Washington Post article

[Cynthia Daniel]

Official Portraits Draw Skeptical Gaze

[Alexandra Tyng]

I thought the article looked at the issue from different sides and presented a relatively unbiased view of the subject, considering that the readership is the general public. It is easy to see how people would question spending what seem to be large outlays of money for portraits when photographs are available. Art is considered a luxury by many, even by the same people who appreciate it and are inspired by it. So in these tough economic times, the issue of money is bound to be raised.

I noticed a couple of issues that the writer was probably unaware of. One is that, as younger and talented artists come into the market, prices become competitive. This happens repeatedly in waves. I would imagine that those at the "top" of the field financially would enjoy riding the crest of the wave for a while--until it breaks and a new wave comes along. Once the new artists flood the market with high quality art, people catch on and it is harder and harder for the "top" artists to get commissions at a very high price. It's just the way of the world. I think it is easy for artists to out-price themselves if they think things are always going to be the same or better. So some of the price confusion that was discussed in the article relates to this, and that is why there is disagreement over the definition of a "cheap" portrait. Some people care about reputation and quality, others about reputation only, and others care more about getting high quality for less money.

The other issue I noticed, reading between the lines, is a lack of understanding of how artists are commissioned vs. how government jobs are awarded. Reading the article, someone might get the impression that something fishy was going on, that artists were being awarded favors, because no bidding had occurred! I thought this was amusing, but a little frustrating, too, because the author of the article didn't take the time to explain how art is commissioned.

It was really nice to see Joy Thomas mentioned, and Michele Rushworth (though not by name). There were a few other familiar names, and maybe other forum members, too. Exciting!

[SB Wang]

I'd like to see more statues of prominent writers, artists, scientists insteads of who has power.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Originally Posted by SB Wang

I'd like to see more statues of prominent writers, artists, scientists insteads of who has power.

SB, I couldn't agree more. I've always wondered why, as Joy Thomas says, you have to have a certain number of these political/governmental portraits in your portfolio before you are taken seriously. Not to diminish the importance of these people--but why are famous artists, musicians, writers, scientists, etc. not considered as "important?" Why would a commission to paint one of these people not be considered as important? Because really these people make the world a better place.

[SB Wang]

Thanks!
America is the world leader ae well as a young country. We have the first rate stars in these catagories. Our impressionists are better than many Freanch. Young artists here are amazing. Whenever I hear about Senator so-and- so stands there permanently, I think about Einstein and others.

[Michele Rushworth]

I'm the artist who was commissioned to create the portrait of the Commander of the US Coast Guard that the author mentioned, at just about half the price of the previous one, and much less than the $45K range that was often mentioned in the article for some of the other portraits. I guess I'm one of the newer artists who are charging less, as Alex noted.

The Coast Guard told me in advance that the Washington Post reporter might be calling me for an interview, but since my pricing didn't bolster his argument, he decided against it.