A proper foundation
 

I've mentioned before that I was once a builder of fancy homes for fancy people. The image below, the boss of my foundation crew, was taken on the site of the last home I built. It was typical in that it was a custom home, original design, difficult site, with a client hovering over me for two years. The sort of ingredients that make me sigh and think how glad I am that I don't have to wake up to this anymore. Ten years of this and I was never sued -- the only true measure of a man.

The further I get from the events of this image the more I am able appreciate it. Also, my perceptions regarding what portraiture may be have been modified substantially since then.

My reasons for posting this image are to make the comparison between this, a man working at his profession, and the many corporate portraits of suited men surrounded by books. Not to malign those images too much, I wish I had a google of them backed up. But, to say that they offer sameness ... well.

I believe that my sensitivities, my thinking about what a portrait can be has been altered by the images I've studied on Daniel Greene's new web site.

Is this man, spattered with concrete mud, any less worthy of our efforts? I post Daniel Green's image of "The radiologist," not to demean it in any way, but to suggest that it is not much different than this "Man of concrete." Both are shown heroically, in their element.

I don't mean to ask this question in a way that suggests that the answer must be yes. It certainly offers a different aesthetic. Matters of concept and judgment are by nature difficult to discuss in absolute terms, but, I would be interested in hearing opinions on the subject. Hey, what else do you have to do?

Also, I think that some might call this a figurative image, I would call it a portrait.

I agree on that and D. G.'s radiologist portrait is much more charming and at ease than countless other portraits of note worthy professionals. I suppose the "in the element" depiction as well as the man's relaxed countenance play a big part in the down to earth feel of this work.

Are you going to paint this portrait of your foundation crew boss? With all the memories and sentiments that are attached to this individual, I can't imagine a painter better suited for the task.

Well, Daniel Greene comes to mind.

I will admit that my questions are often more clear in my mind than on the page. I'll try and articulate it better as I watch men play football today in the frozen north. Maybe the intravenous beer / guacamole dip will bring things into better focus.

What has changed? I gather your statement is a lot more philosophical than my previous comments. But I haven't got the "corporate portraiture" work experience to relate really.

Beer and football, better you than me Mike :)

Mike,

That is a portrait and one with meaning.

Truth is I don't really like beer, and I rarely watch sports on TV until the end of the season. As I've watch it recently I see that the advertisers are convinced that the viewers are a collection of males who have two things in common -- they drink a lot of beer, and they are romantically challenged. I wonder if one doesn't have a lot to do with the other.

Regarding Daniel Greene -- I find that his portrayal of the subjects he paints far less glamorized than most. He instead seems to embrace the obvious humanity of the individual, instead of trying to create a false facade. In the case of Robert Beverly Hale -- the eyes cast down, looking as a man might who's lived a long life. The craggy hands painted not in suggestion, or hidden behind the coat, but up front in detail.

And to the right, the geometric guidelines suggesting some of the elements of draftsmanship. Yet, not eliminated at the end, but left as part of the composition.

I also see this exposed humanity in the portrait of Mr. Steinberg.

What is possible, what is appropriate, is limited only by the imagination and our own intestinal fortitude.

Having said all that -- When I was in the home building business there was among builders an unspoken competition to create the "new" look, that "cutting edge" design which would stand you apart. Having watched this transpire over the years it brought into focus the principal that there is a very fine line between dynamic "leading edge" design, and just plain goofy.

In my opinion any person is worthy of a portrait, but for several reasons there are only a few taken under the brush.

The challenge is the painters. He is the one that has to decide the pose, outfit and expression. Anyway we have to choose among the possibilities.

As long as the painting is a portrait of the person and not the outfit.

There are too may suits in traditional portraiture.

Allan

My favorite D.G. painting/pastel works are the ones that cut through surface pleasantries and down to the essence of the individual or what was perceived as their deeper character. But this begets the questions:

Is the artist a merchant providing a service to the patron - which is to be remembered as important , pleasant, and beautiful? Is this need at odds with the artist's private wish of creating a work that may reveal more? To whom should the artist be more loyal, him/herself or the client's humanly wish? Let's not forget many of the well known portrait painters were/are good business managers as well. The best case scenario would be where the client is willing to set their own frailties aside and let the artist do the choosing. I won't be surprised if D.G.'s Mr. Hale was more kindly disposed toward making a remarkable piece of artwork than having himself beautified by D.G.

I better shut up, otherwise I'll never get any real painting done :)

I think you should do a portrait of the "Man of Concrete".

Suits
 

Suits, suits suits.

Allan, here are a few more.