Most of the masters have had a way, slavishly imitated by their schools
and following, of exaggerating the darkness of the backgrounds which
they give their portraits. They thought in this way to make the heads
more interesting, but this darkness of background, in conjunction with
faces lighted as we see them in nature, deprives these portraits of that
character of simplicity which should be dominant in them. This darkness
places the objects intended to be thrown into relief in quite abnormal
conditions. Is it natural that a face seen in light should stand out
against a really dark background--that is to say, one which receives no
light? Ought not the light which falls on the figure to fall also on the
wall, or the tapestry against which the figure stands? Unless it should
happen that the face stands out against drapery of an extremely dark
tone--but this condition is very rare, or against the entrance of a
cavern or cellar entirely deprived of daylight--a circumstance still
rarer--the method cannot but appear factitious.
The chief charm in a portrait is simplicity. I do not count among true
portraits those in which the aim has been to idealise the features of a
famous man when the painter has to reconstruct the face from traditional
likenesses; there, invention rightly plays a part. True portraits are
those painted from contemporaries. We like to see them on the canvas as
we meet them in daily life, even though they should be persons of
eminence and fame.
_Delacroix._