|
It's very difficult for a portrait painter to respond to a portrait painted by someone who principally is not a conventional portrait artist. If I were a prominate personage such as the Queen who already has a collection of conventional portraits, I might very well want a version by the likes of Freud, Warhol, Modigliani, etc. They are buying "Fine Art" (for historical or investment considerations) where the artist uses the sitter as a reference point from which to do the kind of thing that fits their style and form of expression which may or may not be concerned with revealing anything about the subject. For this reason I am at a loss to understand what the painting accomplishes that would require as much as 70 sittings. While I see some merit in the painting as a work of art, it is difficult to understand why he pursued this commission other than selfish gain/fame.
In any event with the stir that it has caused may gain the conventional portrait community more attention then would ever have been generated otherwise. I won't be surprised to see a lot of follow up press on portraiture.
Are we looking at the full painting? I would like to know the size of the painting as well.
|