Portrait Artist Forum - View Single Post - Blake Gopnik trashes official portraits in Washington Post article

Thomas Nash · 06-05-2005, 12:10 PM

Yeah, pretty funny isn't it? It kinda shows how much Gopnik is stuck in the confused 1970's or 80's art world mind set, far from being the "cutting edge" expert he would like us to think he is.

I think this concept has been pretty well debunked a long time ago. I addressed it in my response to the W. Post, we'll see if they print it.

He praised Gilbert Stuart for being an "important" artist of his day and never suggested that he should have been pursuing something "more cutting edge". Gopnik, (who has gotten his art history wrong in the past) seems to have forgotten that portraiture already had a strong tradition and the bar had been raised pretty high when Stuart decided to take a shot at it.

Many thought (and still do) that Anthony Van Dyck had taken portrait painting as far as it could go. Van Dyck had been dead 114 years when Stuart was born. Had Stuart been the more "artistically ambitious artist" that Gopnik envisions, and been afraid to even try to paint portraits, the folks lining up today at the National Gallery to see his work would be in for a big disappointment. Fortunately for everybody, Stuart didn't have access to Gopnik's wise council.

Gopnik has no problem labeling Sargent as an example of an "artist who mattered most" , despite the fact that by the time he took up the art form, BOTH Van Dyck and Stuart had already "left little breathing room". Fortunately Sargent didn't buy into Gopniks silly notion either. Aren't we all glad that our Mr. Sargent at least "gave it a try"?

Like you said, laughable.

06-05-2005, 12:10 PM	#12
Thomas Nash SOG Member Joined: Apr 2004 Location: Roswell, GA Posts: 46	The old "it's been done before" argument! Yeah, pretty funny isn't it? It kinda shows how much Gopnik is stuck in the confused 1970's or 80's art world mind set, far from being the "cutting edge" expert he would like us to think he is. I think this concept has been pretty well debunked a long time ago. I addressed it in my response to the W. Post, we'll see if they print it. He praised Gilbert Stuart for being an "important" artist of his day and never suggested that he should have been pursuing something "more cutting edge". Gopnik, (who has gotten his art history wrong in the past) seems to have forgotten that portraiture already had a strong tradition and the bar had been raised pretty high when Stuart decided to take a shot at it. Many thought (and still do) that Anthony Van Dyck had taken portrait painting as far as it could go. Van Dyck had been dead 114 years when Stuart was born. Had Stuart been the more "artistically ambitious artist" that Gopnik envisions, and been afraid to even try to paint portraits, the folks lining up today at the National Gallery to see his work would be in for a big disappointment. Fortunately for everybody, Stuart didn't have access to Gopnik's wise council. Gopnik has no problem labeling Sargent as an example of an "artist who mattered most" , despite the fact that by the time he took up the art form, BOTH Van Dyck and Stuart had already "left little breathing room". Fortunately Sargent didn't buy into Gopniks silly notion either. Aren't we all glad that our Mr. Sargent at least "gave it a try"? Like you said, laughable.