Portraiture a Dying Art?

[Steven Sweeney]

New member Ngaire Winwood posed this issue in another thread, and I thought it worth offering up in the Cafe to solicit insights from practitioners who are up on the front lines. I know that I've heard some harrowing accounts lately from some pretty accomplished painters.

I was speaking to a photographer recently and he was saying that portrait art is a dying art, why bother, as photography colours/paper etc now last for a couple of hundred years without fading. Most people can't afford painted portraits, so why bother etc because most people don't need painted portraits etc. Of course, I explained there two different mediums, styles etc. but he was smug about already predicting the failure of my upcoming (next 5 years or so) business venture (when I ever get good enough of course). What is your opinion Steven or does anyone else like to comment on portaiture's prosperity?

[Michele Rushworth]

I don't know if I'd give much weight to the opinion of a photographer when it comes to the future of painted portraiture. Yes, what we do is more expensive than what he does, and not many people can afford our work, but that's like listening to the Volkswagen salesman saying negative things about the Jaguar dealer across town. The Jag is more expensive and the Volkswagen may last just as long, but the two cars are created for very different purposes...

As far as how portraiture is doing as an industry, like any other luxury item it's very sensitive to the swings of the economy. Other than the problems some artists have had because their prospective clients have felt a bit of belt tightening lately, it seems that portraiture is doing very well in the big scheme of things.

Forbes magazine ran an article about portrait artists in late 2001 and had the subheading "Business is booming for artists who paint likenesses at up to $50,000 a pop." Later in the article they wrote, "Despite market woes, professional portrait artists aren't pawning their palettes to pay the rent."

In the last couple of years Business Week and Vogue Magazine have both run articles on how to pick a portrait artist and what to wear when you get your portrait done.

When the high end media pays this much attention to what we do I don't think we can call it a dying art quite yet.

[Elizabeth Schott]

Steven I try to address this in a poster size ad that I hang at my shows. I am not sure how readable this image will be since I had to reduce it so much, but the point of the text is:

[quote]Upon the death of a loved one when their treasures are passed on, neither the auto/nor shoes will be of any consequence...what will be the most valued item of worth?

A portrait of yourself or loved one is an investment in generations.
A portrait will be passed on until the end of time; we know this as a "timeless treasurer".

If the quality is outstanding and reflects the lessons of "The Masters" or those who chose to celebrate the art of academic realism you can rest assured that this piece of artwork will hang forever. It may be displayed on many walls, but the soul of the subject will look out for an eternity.

[SIZE]

[Ngaire Winwood]

Michelle and Beth, I agree with you both. The soulful characteristics of the subject is captured more eloquently by an artist and is felt in the way of the brushstrokes, values etc which I suppose would be quite difficult for a photographer to accomplish in a studio with props etc.

I have just finished reading Daniel Burleigh Parkhurst's online book, The Painter in Oil at ARC re portraitures special qualities not only just by achieving a likeness. For those who might not have read it yet go to http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2...parkhurst9.asp

[Mike McCarty]

My daughter attends a private school that from all outward appearances, and from the the tuition charged, would seem to be quite healthy.

I was in their office last year and noticed on the bulletin board a photo of one of the long time teacher/administrators. Seems as though this man was retiring and preperations were being made to honor him. He had given some 30 odd years of service to the school, and the sports complex was just given his name. A much beloved figure it would seem.

Thinking there may be an opening here for a not too shy portrait artist, I made a pitch to the lady at the desk (people I have known since kindergarten). "Wonderful idea" she proclaimed, let me take your information, (a proposal including samples, size and cost estimates etc., which I had later e-mailed to her) and forward it on to the persons who make these calls.

I soon after got a letter that my proposal was being evaluated. Shortly after that I got a letter stating that they had decided to take a photo of the gent instead.

I know this doesn't prove the point one way or the other, it's just one more anecdotal story. Our work will never just die abruptly on some random Thursday afternoon, however, there may be a shrinking, a slow walk toward a time when the market is so small that only a handful can call it a living. It would seem that regarding these matters, technology, and what may be an ever decreasing discretionary budget, are not our friend. I hope I'm wrong, I'm feeling a bit crotchety this evening.

[Ngaire Winwood]

Mike thanks that was very informative into the cogs and wheels of a healthy organisation. Would it help if there maybe was more publicity, marketing campaigns as there is with every other item has that we buy today. Is word of mouth, internet enough? Should there be more articles written as Michelle mentioned earlier re investment portraiture. You know a public relation carriage to hop on to make sure your last comment is not validated.

[Ngaire Winwood]

I just found this in Daniel Burleigh Parkhurst's Book (page 22, 23)as stated earlier. Could this be the difference between a photograph and a painting?
Could we maybe do a mass public relations gig to open up the hearts and wallets of more public, concerning Mike's statement?

Quote:
There is the difference between the artist and the photograph, which sees only facts as facts; which while often distorting them does so mindlessly, and at best, when accurate, gives the bad with the good in unconscious impartiality. But back of the painter's eye which sees and distinguishes is the painter's brain which selects and arranges, using facts as material for the expression of beauties more important than the facts.

A picture is a visible idea expressed in terms of color, form, and line. It is the product of perception plus feeling, plus intent, plus knowledge plus temperament, plus pigment. And as all these are differently proportioned in all persons, it is only a matter of being natural on the part of the painter that his picture should be original.

[Michele Rushworth]

Thanks for posting that quote. I particularly liked this part:

But back of the painter's eye which sees and distinguishes is the painter's brain which selects and arranges, using facts as material for the expression of beauties more important than the facts.

[Mike McCarty]

I don't think this is an issue of quality, longevity, the dipiction of the soul, the essence of the man/woman revealed. It's about the difference in hard dollars and perceived value added.

In a previous life I worked for a food manufacturer. I bought massive quantities of fruit, mostly IQF (individually quick frozen) cherries and apples from Michigan. Michigan grows maybe 80% of the countries cherries. The cherries were grown by many, many small (some large) farmers which stretch north/south along the eastern shore of lake Michigan.

What these guys were good at was growing cherries, what they were not good at was selling cherries. So, they developed a coop and chipped in a few cents a pound and created the ICGA (Itnl. cherry growers assn, or whatever). This organization was a powerhouse of marketing and sales, constantly putting cherries in the face of those who's job it was to buy cherries.

The growers grew, the sellers sold, all were served. I'm not saying that this would work for us but it makes me wonder. I wish the beauty and the value of portraits were tauted somewhere on a larger scale. Maybe somebody needs to bare their breast on national TV while whipping out a premier coup. Any takers?

It's also about an issue that many of us have a hard time confronting ... the lack of quality in our own work. I suppose for the realy gifted there will always be a demand. For the almost gifted, not yet gifted, will never be gifted, there will be excuses,. the economy, the competition, the dull geographic region etc.

[Linda Nelson]

I'm torn by stating a half dozen good reasons why portraiture painting will always have a market.

I the end I think it's not important to find arguments to prove to any photographer friend whether a portraiture career is valid or not. It's only important that the person who wants to be a portrait artist is confident it's valid. And for that I'd say two key things: Firstly, what does the market say - if your work is well received and you find clients, then you're on your way to a valid career.

Secondly, making some assumptions about a person's cost of living, the price they charge per painting, and how efficiently they paint and market themselves, one does not need but 20 or so clients a year to do very well. So unless the artist is working in a small town, there should be enough potential clients to make it work.

If that photographer "friend" was right, then using his logic the DeBeers family might as well close up all the diamond mines in the world now that we have stunning cubic zirconia.