The success of a portrait depends upon the sitter as well as upon the painter, and it may be spoiled by the bad taste of the one or the other. Excellence in portraiture consists in placing every feature in its proper place, in a correctness of modelling, a judicious arrangement of light and shade suited to the complexion of the subject, and in tasteful attire and an unaffected and simple attitude ; the former are within the province of the painter, the latter in that of the sitter. Much of the character may be shown by the posture, and the painter should adopt that which appears most natural to his sitter, for the habits of nature must be distinguished from those of fashion ; no defect is more striking in a portrait than a forced and affected attitude.
In every portrait the countenance of the person represented should constitute the picture ; all accessories must be kept subordinate to the principal object, and should not engage the attention except when expressly examined, for they are the mere adjuncts necessary to indicate the character, rank, or nation of the original. Upon these principles a good portrait must be a good picture, for the beauty of a picture consists in the harmony of the whole in composition, colour, and execution : and when every part has received no more of the painter's attention than its local importance requires, a picture cannot in any particular deviate from the truth, simplicity, and unity of nature. Fancy costumes are injurious to portraits as portraits, for a general resemblance being the principal object of portraiture, the subject should be clothed as usual, and the more simple the attire, the more prominent and consequently the more important will be the head, which is the principal object. Whatever deviations are allowed from this principle, although the picture may perhaps gain in pictorial effect, it must lose as a portrait. A mere insipid transcript of the features, and an equally minute attention to the detail of the accessories, are a degradation of portrait. There is no other difference between historical painting and portrait painting than that portrait exacts a stricter attention to the individual character, and consequently requires a more careful execution of the head, but the draperies and accessories should be equally bold and free as in historical painting. Large canvasses, and what are termed full-lengths, are ill suited to portrait, and the latter are seldom successful even under the most able hands. How often we see a great field of canvass, where the head is a mere speck, and is generally lost in the mass of accessories, of trees, columns, or draperies ; these are pictures of robes, not of men, and are only toler able as state portraits, when the insignia of rank or office are more important than the individuals. Such should be termed 'conics
(ciaorucop rather than portraits.
Expression is perhaps the most important study in portrait. To represent the true character of an individual, the countenance should be painted in repose, when no particular sentiment or passion pre dominates ; for an otherwise good picture may be rendered a very bad portrait through the injudicious adoption of some transitory expres sion, or the introduction of a smile put on for the occasion, when perhaps the mouth is smiling whilst tho eyes are languid and fatigued. The expression may be also materially injured by exaggerating the local tints, which in most awes has the effect of changing the com plexion, and the particular expression of every individual depends upon the complexion as well as upon the relative proportions of the features. It is by accurately giving these proportions that what is called a striking likeness is produced, and this may be accomplished without entering into any minute detail of • the parts; the features are indicated rather than expressed : this is a principle of historical painting, but is a style only fit for the portraits of public characters, or such as are to be placed in spacious localities, and must be viewed at a distance.
Such portraits, when even of only tolerable resemblance, are generally pronounced to be striking likenesses, especially by those who have but an imperfect knowledge of the persons represented ; for they are themselves unacquainted with any more of the physiognomy of the originals than they see expressed in the pictures. These portraits however lose their resemblance either upon close inspection or upon a prolonged view.
The most successful painters of portrait in modern times have been Lionardo da Vinci, Raffaelle, Sebastian del Piombo, Giorgione, Paris Bordone, Titian, Velasquez, Holbein, Hals, Rembrandt, and Vandyck ; and the following pictures are amongst the finest specimens of portrait painting extant own portrait by Lionardo da Vinci, in tho portrait gallery at Florence ; Andrea Doria, by Sebastian del Piombo, in the Palazzo Doria at Rome ; the head of Guido, by Simone Cantarini, in the Academy at Bologna; Titian and Aretin, by Titian, in the royal collection at Windsor ; Pope Innocent X., by Velasquez, in the Palazzo Doria at Rome ; the Meyer Family, by Holbein, in the gallery at Dresden; and the head of Gevartius, by Vandyck, iu the National Gallery in London.
Of the portrait painters of more recent times, Menge, Reynolds, Gainsborough, David, Gerard, and Lawrence have enjoyed the greatest celebrity.