Portrait of Pope John Paul II
 

On page eight of the December issue of "The Portrait Signature" by ASOPA, there is a picture and article about Nelson Shanks' portrait of Pope John Paul II.

For those of us who aspire to do this sort of work, it would seem that this was the commission we were all looking for. Could it get any better than this? Swept away to Rome for weeks working out of your temporary studio near the Vatican, whew!

According to the article, Shanks was able to be in the Pope's presence for only about five hours, never with fewer than five of his familiars also in tow. The article goes on to say that he was able to complete a few oil sketches which were promptly sold to collectors. Shanks then quickly went about gathering the appropriate clothing to create a mannequin to replicate the Pope back in his studio. He also referenced some 570 photographs.

I am of course in awe of this painting. But what strikes me most about it is just how little flesh is actually involved. I would guess that a very small percent of his efforts went into what we call the portrait stuff (likeness, skin tones, hair and teeth).

What we do see in this portrait of a great man (I'm not Catholic) is a tremendous amount of planning of the composition. This is what Nelson Shanks was paid to do. My guess is that if he had handed this painting over, sans face and hands, to any number of artists that we all know and said finish it, it would have been done very satisfactorily. But the totality of the painting, well that's another story.

The Pope's Portrait
 

I agree wholeheartedly with you Mike. This is a great portrait, befitting a great man and I am Catholic. The gesture of the Pope is comforting, and heartlifting...The Shepherd gesturing to his flock. Great composition, warm glowing background.

Not too shabby a commission I might add.

I agree that this is a completely gorgeous painting. But I disagree on this: if you handed me the finished piece, without the flesh, no one would ever confuse my strokes with Nelson Shanks'.

I have to add a comment on how masterfully the vantage point was considered. This is the only possible view that would show the Pope in an unstooped position. In fact it's quite a grand encompassing gesture.

About the copyright issue ... I thought about it and decided to do it anyway. As I've said before, if they sue me I'm taking all you mothers, sons and daughters down with me.

About the painting, I am curious about the bright light on our right in the distance. This may be the brightest spot on the canvas. Does anyone have a theory on its purpose?

I certainly can't speak to its purpose, but it functions very effectively, both in color and value, to complete a visual circle that prevents the eye from leaving the canvas.

I think what I find overwhelming about this portrait is how Shanks handled not only the huge "person" subject matter but, literally the hugeness of San Pietro itself. This cathedral is massive.

If my memory serves me, the light in question to the right of the Pope is one that "back lights" the statutes along the wall. If you continued to walk in the direction the Pope is faced now, you would come across Michelangelo

Some members may be unaware that the ASOPA article giving rise to this thread, as well as many other articles from past issues of the Society's "Portrait Signature" publication, can be found at http://www.asopa.com/publications.htm

Let There Be Light
 

I believe I can suggest a solution to the mystery light on the right. In the ASOPA article, Nelson Shanks is quoted as having "made of" the basilica space what he needed for the picture, which perhaps explains why the "light" wasn't quite where I expected it to be.

In fact, it is one of the few stained glass windows in this area. After seeing the thousands of square feet of stained glass in other cathedrals and churches such as Yorkminster, I was surprised to encounter so little here, so I snapped a couple of photos of this window during a visit last summer. My shots are from a pretty close vantage but in a fairly dark space, and the window is at some distance in the painting, but I'm pretty sure we're looking at the same thing.

Here's the image that convinces me, followed by a close-up of the window itself.

The close-up -- it's quite a stunning feature in the church architecture:

My favorite portrait
 

May I say that Mr. Shanks' portrait of the Pope is now my favorite!

Yes, I too agree that Mr. Shanks' portrait of the Pope is very satisfying, the focal point being the Pope's gaze. This is a great painting. I love the lighting.

That shows "my bad", Steven, but also shows Mr. Shanks' ability to capture the immenseness of the space. The wood carved altar(?) ambo(?) is nowhere to be seen in your images of the stained glass, so just imagine how far away he was. Wow!

Mr. Shanks
 

I think Nelson Shanks is one of the best there has ever been. I also think this was a tough assignment. I don't think it's his strongest work. Sargent did some similiar pieces that did not work very well either - it happens. I suppose some color may have been lost in the images I've seen. The small image in the ASOPA flyer is richer in color than the larger one in the same printing, for example.

I am among those who think very highly of Nelson Shanks and had the good fortune to see his work and a demonstration in Allentown, PA last fall. I would not argue that he is one of the very best. If you have never seen an original Shanks portrait you have missed a lot. At the risk of being a curmudgeon though, I feel that his painting of Pope Paul II is not among his best. There seems to be a postcard feel to it, much as you would find in family travel photos when the picture is taken far enough away from the historical interest just so we can include as much as possible of the site. There is no suggestion of a congregation, which makes you wonder who is benefiting from his blessing.

The sunlit window looks contrived and I find the light and glow to be distracting. Cover it up and the painting is better. This is almost a "Painting of a Window with a Pope"

Sargent, among others, stressed the need to develop the figure as a whole so that you would recognize the subject even without features. In this case the subject is upright and tending to lean backward when we all know and recognize the Pope as short and stooped.

I hope these comments don't seem mean-spirited and I restate my admiration for the artist's ability. But much of this work poses questions. The fabric around his raised arm really looks more like a scrub rag. Around and below it on either side hangs something that looks intestinal and the resulting negative shape is very bothersome as is the shadowed area separating the latter with the vestment. (Where is all the reflected light coming from?)

I suppose I should stop but have to ask myself why he allowed the staff/crucifix to appear as though it emerges from his sleeve. How do you explain the form/lighting/color intensity of the miter, and unless the reproduction is not good why does the arch above his head exist in a fog?

This attachment may be somewhat better than the original post.

(I think I avoided anything that would require a trip to the confessional.)

I think it

My Favorite Portrait
 

In October of 1978, I purchased a 35 mm camera and travelled south from Florence (where I attended graduate school) to Rome. The occassion was the election of our next pope. That "our" became a universal collective as many thousands of people representing millions more from all religions and cultures gathered day after day in St. Peter's Square. All eyes were rivoted to the smokestack that for the first three days signaled black (no decision yet). It billowed white when a unnanimous vote was cast by all cardinals to elect this pope, and the world rejoiced.

Known as a "Pastoral Pope," we knew then he would reach out to create an unprecedented reign of good will and spiritual leadership worldwide.

In September of '02, I accompanied my husband for his first visit to the basilica of St. Peter's. Like all visitors to this holy shrine, wonder filled his eyes at the sheer power of faith, its majesty, and absolute beauty.

Mr. Shanks has captured ALL of this. The person, the place, and all of us the Holy See is welcoming into the light of love and peace.

It has became my favorite portrait - easily.

Funny, I find myself in agreement with all here. I am much more a fan of Sargent than Shanks, but am a fan of this Pope for the reasons Jeanine touches on. They are personal

This is the Panini. Lots of changes since this was done.

I forgot to mention, it has been my experience that "priestly hierarchically" art is very ornate, meaning, the Bishops, Cardinals, Pope

Not every painting...
 

can be every artists' best work. No artist always hits a home run. I like nearly every work on Shanks' website better than this. The two colors most intense are yellow and red. These two are side by side on the face and the hat.

My comments on this portrait may have qualified as technical criticism, as some one noted, but my larger concern is more for the concept and effectiveness of the painting in total. The project would be overwhelming for any of us and we're short of knowing the original intent of the commission and the situation where it will hang.

If the intention was to incorporate the majesty of place as well as the personality and aura of the most recognized spiritual leader in the world, it faced a huge challenge. I have an ongoing project where the family wants to include their house interior (or exterior) that features two stories plus of windows with indications of fall foliage and the full family of six. In each case there is too much going on to do a fair job on a modest sized canvas. To give subject and locale good representation would call for a very large canvas and near life-sized subject to avoid having the subject appear dwarfed or the architecture diminished. Ironically the photos documenting the cathedral only serve to show how short the painting is in reflecting that extraordinary interior.

I have had people respond emotionally to some of my portraits and often wonder how much depended on my efforts versus the emotional attachment by the family to the subject. In some cases I think I could have painted "Baby Jane Doe" on the canvas and tears would have flowed. Is this painting a success aside from the personal and spiritual connections? I would have liked to see a portrait of the Pontiff that revealed something of the man behind the robes and symbolism. Instead the painting feels more like a photo op.

I think my comments are within the spirit of Cafe Guerbois and if the Pope is ever in need of an ex altar boy who still knows the Latin responses I would be more than happy to fill in. "Pater Noster qui es in caelis"......

I love Nelson Shanks' work. And I really love this painting, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any emotional response, spiritual orientation or any other extraneous thing. I've never been to the Vatican. I just respond to this as a painting of a person who is the Pope.

First, as I alluded to earlier, I am struck by the imagination to have presumed this viewpoint - precisely because the "photo-ops" of the Pope explicitly show a normal viewpoint, stooped, round-shouldered, and from above. There is no other way than this "looking up" vantage that could have worked as well IMO.

Regarding the placement of the cane, I would seriously doubt that this was without purpose. Almost, but not quite a tangent. Many of you may remember Shanks' cover on the American Artist magazine, a red-headed woman with a Victorian chair finial sticking out of her head. In the only conversation I ever had with Nelson Shanks I asked him about this, as I couldn't think of anyone who would do such a thing. His reply was along the lines of, "I know. Isn't it great!"

If he only talked the talk, I'd have a much different impression ... but if anyone walks the walk, he certainly does. That is not to say that he isn't a very intense man - he is. He happens to possess quite an intellect.

With regard to the placement of the light, it is right, visually, where it is. I am sure that he he had a clear understanding up front of what parameters were necessary.

Shanks' painting will be displayed at the Philadelphia Museum of Art thru Feb 2 and then tours nationally. I had trouble relocating the exhibition schedule which ends with the painting going to the Vatican.

The following is the Dec 28 press release. I noted, and was not surprised to learn, that he was not able to have a sitting and had to rely on photos.

Nelson Shanks Paints Portrait of Pope John Paul Based on Public Appearances

ANDALUSIA, Pa. (AP) - When he painted Princess Diana in London in 1994, Nelson Shanks spent more than 40 hours huddled in a private studio with the troubled beauty, as paparazzi buzzed on the street below.

Shanks became a close friend of tenor Luciano Pavarotti, whom he will soon paint for the third time, and has a photo of his young daughter chatting up the imposing Margaret Thatcher during a studio break.

But the Bucks County portrait painter, who lives and works in a formal 19th century estate on the Delaware River, never got to meet his latest subject.

"That wasn't possible," said Shanks, beside his radiant portrait of a vibrant Pope John Paul, which he based on public audiences and photos of the aging pontiff from about a decade ago.

"I got to know him as best I could through every bit of material there was."

After touring the United States with other Vatican treasures, the Pope's official portrait will take its place beside works by Michelangelo and Raphael at the Vatican Museum in September 2004.

"It's a direct competition with some of the greatest artists of the past," said the 65-year-old Shanks. He's not Catholic, but as a passionate collector of 16th to 18th century Italian art, he relishes the chance to take on his idols.

The 54-by-50-inch oil painting goes on public view next month, from Jan. 7-9 at the Cathedral Basilica of Saints Peter and Paul in Philadelphia, then moves to the Philadelphia Museum of Art for about a month.

Jim, I hope you don't feel I was slamming you for your "technical" critique of this painting.

What I was trying to say, in addition to what Chris and Jeanine have both said so well is that this is the Catholic Church...

There is nothing more important than symbolism! I searched so hard to find the painting of what my music director friend has so respectfully dubbed the "later baby" Pope portrait. Wow, this one would make your blood curdle! It is truly an Elvis placemat.

I personally love the image of a stooped over John Paul II. His humility really shines.

Beth, I didn't feel "slammed" in any way but did intend to redirect my focus from the bits and pieces of the painting to larger concerns. I will disagree with the importance of symbolism however. It is the ideas and beliefs represented by symbols that are more important. They provide an immediate connection and often-decorative devices for recall and give reminders but do not give full explanation. I was trying to suggest that an opportunity to know the Pope in a way that most of us want to believe cannot be better accomplished than through portraiture might have been missed.

It is quite common when doing critiques to find something not correct about the eyes, nose, or mouth and overlook the equally and usually more important things dealing with concept and composition. In the case of this painting it would be helpful to know what other approaches he considered before arriving at the final. Perhaps its eventual home among masters of old in a time honored place was enough to make him favor something less certain, reserved, and not as typical of his work as I know it. This is the same guy who could pull off "a Victorian finial coming out of her head"? He ties subjects and backgrounds together with boldness, strength, and daring not shown in this painting.

Now I must find time before the display in Philly ends this Sunday to see the painting up close and real and get a better chance to judge its effectiveness.

You are right Jim, and I am sure you can tell I am not a cradle Catholic! I see the symbolism and have a hard time seeing the meaning behind all the "stuff".

Do make time to see this painting for all of us, it will be nice to hear a "been there" review!

Beth, I'll be on the train before 8AM on Saturday.
Report to follow.

I should tell you that my parish as a youngster featured an old Romanesque church with side altars each with large frescos, vaulted ceilings, and stained glass windows. I spent more time than the good nuns wished studying gold leafed pattern and scroll and this early and rich experience sparked my interest in design, color and pattern which I put to good use later in illustration and pattern design.

I recently found some of my old working drawings for a church mural. Do we have a critique category for ceramic tile mural portraits?

A student weighs in:
 

As a serious student of portraiture, I appreciate that the discussion of this work is articulate, well-reasoned, and polite. You'd be surprised how much we beginners can learn from critiques of the work of other, more advanced artists. And since I love Mr. Shanks' work, I am very interested in what professional portraitists have to say about it. For me, it's another learning opportunity.

I first saw this painting on another forum, and the subsequent posts ranged from admiration to crass, ill-informed, rude commentary about everything from the composition to the technical skill. In my opinion, there was absolutely nothing to be learned from discussions about this painting on the other forum, just a blatant display of childishly jealous insults.

I have, in the past, made remarks about the SOG forum that were childish, at best. Lately however, I have come to understand that SOG is one of the best resources for students of portraiture on the Internet. And further, the flavor of discussion here, rather than stifling, is much more conducive to constructive learning and the sharing of ideas.

I salute you.

Minh Thong
(Humbled and Contrite)

The Pope (and Jim) in Philly

I got to see Nelson Shanks' portrait of the Pope just before it left the Philadelphia Museum of Art for a national tour. There was not much about seeing the painting in the real to change any of my earlier comments. I was pleased that the face looked better than any of the reproductions that I had seen previously and was surprised that much of it was in shadow. Tricky to pull off but well done. I attached a picture that shows the painting in a frame that has Latin text in relief and was beyond my understanding of Latin save a reference to the Pope's predecessor, St Peter. Excuse the picture quality. The Museum does not allow tripods or flash. The hat was every bit as strong in intense yellow as my earlier post showed and, without continuing to nit pick, his hand holding the staff looks a bit large. I have seen other Shanks paintings that look like he avoids the common mistake of making hands too small by making them large. But then, again, maybe the Pope has large hands.

The overall effect is very spiritual and given its eventual home, will be very effective.

Thanks for posting this, Jim. I'm surprised how small the painting is. I thought it would be life size.

Michele,

The museum had little information available but an earlier press release (see my 1/29 post) said the painting was 54"x50".

Jim,

Did you notice anything in particular that you thought was handled masterfully? Composition, certain color choices, etc..

I am surprised at the choice of frame. For the Vatican I would have expected a more ornate frame. I also would have liked to know at what height this painting will hang, once it is at "home". Church commissions were usually meant to be viewed from a certain viewpoint. This would in turn determine the choice of perspective chosen by the artist. Have you heard anything in regards to that?

I'm afraid, Enzie, that nothing changed my mind in a positive way and certainly not the concept/composition. This, of course, is coming from one artists' tendency to look more critically than the majority will and believe it likely that it will be a very popular painting. If anything, I will make a return visit to his previous work with a different eye.

I know little about the place where it will hang. The frame is very classy. It's a contemporary classic and the photos do not do it justice.

Thanks Jim! I really like the portrait of the guy standing in front! ;)

It certainly looks like Pope art. I must say, I really like his choice of colors, they are soothing and work together very well.

This portrait is really gorgeous and I have nothing but admiration for the artist, Nelson Shanks.

Jim, since you have been "up close and personal" with this painting, did you happen to notice the kind of canvas he used? Was it smooth, textured or painted directly on a smooth board?

Karin,

I'm sorry to say that I failed to notice any evidence of canvas texture. I can't be sure but I think I recall some reflection from the lights on the upper part of the painting that indicated canvas as opposed to rigid substrate however.

The young man who took my picture is a student of Shanks and he intended to send his email address to me in order that I might send his photo beside the painting. If I hear from him we might have a source to answer your questions. I gave him my card but have not heard from him after 11 days.

Texture
 

Karin,

I just saw a large portrait by Shanks at the Forum Gallery in NY at a show entitled "Modern and Contemporary Portraits." It was his painting of the opera singer Denise Graves. The painting was on a more heavily textured canvas. Definately not portrait grade linen.

The painting was about 6 or 7 feet high. Perhaps he would paint a smaller painting on a finer weave canvas.

I dunno, he just never returns my calls! (joke!)

It was an interesting show nonetheless. With few exceptions, not exactly what you would call "commercial" portraiture.

I wonder what's more heroic. This painting with a strong looking pope with a heroic gesture, or a painting in which the pope was portrayed how he is now, with the portraitist trying to show the inner strength of someone in that position and health-situation.

I guess Shanks had no choice than to do it this way.

Peter