Portrait Position?

>>2869509
I don't think there is a standard set of "rules" on this sort of thing. The pose of the person will depend upon a bunch of factors like the preference of the painter, the features of the individual (maybe they look better at certain angles), how formal or informal the portrait is, the time period etc. It is common but not necessary to include some reference to the life of the person as well, for example a famous writer might have them at their desk with papers surrounded by books.

I would suggest finding a portrait painter you like, and then look at their body of work and see which poses you tend to prefer. I personally like 19thC artists, so guys like John Singer Sargent or Ilya Repin would be my starting point, but of course your tastes will dictate how you approach it.

Also if your friend is the painter, maybe talk to them as see what their preferences are. You might arrange a meeting in your home for example and try out different poses and things (even do a photoshoot with different options perhaps) and he/she may see something that they think will work well.

>>2869518
Yeah, I'll probably just have to go to him and see what he thinks.

But for many portraits, was the pose just a style of the time? I always pondered if there was more to it, like they looked off in the distance to convey looking ahead to the future or to look powerful. Other times they look to the viewer to try and make more of a connection to those gazing upon the portrait.

>>2869564
Some artists might think of those things, but honestly a lot of it is probably not consciously decided like that. Personally I think looking right at the viewer is a little more formal, and looking elsewhere is less formal as it reminds me of candid observation of the person.

File: 1410019986277.jpg (11KB, 300x396px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x396px

These poses mean nothing in painting but mean a lot in body language

>>2869509
find something that tells a little about who you are. that's kind of the point.