3: Hals and the Trouble with Tronies
Frans Hals
The Gypsy Girl, 1628Oil on canvas, w52.1 cm x h57.8 cm (20.5" x 22.8")
Louvre Museum, Paris, France
Tronies: From the Dutch word for 'face', generally understood as a small-scale non-commissioned portrait of a usually-anonymous figure1. Typically face-only, or up to a full bust (a rather literal example of the latter shown above). Historically painted for study, or to entice portrait commissions by showing off the painter's skill: common features include heightened or exaggerated expressions/facial features, rich materials and/or exotic 'costumes' worn by the sitter, AND/OR an emphasis on honest depiction without ornamentation.
Am I sure that any of what I just said is accurate? No. 'Tronies' is kind of obsolete as an art term (even though people still make tons of things that would probably qualify), and even historically it seems to be one of those things where you 'know it when you see it', rather than something with a hard definition2.
But anyway, above is a work by Frans Hals, which is an accepted tronie example. Even if we stop caring about categories, as a portrait artist I like looking at Hals for two things: 1) a looser way of blocking the face (I'm eternally looking for ways to be less finicky), and 2) his emphasis on brief expressions. There's a nice looseness to his style that results in a naturally spontaneous look, even when the sitter is not just sitting and staring3.
The common mark of a good portrait is that you feel like the subject could be about to take a breath. But what's great about Hals is that I feel like I can actually hear things around many of his subjects as well, like they fully inhabit a moment in their own ongoing world. YMMV.
NOTES:
1. Thus making tronies the 'genre art' of portraits. BUT, to make things more confusing, self-portraits can also be tronies, and in fact many of Rembrandt's would easily fall under this umbrella.
2. I do plan to tackle 'what is art' one of these days, but the main thing about my position is that we make stuff, and then sort it after the fact based on useful distinctions. 'Tronies' is a good example of that from art history — it was a useful way to sort things (and should still be accounted for in works deliberately done in this category), but if the distinction between 'tronies' and 'portraits' more generally stops being useful for artists today, then the term goes, even if the stuff we make still fits the bill in a lot of cases.
3. SOOOO much portrait art involves sitting and staring. Or one major variant, sitting and staring with a slight smile. Or the other major variant, sitting and staring with a slight frown. It's really really hard to paint people in motion, but as a viewer, such massive face fatigue.
Am I sure that any of what I just said is accurate? No. 'Tronies' is kind of obsolete as an art term (even though people still make tons of things that would probably qualify), and even historically it seems to be one of those things where you 'know it when you see it', rather than something with a hard definition2.
But anyway, above is a work by Frans Hals, which is an accepted tronie example. Even if we stop caring about categories, as a portrait artist I like looking at Hals for two things: 1) a looser way of blocking the face (I'm eternally looking for ways to be less finicky), and 2) his emphasis on brief expressions. There's a nice looseness to his style that results in a naturally spontaneous look, even when the sitter is not just sitting and staring3.
The common mark of a good portrait is that you feel like the subject could be about to take a breath. But what's great about Hals is that I feel like I can actually hear things around many of his subjects as well, like they fully inhabit a moment in their own ongoing world. YMMV.
NOTES:
1. Thus making tronies the 'genre art' of portraits. BUT, to make things more confusing, self-portraits can also be tronies, and in fact many of Rembrandt's would easily fall under this umbrella.
2. I do plan to tackle 'what is art' one of these days, but the main thing about my position is that we make stuff, and then sort it after the fact based on useful distinctions. 'Tronies' is a good example of that from art history — it was a useful way to sort things (and should still be accounted for in works deliberately done in this category), but if the distinction between 'tronies' and 'portraits' more generally stops being useful for artists today, then the term goes, even if the stuff we make still fits the bill in a lot of cases.
3. SOOOO much portrait art involves sitting and staring. Or one major variant, sitting and staring with a slight smile. Or the other major variant, sitting and staring with a slight frown. It's really really hard to paint people in motion, but as a viewer, such massive face fatigue.