Past or Future
 

Interesting article Cynthia. Thanks for posting it.
This author seems to place the greatest value on those portraits that are spontaneous and sketchier, the very portraits which we as portrait painters get beat out us more often than I would like to admit. There seems to be much admiration for Ron Sherr's portrait of Bush senior. I like the portrait too, but had I been working on it I'm not sure I could have held myself from finishing the edges around the suit. I can't tell you if that would be from bowing down to peoples expectations or a general pedantism from working too much from photos.

Not to change the subject, but I'd be interested in hearing what you all think about what the Brits are doing with portraiture. There's no grander subject than a monarch yet more often than not it seems the Queen or her family are painted flatly as ordinary blokes with mishapened bodies a la Lucien Freud.

I vacillate between thinking the Brits are way out on a dead limb with no connection to Zorn or Sagent or deLazlo and thinking that we look too much to the past for inspiration.

Surprising, isn't it, that much of American portraiture often looks to the past, and to artists who came from the European tradition, while a lot of contemporary European portraiture is far more cutting edge and, some would say, "forward looking". I personally love the Sargent/Zorn/deLazlo tradition but you don't usually think of American artists as being outpaced by their European peers in the race toward "the next new thing".

This subject of British portraiture sounds as though it could be a subject worthy of a new topic. Steven would you do this please?

I took care of it. The new topic "British portraiture" can be found here: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...9097#post69097

John Sanden has posted a follow-up to his original commentary on presidential portraiture: http://worldofportraitpainting.com/c...etjournal2.htm

Men in Suits
 

What CAN one do when you are faced with yet again another suit.

As I see it Presidential portraiture is suffering on three fronts, lack of interesting costumes, backgrounds and poses.

There are not any choices of exciting attire, a suit and a tie, that's it folks. A charcoal, navy, gray or brown one. The color of the tie IS the ONLY exciting diversion.

Backgrounds: snippets of Georgian architecture, billowing heroic American clouds with an equally energetic flag, White house balconies,the Oval office and so on.

The poses. The president should NEVER look like a slacker, even when he is sitting down he should look like he is ready to leap up or be signing a passel of bills to save the Union. A recent portrait of Bill Clinton was criticised as being too relaxed a portrayal. They can be leaning-but NOT too much (see Bill), hands in pockets are risky (see Bill). The best option is standing-frontal or three-quarter and this goes without sayng-NO reclining poses.

I suggest that to perhaps inject the genre with some excitement, the president should become a fashion leader. Here are some haberdashery ideas from a recent men's fashion show in New York City.

Hmmmm...
 

On second thought, that might NOT do at all. As a whole the lot is a bit conservative.

Ransacking the past on fine French and English portraiture, I came up with a few ideas for the Current Occupant. I hope the artist who gets this plum job will be inspired by these ideas I offer freely.

#1: Addressing Congress
#2: Supporting the troops
#3: At home on the ranch in Crawford

Thanks for the best laugh of the day! These are much, much, better. :D

Jean

Sharon! That is SO funny!

Hog Wash
 

John Howard Sanden doesn't follow trends he sets them. Catesby Leigh and The Wall Street Journal follow trends and are media whores. They are not worthy to even comment on Sanden and nothing they say is worthy of discussing here.
However, I enjoyed the opinions on style and tradition.