Taste

[Aldo Balding]

As a London painter I have to say that the standard of work is very high and the number of talented artists obviously greater than here. The portrayal of the subject is very different however. The repeated angelic children lit by heaven's glow has become a trend as have the happy portraits. As an outsider I feel it often denigrates the work shown here. Would you choose to portray deeper emotions in your portraits if it were not for the confines of pleasing the clients? Is this a recent trend?

The winners in your competitions contrastingly convey more substance, perhaps there is a niche for more of this work.

For me the most refreshing artists are the ones who are more individual, for example Jerry Weiss, whose work also posesses a "drawn" quality.


Aldo Balding

[Michele Rushworth]

I often paint happy portraits because I like them, and for the same reason that I like the work of Franz Hals. His paintings of smiling and laughing subjects bring his century to life for me like no other artist's work does.

[Chris Saper]

Dear Aldo,

I find your observations interesting, with which some I agree, and some I don't.

I also find it a strange dichotomy that the portrait societies' winners tend to be appreciatively different from the multitude of commissions that keep American portrait painters busy and booked up well - often years - in advance. Despite what the portrait societies' judges may like, and choose, the business and economics side of portraiture, certainly here in the US in fact is driven by demand, most of which commands higher prices than, at least from what I can ascertain, are paid in European countries. Of course, there are always exceptions.

I realize from your other posts that you appear to be in tremendous demand for commissions in your country, and I really do congratulate you on this. However, I would suggest, if only from my own experience, that the bulk of American clients are not artists, nor are they critics. They are people who find and hire portrait artists because of someone they know, love, and respect, and wish to see portrayed in that light.

I have also found that the portraits I have painted for my own portfolio fare better in national competitions than those I have painted as commissions. To this I would say I am appreciative, because the acknowledgement from other painters is really special. It, however, has absolutely nothing to do with my work as a commission painter. I have never met a single potential client who wants me to paint the kind of portrait I presume that you hold precious. And I would never give up the relationship I have with my clients and being able to please them for the approval of someone who would not hire me.

I choose to have a close relationship with my clients. If I didn't, I would direct my efforts toward inventory ( aka gallery -controlled work) Fortunately, any given painter can satisfy both masters, if he or she so chooses.

You may have noticed in the title line for this website, the word, "traditional" . The SOG members are essentially full time professional painters in the business of portrait painting. Most of the participants in the Forum likewise are interested in painting work that pleases clients, not in the business of deciding that our clients' taste is somehow lacking and should be changed.

Does this have anything to do with your thread? Sure. But do realize that there are many other internet forums that are dedicated to the "purity" of artistic taste. This site is about quality, but it is also very much about the business of portraiture. There's a place where they coalesce, and that is , at least to me, what we are about.

[Steven Sweeney]

In the many hundreds of portraits represented in the Stroke of Genius site, and thousands painted elsewhere every year, there is simply too little evidence for a broad-brush indictment of them all

An argument for the angelic: when a child is gone, either grown or deceased, the petulant, angry, defiant, petty, cranky dissipates into the air. Only the sweetness remains. I think many people commission portraits based on knowing that they want to preserve these, rather than other moments. Thankfully, lots of people look at these as heirlooms, and take it with the same gravity (or more) as a professional photograph.

Other people want their child entered into a tradition of poses, and that includes the starched clothes and predictable poses.

Given the chance to own a hundred portraits, I think people might want to capture every waking moment and shade.

Best
Lisa

[Michele Rushworth]

Chris, you raised some interesting points. The dichotomy between what we do for clients and what wins awards is an issue in many creative professions.

Years ago when I knew many people in the television advertising business I heard someone talk about this. They had just won a major award for an offbeat commercial that was ostensibly about shoes. Someone asked them if they thought that ad would really sell many shoes. The prize winner answered, "Of course not, this ad was meant to win us a prize. Then we'd get lots more clients who would hire us to make commercials that would really sell the shoes for them."

I think judges, most of whom are in the artistic professions themselves, look for creativity. Clients look for effectiveness at meeting a goal, and the two are not always the same thing.

[Karin Wells]

...to portray deeper emotions in your portraits...

Aldo, am I to assume that you define "deep" emotion as always negative and joyless if not downright mean spirited and grumpy?

Are our clients not being "authentic" if they "dress up" and try to look their very best for a portrait sitting?

I would like to think that some of us are able to see the dignity, worth and beauty of every human being. To portray any less than the very best aspects of the sitter is to do a great disservice to all involved.

Please don't be so quick to pass such a harsh judgement on those of us who are trying to make a decent living by giving our clients what they want. We don't deserve your criticism and scorn.

[Aldo Balding]

Pensive, thoughtful, kind, passive, shy, mischievous, compassionate are all great characteristics. Beauty, grace and elegance, also. I have never mentioned negative characteristics.

Being detached, I thought you may appreciate
comments reflecting a different culture. They are fair comments I think. Because if there is too much of one thing it becomes less exciting.

I suppose it is human nature to hear the negative comments and not the positive ones that I also made.

I think a little diversity would add to your excellent site, not detract from it.

Regards


Aldo Balding

[Leslie Ficcaglia]

Aldo, I appreciated hearing another viewpoint and it certainly made me review, in mind's eye, my own body of work. I agree with Michele that pictures in which people look happy are more appealing for me to paint, and often to look at; one reason I switched to photo references instead of working from life was to avoid the bland, homogenized expression that a model produces after hours of sitting. However, as Chris and several others pointed out we can be much freer in those paintings that we create for our own pleasure than in those that are commissioned. Similarly I've heard wildlife artists who are competing for prizes in that arena lament that detailed realism and not painterly expression is what attracts attention from those judges.

I suspect that what you are seeing - and what we are hearing from our clients - partially derives from the southern portrait tradition in our country, where little boys in suits and little girls in white dresses are much valued. The academic/corporate tradition is somewhat different but still tends to idealize. And as has been noted, the Strokes of Genius forum is very much about traditional portrait painting as interpreted largely by an American body of clients.

I took a look at Jerry Weiss's paintings and liked them very much; they have a spare yet painterly quality that is immensely appealing and evocative. Thanks for bringing him to my attention and for raising some interesting questions. I look forward to seeing more of your work and reading more of your ideas.

[Tom Edgerton]

Competitions are a conversation among artists, without the sitters or clients involved. It's the environment in which we hold up superior work to each other for our mutual admiration and delight, and for what we can learn from it. The awards are bestowed on both commissioned and non-commissioned work, but these categories are rarely if ever delineated or discussed, nor in my opinion should they be. Good work is good work.

When I paint for myself, without compensation from the sitter, I can paint any human emotion I choose and explore any facet of human psychology I want to depict. These are works that I initiate, for my own aesthetic satisfaction.

When I enter into a commission, I enter into a collaboration with the client. I don't perceive my job in this context as imposing my own psychological overlay onto them, other than what occurs naturally. They want to be portrayed in a favorable light, or at least as reasonable people, and it's not my task to convince the world otherwise. Also, because of my own gregarious nature, I rarely meet a potential client that has no qualities that I can appreciate or respond favorably to. End of story.

A fortunate few of the portrait artists working today have achieved a career status and reputation that may cause a comissioning client "give over" to whatever vision that the artist wants to create. This is the exception, not the rule. I would love to be in this position, but I don't chafe under the limitations of a commissioned environment--it's my bread and butter, and I want to be busy. And to some extent, that is what determines what of my work I choose to include on my site.

The conceit that anything but a dark or serious portrayal of a subject is somehow less spiritually "truthful" or "deep" is nonsense. It is completely possible to show a sitter with a positive or pleasant demeanor and still produce a work with richness and complexity, that continues to inform and reward the viewer upon repeated visits.

A body of portrait work with a relentlessly serious or dark viewpoint doesn't tell me anything more about the subjects than uniformly "happy" work, but it speaks volumes about the artist. Or the critic.

Thanks for a pithy discussion.

With warm regards to a fellow artist--TE