Aha quality = Integrita, Convenientia, Claritas

[Patricia Joyce]

I enjoy Robert Genn

[Sharon Knettell]

Pat,

I have read and reread your profound post. I do not think I have read a more accurate and beautiful meaning of and raison d'etre for art.

I think portraits are all too often hobbled by the interference of clients. It is impossible for them to share your vision. When you cede power to them by always acquiescing to their desires in the guise of pleasing them, you are painting their picture, their vision, not yours.

Thank-you for posting this.

[Patricia Joyce]

I'm glad you enjoyed it Sharon. I have a real problem though, believing that Joseph Campbell really felt that "portraits were hobbled by the need to be what they represented." This feels inconsistant with what he has written about myth. Isn't a portrait the most powerful and mythic subject to "squeeze out a meaning and a value of"?

I just hate to have Jospeh Campbell falter on the pedestal I placed him on years ago when I first discovered his books!!

[Sharon Knettell]

I don't think you have to remove Joseph Campbell from his pedestal.

Art is at it's core a transformative vehicle. When the painting is of a specific person, you ARE designing THAT painting to glorify or show THAT particular person in the most favorable light. This is generally a commission which fufills the desire of the client to be immortalized or remembered favorably. This is opposed to a vision you have of some idea or expression you wish to communicate. That can indeed be a figurative AND include a beautiful or interesting face that interests or moves you, but that face or portrait is done to further your vision, not at the behest of the client.This is very limiting, Campbell in my opinion is right.

Think of the many paintings of the Virgin Mary, her face was used to communicate among other concepts, eternal love. Botticelli's "Primavera" figures and faces were manifestations of the different aspects of nature.

Once in a while you can get a client that fits your aesthetic vision, but that is rare. That Sargent managed so well is truly astounding. It was by his force of overwhelming talent and nature that he was able to prevail in his concepts. They were not always liked by the client either. Lady Sassoon disliked her magniicent portrait. In the Northeast we are privy to various sites that have original Sargents. He was not always successful. He was not always inspired and some are downright sloppy ande poorly executed

So what does a portrait artist do to stay true to his vision? That is up to each and every one of them..

[Sharon Knettell]

PS.

Somehow, I can't imagine a portrait of 'the Donald' or Dick Cheney, though perhaps lucrative and prestigious commissions giving you that AHA moment.