw the hard parts first; paint the easy parts first (including the hair).

The "male mop." It doesn't get any easier than this.

Copyright, Jim Lane

Cheer (detail), 1997, Jim Lane

As the illustration (above, left) indicates, "comb" the hair with your pencil as you begin to heighten contrasts, add mass, and textural details. As for how much detail you add, I find it generally better to add more than I think I'll need, but that's a personal preference, again, depending upon how experienced you are in painting hair. The "male mop" above would dictate you start your pencil stroke at the part in the hair and lift the point as you move toward the highlights. Texture is important in the frontal portion of the head but should blend out toward the more distant sides. For long, relatively straight hair, long smooth, curved strokes are best. A crewcut with require just the opposite. I know it sounds rather exaggerated but, think in terms of drawing one hair at a time. The pencil drawing, Cheer (above, right), displays the amount of drawing detail needed to start painting. Incidentally, I like to depict blonds with a slightly darker background than their hair but artists have often been know to blend hair and background both as to color and brushwork. The "wave" (below) is a excellent technical illustration as to how to handle longer hair.

The Wave--outline first, then the half-tones, then textures and contrasting
shadows, which should allow the highlights to emerge on their own.

Lady of Shalot (detail), 1888,
John William Waterhouse

It's long been an article of faith in learning to draw and paint that artists should study the old masters. Perhaps, but don't expect to learn much from them as to how to paint hair. From my observation, either they didn't know how, or they simply didn't care about hair. I could cite any number of examples (Renoir being an exception) of artists such as the Pre-Raphaelite painter, John William Waterhouse and his Lady of Shalot (left), from 1888. If any art movement should have been concerned with the exquisite beauty and reflective qualities of long, straight hair, it should have been the Pre-Raphaelites. They were very nearly obsessed with details in virtually every other aspect of their painting style. But in Lady of Shalot, the contrasts are low, the texture is minimal and on the "frizzy" side. In short, the hair is hardly even noteworthy (except by someone like me). Maybe she was having a bad hair day. More likely, the way painters see and render hair today has a lot to do with a cultural obsession that simply wasn't as demanding in 1888. (Consider your favorite hair-treatment product commercial.)

Bringing a head of hair to life in six easy lessons (painting opaquely).

Rich, color and texture

The illustration above follows a step-by-step approach not too unlike that of drawing hair. The outline comes first, then the color, then preliminary highlights add mass, followed by reflected light, which moves into the heightening of contrasts, and finally whatever degree of textural detail the artist wishes to depict. As mentioned before, I prefer to paint the hair first, then the face, but that's a matter of habit on my part and personal preferences for others. The head of hair at right, despite having traces of artificial color added, is a wonderful example of the rich color and textural possibilities awaiting the painter with the patience and technical prowess to pursue them. I usually tend to be more like the old masters, rendering hair with as little effort as suitable for the given painting, as in Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow (below). Sometimes I enjoy the challenge of painting the intricate details of hair. At other times, I follow the old Modern Art dictum, "Less is more."

Copyright, Jim Lane

Hair Today, Gone Tomorrow, Jim Lane

Uhh...you're on your own here.

 

Hair Art



Marie Antoinette--hair by Leonard, ca. 1790

His name was Champagne. He lived during the 17th century, migrating from southern France to Paris. He's remembered in history as being the first hair artist remembered in history. No one remembers when he was born but the women of Paris certainly remembered when he died--1658. His Paris salon popularized the rise (literally) of the fanciful hairstyles we've all come to know and love from paintings of the French court, though Champagne was so popular he often styled the female royalty from as far away as Poland. What about the men? Well, it seems that if they cared about their hair at all, they relied upon the services of their valet or covered it up with fanciful wigs. The best that can be said for male hair art down through history is that it's boring (at least as compared to that of the feminine gender).

A persistent problem

Champagne was one of a kind. Legros de Rumigny was not. He was first of his kind--the first recognized professional hairdresser. He also served the French court, carrying on the "high and mighty" hairstyles of Monsieur Champagne. His main client was the King's mistress, Madame Pompadour (who contributed her name to a men's hairstyle ala Ronald Reagan). De Rumigny even wrote a book on the subject, containing 38 of his greatest creations. Ironically, he met his end by being crushed to death by a frenzied mob celebrating the marriage of Marie Antoinette to Louis XVI. The queen was not one of his clients, but that of his more flamboyant competitor, Leonard, whose hairy confections sometimes rose to a height of five feet.

Marcel Grateau demonstrates his wave and his invention.

Egyptian coif

Though women have been using heat in curling their hair for centuries, dating back as far as the biblical Pharaoh's daughter, another Frenchman, Marcel Grateau, is remembered in history as the inventor of the modern curling iron, sometime during the late 1800s. I used the term "modern" in a figurative sense because there was little modern about heating the rounded rod over a gas burner to create his "Marcel wave." Too cool, and the wave didn't set. Too hot, and it burned the hair. It was only with the advent of the electric models in the 1920s that his curling gadget with adjustable heat controls could in any way be considered modern. He gave birth to the Marcel Wave and made millions from his invention.

For some, like Ella Fitzgerald, curling
was less important then straightening.

In the 20th century, motion pictures not only dictated hair styles (both men's and women's) but also made hair stylists as rich and famous as Marcel Grateau. Among them was Sydney Guilaroff, Alexandre de Paris, Raymond Bessone, Vidal Sassoon, and Gene Shacove, while in this century the names Christiaan Houtenbos, John Sahag, Chris McMillan, and Oribe rise above the rest. Though certainly creative and in some cases startling in their design, few could match the elaborate "heights" reached by the 18th century French hair artists. Part of the reason may be they don't make doorways as tall as they used to.

Of course, today, men's hair art could hardly be considered boring.

 

Getting a Head

Copyright, Jim Lane

The model: key light is on the
left, fill light on the right.

Inasmuch as I discussed yesterday the basic points of painting from photos, I thought it only appropriate to delve into the fine art of drawing a head from life. Really there's not all that much difference in working from a good photo and working with a good model. The difference is in "handling" the model. One of the problems in drawing from life is that the models have a bad habit of breathing. I tried demanding a cessation of respiration once but the flesh tones tended to take on a blush tint after a short time. This color change is not too critical in drawing with pencil though it does shorten the posing time before the model slumps to the floor. Thus the artist has to learn to tolerate a certain degree of movement. Posing is boring as well, so a steady stream of conversation is always helpful provided it does not involve humor, or worse, anger on the part of the model. Try also to avoid causing the model to cry.

 

Copyright, Jim Lane

Left eye outline

Beyond the obvious, the model should be comfortably seated, the lighting almost, but not quite, even as it falls upon the face, slightly less on one side (as seen above, left). Avoid lighting the model from the front only in that this cause a "snapshot" effect as in photographing the model with a flash. In photography the ideal lighting is referred to as "key" and "fill." Avoid lighting aimed at BOTH sides of the head in that this tends to cause an unsightly shadow down the middle of the face. In most cases, a three-quarter view is most desirable. Profiles and straight on "mug shots" are generally to be avoided. Smiling for an extended period of time is quite trying and tiring for the model, but often produces a more attractive portrait in the end. I should point out at this juncture that what follows is not intended as a thorough discourse on drawing heads. For that I suggest you check out the online instructional material created by my publisher, Brenda Hoddinott at Drawspace.com.



Copyright, Jim Lane

The essence of the eye.

Now, where to begin? I wish I could say there is one best way to draw a head, but that would be way to academically rigid. I will, instead, simply recount how I proceed, starting about three-fourths the way up the paper from the bottom and slightly to the left of center, I draw the left eye starting with the upper eyelash and the iris with its "donut hole" pupil centered within (above, right). Both are, in general, round, though the head angle may distort this slightly.

Copyright, Jim Lane

Both eyes and brows. The old rule applies: "Sketch it light till you're sure its right."

Keen observation of the details of the face and proportional relationships at each step is crucial in drawing any face, which is why I start with details, which absolutely MUST be right or else all the rest will be in vain. Move on now to the right eye, allowing about one eye width between them, depending upon the head angle. The closer to a profile, the less space between the eyes. Once the second eye is established begin sketching in the eyebrows and shading around the bridge of the nose and the outer areas beside the eyes. Establish the leading edge of the face next to the eye furthest from you (above) Notice the eyes are not identical in size and shape as they would be in a front view.

Copyright, Jim Lane

The essence of the nose--think in terms of the nose shading and the nostrils.

Once you're satisfied with the eyes, move from the bridge of the nose down toward the tip. Then sketch in the nostrils as a guide.  Inasmuch as the nose is going to be at least somewhat foreshortened, think in terms of drawing the shadow cast by the nose on the less-lighted side of the face (fill light side). Remember, draw each feature as it appears from your angled point of view. Draw them how they actually look, not how you think they should look. Once you have the essence of the nose, fill in the shading on and around the nose (above).

Copyright, Jim Lane

Try to stick to the basics rather than details until the likeness is established, which should occur about at this point. If not, concentrate on that rather than getting bogged down in additional details.

Copyright, Jim Lane

Work from the features
outward. Narrow spaces are
easier to judge than broad
ones.

Moving on down the face, next establish the lip line, where the two lips come together, being especially conscious of the distance below the nose, the length of the line across the face, and any variations as to curves. Remember, it will not be the same on the left as on the right. It is absolutely necessary you not allow your mind to influence you toward a straight-on front view stereotype. Lightly sketching in the cheek line, if done carefully, should help in this regard.

Once you are satisfied with the features, the hardest part of drawing a head is over. Notice I have not talked about drawing faces. The face is only one part of the portrait head (albeit the most important part). Work outward from the features, moving on to the hairline, cheek line, and chin. Next place the ear and neck before tackling the upper edge of the hair. Remember, sketch the essence first (left), then the details. It's important that if you encounter problems with the likeness to the model, you STOP and concentrate on that difficulty first before continuing. Any errors you encounter later will be at least twice as difficult to correct then as they are if discovered and remedied early.

Copyright, Jim Lane

Shading and details serve to complete the portrait.

The next step is to add the visual texture to the hair.  Use the tip of the pencil, sketching one hair at a time (not really, but think in those terms). Basically "comb" the hair with your pencil lifting the tip as you encounter highlights, then adding contrasting darker strokes in shaded areas. Avoid the temptation at every step in drawing the head to "smudge." Use the side of your pencil to shade, not the side of your fingers, or even a paper stump (okay for drawing in charcoal). You can also begin adding details to the ear(s) and neck at this point. Finally, move to the shoulders and clothing details always being conscious as to the visual textures you create matching those of your model. Usually a darkened, textural background helps "pop" the head forward. If, at this point, the drawing "winks" at you, then you know you've done good. If the model winks at you...I'm not gonna go there.

----------------------------------

Note: pencil drawings are notoriously hard to photograph. The variations in tone of the various steps above are the result of trying to balance the subtleties of shading with adequate contrasts.






 

Drawing and Painting the Human Ear

It shouldn't make any difference, but some artists find they
do better drawing left (or right) ears better than their
opposite counterparts.

It occurred to me today, as I was pondering possible topics to discuss, that I'd run various "how-to" lessons on virtually every part of the human face...except for one. I've covered eyes, noses, heads, and hair. How could I have forgotten the human ear? I suppose the answer lies in the fact that ears are not, technically, part of the face but an addendum to the head, not to mention being very often covered by hair. Add to that, whether part of the face or the head, they may well be the least attractive feature the portrait artist has to deal with. And if all that wasn't problem enough, they might well be considered the most difficult portrait feature to draw, or at least to draw well. Why? Because even the slightest change in the angle of the head to the picture plane changes considerably the appearance of this "ugly" appendage.

 

I don't know how to make it any simpler--photos at top, line
drawings just above. (Though quite similar, the drawings are
not based upon the photos.)

Okay, let's take it step by step. First as we draw, let's learn the vocabulary. Start with the helix (outside limit of the ear), moving to the Helix Crux (top of the outer ear, then down to the lobe (we'll assume for now that people only have left ears). You'll end up with a mark loosely shaped like the number "9." The, in the second step we draw inside this partially enclosed space an outline separating the Antihelix from the Concha ending up with the sharp intertragic notch at the bottom and the anterior notch just above it. In Step three, you add a shorter line parallel to your first to delineate the outer rim of the ear. And finally, you place a "U" or perhaps "V" shaped line near the top to delineate the area known as the Helix Canal, followed by another line parallel to the line in Step 3, and that which outlines the Concha created in Step 2. Use the image below for reference.

 

Once you've mastered the side view of the ear, try drawing
next to it (using the same scale) the front and back of the ear
 (upper right).

Now you have some idea why it's so difficult to draw ears. Unlike virtually every other part of the head, once you get past the lobe, most artists don't even know what to call the other parts of the ear. The drawing below will help you in making the transition from a side view of the ear to the front view (or vice versa).

 

This skill is often quite difficult to master, especially when you add
in all the interval angles as the head rotates (below).

Line drawings are only a first step. Volumetric shading
demands nothing less than astute observation,
either from photos or life.

Though ears tend to share basic similarities, like virtually every other part of the head, individual differences vary widely. Just how differently these variations can be is suggested by the sixty different examples in the chart below. Like virtually every other area of art content, you learn to draw ears by drawing a LOT of ears. Unfortunately, this is a skill development exercise often neglected by would-be artist because, generally speaking, they are seldom called upon to draw and paint many ears (because of hair and head angles) as other parts of the head.

See what I mean about ears being unattractive (ugly).

Copyright, Jim Lane

A Jim Lane ear (child).

As if learning to draw ears wasn't difficult enough, an artist cannot even think about trying to paint a good ear without first having mastered the basic drawing skills involved. The concise little illustration below presents this transition from drawing to painting the ear in about as simple a manner as any I've ever seen. The chalk-to-paint method works fine for some artists, though I tend to work more traditionally, drawing with pencil on a white canvas, painting in the darkest shaded areas first then moving to the medium shades, before tying it all together with the lighter values (right).Be constantly aware of the range of contrasts. Caution, don't try this with acrylics--oils are much more forgiving. Inasmuch as ears involve only the various flesh tones and pigmentation chosen by the artist for the other parts of the face and head, the actual hues used will vary widely as illustrated by the sampling of ears seen below. I'm wondering if one of them once belonged to van Gogh.

The all-important transition from drawing to paint.

 

Most of the ears above use a fairly narrow
range of color values. I tend to prefer a mixture
of warm and cool tones--cool for the inner
ear and warmer as I move outward.

Doggy Art

Poodles seem to make the best painting surfaces,
what we might call a "shaped" canvas.

Very often as I cast about in my mind for an interesting topic having to do with art, I bounce the ideas off my wife. Today, I suggested "doggy art," then explained to her that I didn't mean paintings of dogs. I'd already been there in dealing with canine art some time back. I had in mind to expose the relatively new art of painting on dogs, using canine hair dyes. Her response: "No, that's too weird." Having learned years ago to respect my wife's critical judgement, I had to agree. I dismissed the idea. Later, on a whim, I checked out the image possibilities. WOW! I'd hit the motherlode. Man, the things people do to dogs in the name of art...many of them could use a good lawyer. Using a dog in place of a canvas to "paint" on is, I guess, art. It communicates creatively. But that doesn't mean it's in good taste. Some might even say it falls under the heading of animal abuse. That's probably a stretch, so long as the owners keep their pets away from mirrors. In any case, if you haven't had a good laugh yet today, now's your chance.



Dying your dog is far less of an imposition than
forcing it into a costume.



This whole bizarre art form started with professional groomer, Jerry Schinberg, of Des Plaines, Ill. Schinberg held the first-ever “regular” dog grooming competition in 1973. He is credited with introducing the art of creative grooming in 1980. He claims to have gotten the idea from going to hairstyling shows for women. Today, dogs are transformed in various ways with the use of vegetable-based dyes, or child-friendly products, such as colored chalk. In recent years, because of the popularity of extreme dog grooming, there are even color products made specifically for dogs. Critics have long claimed that the practice of creative dog grooming is not just "tacky" but also degrades the dogs. Schinberg disagrees: “People who say that it’s demeaning and embarrassing to dogs don’t really know about dogs. They prance and carry on after they’ve been groomed. They love the applause and excitement."

 

If you want a pony, why not just buy one? Okay, dogs are a
little less trouble than tigers, buffalos, pandas, and camels.

At first glance they look like pandas, buffalos, and camels, but mostly they are poodles, which have been hilariously sheared and colored in the name of art. Amazingly it takes just two hours for an experienced creative groomer to carve their masterpieces of out of dog's coats, then add a few props as finishing touches. The artistic owners--almost entirely women--color their beloved dogs with powdered paint sprayed on using blow pens. The dye is not permanent. They seem to love the artistry that's involved. These are masterpieces, commissioned by "artistic owners."

Something for every doggy taste...love the French Cubist look.

Doggy art can basically be divided into about three or four categories--cuts (above), disguises, painting (below), and if you need a forth category, try "just plain weird" (bottom). Each year, art loving, pooch lovers turn their beloved pets into walking works of art at the Intergroom competition, which takes place in Somerset, New Jersey (a western suburb of New York City), as part of the world's largest international dog and cat grooming conference. Using brightly colored hair dye and clippers, these furry friends are being snipped and coiffed within an inch of their lives. I wonder if participants take their inspiration from the Miss America Pageant in Atlantic City?



From Sesame Street to Disney...

Creative dog grooming is definitely a Postmodern art form, so radical artists even fifty years ago could hardly have imagined its popularity today. But then, it would have been equally hard for them to imagine the kind of primping and pampering so many pets receive. When I was growing up, I had a black Cocker Spaniel named Roberta. The only difference between then and now was that "Bobbie" was kept tied up outside and never...ever allowed in the house. Today, some of our pampered pets rarely go outside. In doing so, given some of the over-the-top grooming we find here, they'd likely be embarrassed to death.



Some of the more extreme examples of pooch painting.

There's more to grooming that hair dyes and silly
haircuts. There's also doggy pedicures. This
one must be a rather patient pup.

Cats, don't think you're immune to
all this silliness. What's it like being
the world's only dragon cat?

 

1960s Art

No single image could possibly capture
the promising power and ponderous
pandemonium of the 1960s. Only film
or video could hope to come close.
 Click the poster above for one such attempt.

In discussing the Berlin Wall yesterday (below) I came face to face with the 1960s in all their glory and gory horror. When we stand in the present looking back at previous years, decades, centuries, it's fascinating trying to gauge their overall impact upon who we are today. It's easy, for instance, to say that the 20th century had the greatest impact of any of the last twenty centuries. One only has to look at who and what we are now and what we were a hundred years ago to make such a claim. Humanity has changed more in the last one hundred years than in the previous five hundred. Alvin Toffler in his 1970 book Future Shock, had it right in saying that the faster things change the faster they will change. We have only to wonder if there is any limit to how fast they can change. We have only to look at politics and society today to realize that most of our problems are directly related to change happening faster than those living today can handle it. Moreover, those least able to deal with change just keep right on living and living, and living. And though we didn't realize it at the time, the decade that spawned Toffler's book was quite likely the most important decade in the 20th century in terms of the radical changes that took place. They were the years the "baby boomers" (myself included) first came of age. The world has never been the same since.

Toffler had it right, though
perhaps he didn't go far enough.

It was not a decade for the faint of heart. It was a decade when we took a strong whiff, if not a taste, of nuclear war. It scared the hell out of us. It was a time when a president got his brains blown out, also his younger brother and black brother. It was a time when we stumbled into a war, and for the first time in history, got our asses whipped for it. It was a time of fast cars, fast food, and fast sex. Television rose to new heights, movies fell to new lows. Beatniks were out, Beatles and Beetles (VWs) were in, and a future senator told us that The Beat Goes On. Indeed, the whole decade rocked. It was a musical journey that started in Memphis, detoured to Liverpool, and ended up at Woodstock. It began with Sonny and Cher and ended with Karen and Richard. It was a decade that came in like a roaring, tail-finned dinosaur, and squeaked out with subcompact mice. It was a decade that began with Sputnik shock and ended on the moon in Future Shock.

1968: The Age of Aquarius

In art, the 60's saw the demise of Abstract Expressionism, the rise of Pop, a burst of Op, and ended with the whimpering whisper of Minimalism. Art came from all sources, from the funny pages, and from the front pages. It was as small as the "Love" stamp and as big as Christo's assorted geographic gift wraps. The very definition of art expanded to the point it became nearly impossible to define. Psychedelia ruled the college campuses, Psycho ruled the box-office, and Hair ruled Broadway. In fact, hair ruled everywhere.

Marilyn, 1967. She died, yet thanks to Warhol, she lives.

Warhol became a household name. Campbell's soup moved from the grocery store to the art gallery. Artists once more learned to paint neatly. Realism returned. Marilyn died. Madona was born. It was the only decade in history that ever took another decade from which to recover. It was a decade like none before, like none since. It was a decade that made us what we are today.

The Mona Lisa

Have you ever considered, as you commence a new project, painting, sculpture, or now possibly a video, that what you are creating might be one of the most memorable works of art ever created?  Probably not.  Artists are known to have healthy egos, but it might be pushing even the artist's imagination to place ones work on such a pedestal.  Then again, maybe not.

If asked to name the most famous painting in the world, most people would tend to think of Leonardo DaVinci's Mona Lisa. Housed today in the Louvre in Paris, the painting has one of the longest, most illustrious, most well-documented histories imaginable. Stolen, ransomed, nearly destroyed, the Mona Lisa has almost taken on a life of its own. Yet, it all began quite simply. Commissioned about 1503, and worked upon by the master intermittently for nearly two years, the portrait was never delivered to its buyer. It was an unfulfilled commission for which Leonardo no doubt went unpaid. Such things happened then.  They happen now.  As a result, Leonardo is known to have kept the painting with him for the rest of his life. An interesting birth, but not all that exceptional at the time.

Mona Lisa, 1503,
Leonardo DaVinci

Much has been made of the subject's enigmatic smile. Recent computer analysis has suggested the entire painting may have been something of a self-portrait though the evidence to such a theory is rather convoluted at best. A more likely theory, given the nature of Leonardo's analytical mind, is that he relied on elements of geometry perhaps more than physical likeness (which might explain why the portrait was never delivered if doing so made for a poor likeness).

If one were to place a compass point precisely between the subjects eyes, then adjust the pencil point to her lip line, the resulting circle would precisely coincide with the outer edge of the model's cheek structure and hair on the left, the edge of her hair net near the top of her forehead, and the hairline itself on the right side of the face. Check it out. You'll never look upon this famous face again in the same light.

But, is this bit of simple plane geometry applied to the human face what has made the Mona Lisa the most unforgettable painting in the world today?  Leonardo was a master painter, no question about that.  Yet, is that fact sufficient to have elevated this inauspicious portrait with its questionable likeness to such a high plane?  The enigmatic smile?  The gentle, lovely face?  The mysterious, unearthly, mismatched backgrounds on either side of that face?  What is it about The Mona Lisa?  Perhaps it's all of the above.  Or maybe it's simply the lady herself.

Mona's Influence

Guernica, 1937, Pablo Picasso

Luncheon on the Grass, 1863, Edouard Manet

Mona Lisa, 1503,
Leonardo

One of the rarest occurrences in the world of art is when one work by a single artist has such a profound impact that it exerts an influence on the work of that artist's contemporaries, sometimes for decades to come. In the 20th century, Picasso's Guernica (above, left) had such an impact. During the previous century, it was Manet's Luncheon on the Grass (above, right). Before that, discounting Michelangelo's frescoes, which were really many paintings on a single theme, our eyes come to rest on Leonardo's Mona Lisa (right), perhaps the most influential single painting of the entire millennium. Painted in 1503, the work is a mere 21 by 30 inches.  It depicts in gossamer-thin layers of glazed oil and pigment, Lisa del Giocondo, the wife of a Florentine businessman, who must have been somewhat dismayed to have commissioned a portrait of his lovely wife, never to have it delivered. History doesn't record whether he ever had to pay for it, but tradition has it Leonardo kept the portrait with him the rest of his life. He died in France in 1519, which is how it came into the hands of France's King Francis I and eventually in the hands of the Louvre where it is today (albeit behind a thick layer of bulletproof glass).

Donna Valeta, ca. 1515, Raphael Sanzio

Before that though, it's doubtful there was a single major artist in Italy that hadn't seen the Mona Lisa, or at least knew it by reputation. Around 1515, Raphael Sanzio painted his own ideal of feminine loveliness in the Donna Valeta (Veiled Lady, right). Of course, having waited 12  to 15 years to compete with the great Leonardo, the two paintings are somewhat different. Styles had changed. Raphael's lady is no less lovely, though not as serene, and the painting appears a bit more fussy than did Leonardo's effort. The lighting is more dramatic but the pose is identical, right down to the angle of the head, even the position of the fingers though not the placement of the hand. There is no other-worldly smile or dreamy, extraterrestrial background as in Leonardo's, and the dress in much more fashionably rich, even extravagant, as compared to Mona Lisa's simple black number. The hair is done up tightly under the flowing scarf of Raphael's Donna Valeta whereas Leonardo permitted Mona Lisa to "let her hair down."

Portrait of a Man with Blue-Green Eyes,
1540-45, Titian

The Venetian artist, Tiziano Vecellio, better known as Titian, was clearly under the influence of Leonardo's Mona Lisa when he painted Portrait of a Man with Blue-Green Eyes (a.k.a. The Young Englishman, left). Of course, inasmuch as this portrait is that of the opposite sex, direct comparisons are more difficult. But it's not hard to notice the similarities. Painted around 1540-45, the figure is suave, informal, and has much the same psychological directness as Leonardo's effort. And in turn, Titian's painting was also quite effective in influencing later portrait artists such as Rembrandt, Anthony van Dyck, and Peter Paul Rubens. It's amazing the impact of a single smiling face in the hands of a master artist.