Royal portraiture
 

Hello ,

I have been reading interesting topics about various styles of portraiture, and would like to post a link to the official portrait of HM King Harald and HM Queen Sonja of Norway.

Thought it would be interesting to see what actually could be accepted as Presidential portraiture.

I did`t do it, though.

Grethe

http://www.hakon-gullvag.no/eng/port...hp?galleri=vis

Well done Grethe for posting such an interesting approach to portraits. These for me are perfectly regal and contemporary portraits, I specially liked the less official painting of the king reading.

When a painter has so deep roots into classical painting (Chardin is one of my favourites too), the results can't just go astray, I mean that his paintings have the solidity of a master with all the frightening speed of modern times thrown into also.

Thank you for this link that I immediately included in my favourits list.
Ilaria

Illaria,
thank you for responding. first I`d like to apologize for the laughing icon, it was not meant to be there. if there is a way to delete it I would like to do so.

I have a few questions to those who would be interested to discuss it.
Is this an example of an artist that paint portraits, rather than a portrait-artist? Is there at all a difference to those terms?

Grethe

Grethe,

Didn't you mean to post this in the presidential portraiture thread?

My goodness, these are certainly different from what would be appealing to most clients here! They are energetic and colorful but too brave for any of the portrait agencies or official portrait clients that I know of in the U.S.

Cynthia,
I thought about it, but then I thought maybe this was the place to start a discussion, maybe. I am a newbie so please guide me.
Michele,
I think not only in the US.I believe it is rather a rare phenomenon that highly profiled persons just accept to be rendered almost like zombies.

Wow, these are really interesting, Grethe!

I like their straightforward forcefulness. Also how the floor, wall and face are in textured concert with the plethora of military decorations displayed. Here in America, I fear an artist might be burned at the stake for a similarly inspired effigy of President Bush, but I could easily be wrong. People are afraid to speak forthrightly here.

Thanks for this awakening breath of fresh air!

Garth

I am curious to know whether these of the King and Queen are "authorized" portraits.

If you knowingly place yourself in front of a painter that demonstrates this style then all is well. Except for the thought that these notable figures are creating portraits for the people, for the public, not just for themselves. It's a little like a state of the union address. These look like the state of the union is a bit chaotic.

Well I see now that you state that these are the official portraits.

Actually my first thought was "Dawn of the Dead." They look like something one might see on a B-grade horror movie poster.
If I may be so bold....whatever merit lies in the way the figures are rendered (if there is any) - the paint handling itself, - it is completely undercut and invalidated by the random, abstract marks that fill the background; mark-making that, to me, seems arbitrary, self-indulgent, lazy, signifying nothing....it's as if the painting wants to be representational and abstract at the same time, causing it to fail on both counts. And I'm not judging this from some kind of reactionary, anti-modernist, classical realist perspective: I would much prefer to see an entirely abstract painting by this artist - it would, no doubt, be more intriguing, (more consistent at least). And, conversely, if this artist were to really explore how this particular mark-making can render form - a worthwhile endeavor. But, as they are - speaking forthrightly - I find these paintings really....lame. And the fact that they are official portraits of royalty....well...

Is it just me...?

Hi all,

This is the "number one" portrait painter in this country. Hakon Gullvag has painted most of our official portraits,besides the King and Queen, all the portraits on his site are of well known persons such as actors, authors, musicians, professors etc. He is very well known and accepted in a wide range.

I agree to a certain point that his artistic approach is interesting, but when it comes too official portraiture I have a hard time to accept.
None of his portraits were ever rejected, as far as I know. Or in case , it would be a very well kept secret. He usually are on the news headlines whenever a new portrait is unveiled. And the critics usually very positive.

The Kings portrait hangs in Oslo City Hall, where the reception of all foreign official visitors are held.

That is exactly what i read in an interview...." I started out abstract , then the storyteller in me became very strong so I had to somehow find a way to combine this..."

They're a lot like music in the minor key. Initially they're like encountering Stravinsky after being overly familiar with earlier composers like Bach and Verdi. At first a bit horrifying but, for me anyway, after being unwittingly influenced by them after only glancing at them very briefly (tsk tsk what my mind is doing when I'm not watching! :o ) becoming quite truthful and, ultimately, quite beautiful. There are so many minor keys in colours, marks, emotion, life - if you are willing to let yourself see them.

I am looking forward to see how they are going to influence you, Ilaria!

Thanks for posting them, Grethe.

But is`nt abstract principles and thinking quite impossible in portraiture?
would maybe work like this be setting the standards for the future and be remembered in history for making significant changes to representational portraiture?
I doubt it.

Grethe

Grethe,

I think you are absolutely right. No matter how "loose" a portrait of someone (or something) is painted, it is nevertheless a representational work of art. When the viewer fails to be able to identify or name any particular object or thing, it then becomes an abstract image. A painting can be "pushed" to the brink of abstraction, but still be representational; but beyond which, at a certain point, we will not be able to call it representational.

The problem I have with these paintings is not so much how the figures are rendered - (they are actually not that loosely rendered and contain quite a bit of recognizable detail; how well or not they are painted is a judgement call, and, as I see it a separate issue). The main problem I have with these is all the wild (free), gestural paint smears that seem to exist only for their own sake, that don't relate to or support in the least, the figures themselves, thereby making a unified, complete artistic statement impossible. These paintings (of the King and Queen) look schizophrenic to me.

I did look at some of this artist's other work, and some of it was far superior to these: more unified, consistent and intriguing...they deserve a serious look at least.

But even with these (as with any modern - especially "modernist") paintings, the big question - as you indicated - is always there, lurking in the background: will this work stand the test of time?

I doubt it.

David

I think that the analogy of music is a possible key to understand the essence of art painting.

It is the how and not the what you do that qualifies you to call your self an artist.

The 'how' could be the economy of the brushstrokes, i.e. how you describe a shadow, how you make the transition from skin to hair, edges, basically the information that the single brushstroke hold.

The 'what' is if you paint a Queen or a Cucumber.

In a portrait the what and the how must support each other.

I believe that the 'how' should be regarded as abstract elements and the most interesting parts of any painting. Anyway to those who
have no interest in the person portrayed.

If we talk about music it will not qualify for being a work of quality that it is a sentimental love song if it does not sound good. Why would Elvis do takes after takes if it were not for perfection of expression.

Expression is all, when it comes to survival of art, and thank you for that. ;)

Thank you David for finding the words, I could`nt agree more.

[QUOTE=Allan Rahbek]I think that the analogy of music is a possible key to understand the essence of art painting.

Allan, I agree, it is indeed.

I cant help thinking that the most important issue for the modernist painter is to force him/her self to bring out something that has not been done before. And that he believes that nothing at all should be repeated from the past. He is afraid to look back in time. And throws his brush
around to make sure he will not be compared with someone from the past. And in the end , if he`s lucky , he will be blessed by the king and queen.

Grethe

[QUOTE=Grethe Angen.
I cant help thinking that the most important issue for the modernist painter is to force him/her self to bring out something that has not been done before.Grethe[/QUOTE]

The King spoke: " You are wonderful, you are all individuals !" and the crowd responded jubilantly, " Yes, we are all individuals !".
A little man, over in the corner, said. " I'm not, I do portraits!"

Update:
I mean that, If they all want to be something special, how come that they all try to do the same thing ?

I guess that it will be too much to expect that so very many people has the qualifications to become real artists. It takes both talent and hard work. History will tell !

The situation here in Denmark is even worse, since the upcoming Nordic Portrait Competition's terms specifies that: "unlike the Anglo-Saxon Countries, we will accept all sorts of portraits in any medium i. e. abstract painting, photo, video etc. and not only traditional painting and sculpture."

I find the idea to accept abstract painting for a portrait competition rather amusing.
Allan I wonder if it will be an abstract portrait that wins! :)

My take on this works as official portraits:
I am sure these are not the one and only paintings depicting the royals. I find it quite normal that an artist which is widely regarded as very influential in his country is commissioned to tackle the subject. To me it looks that he did so honestly, with the same attitude he has used toward other sitters and which has landed him this commission. Also if he is so well known, Norwegians will be visually used to his style.

He hasn't mocked the royalties or made them look ugly (see Freud's portrait of Elizabeth), rather he has worked on their iconic look: they are immediately recognizable as north european monarchs, the queen almost looks like a doll in her satately dress, the king like a lead soldier, which I have seen in other paintings by Gullvag on his website. I think he almost allude to their official persona almost as a role they have to play.
I believe these works will be hanged more as interesting works of art rather than " beware the king is watching you" painting, and as such I find them very respectable.
There is a dark side to them , is true, but I can't help being fascinated by these images.
I don't find them lame, David, it looks to me as this artist IS trying to include elements of abstraction and action painting, and that they do work in contest. But again it's a personal view.
Ilaria

Interesting thoughts, Illaria. but I do not agree with you. Nevermind.

As Allan mentioned there will be a Nordic portrait competition where they accept abstract paining. along with traditional portraiture. In my opinion abstract portraiture should compete separate because I think it is wrong to put the two up against each other.

All art is abstract - sometimes it just happens to look like something recognisable. It is the balance of the two that makes for great representational art, take Degas for example.

He just pushes wonderful designs of colour and tone into the realm of space and form as we know it, but barely. It is our own minds that flesh out the figure into a reproduction of reality.

And our own Sharon Knettel

Sometimes, often, mere representation of a thing does not allow for a painting to sing. The artist might as well have been painting walls. And songs can be a lot more that just lullabies.

There are those that believe that anything created by human hands is beautiful. I tend not to be so generous.

When you create representation art, without the use of clouds for hair, or figs for ears; upon completion you have taken yourself out of the loop. There is no need to call you back to explain your meaning, or weave your motives to those who would stand and listen. There is, in fact, much less chance for celebrity. Some, however, understand that if they can create some mystery, intrigue, or exclusivity surrounding either their process, or their reasoning for the use of figs, then they will still be needed. Those that are intrigued will continue to call on them to explain (or refuse to explain) themselves. If in the explanation even more ambiguity is created then all the better.

What a wonderful thing

Here`s Artist and Queen, while explaining Ibsen ... http://nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.101...img1017075.jpg

I am saddened by the fact that these paintings, supposedly representations of nobility, are considered as works of art let alone representations of a human being. Is this is the artists imagination or this is for financial gain it makes no difference. If an educated artist cannot find beauty in another and in things created and must represent what he/she seas in such a manner then there is something wrong. Where is the problem or who is wrong? I think we all know and is clearly seen and understood. It is sad.

The link must be typed out and you get the photo of the queen and the artist.

Hello Mischa,
yes it`s sad, I agree.

I tried to post a link to some ver interesting images for those who have found this topic intersting. But because there are strange letters in our language it is not possible to post a link. But if you google the following on images:
Gullvaag, Ibsen you should be able to see them.

I fixed the link so it works now.

Cynthia, Thank you very much.

This thread has me thinking of my ill-fated plan to introduce my work to the Norwegian Royals a couple of years ago. The former business partner of a friend of mine is related to the Norwegian Royal family. I sent him my portfolio to show her the day of her farewell party from the business. Unfortunately everyone involved had too much to drink and the next day it appears my friend

[QUOTE=
Trying to get your foot in the royal doorway is a formidable challenge, especially if you

Well thank you Grethe. That's very kind of you to say.

If I even suspected I would one day get a hug from Queen Sonja, I would give up my garlic-rich diet immediately!

Very interesting these portraits of the King and Queen of Norway! I really like the first one of the Queen, it's so different.

In reply to your question, I just placed a reply to an other topic on British portraiture last week, where I touch the same subject. I will copy paste it here:

"Kinstler said he is not a portrait painter but an artist who paints portraits, I find that very inspiring. That is the difference between a craftsman and an artist. A craftsman mostly gets his craftsmanship from studying old techniques and looks back and learns from what others before him have done. An artist I think, also looks at what others do and have done before him, but then feels free to do something totally different or takes only fragments of this information for his own use. Is there maybe a parallel if you look at the American portrait artists and the British/European portrait artists?"

For the whole thread see:
Britisch portraiture

Scott, enjoy your garlic, its healthy.

thanks ,Bianca I have been so busy in this thread.
Haven't had time to read through the thread about British portraiture but will do now, sounds interesting.