Portraits vs. Figuratives

[Kimberly Dow]

I want to hear everyone's definition and opinions on where the line is drawn.

I was under the assumption for years that if the person was not staring directly at the viewer than it was a figurative. Since then I have seen plenty like that that were clearly portraits.

For example: If it is a head & shoulders only - looking away - is that a portrait? What if it is mostly the back of the head? Profiles are certainly portraits.

Is it the intent of the artist? In other words if it is not a commissioned portrait, but a painting to be sold like many of Bill Whittaker's - does that make it a figurative?

I am especially interested in groups of figures - how to determine if it is a group portrait vs. figures...

If they are engaged in some sort of action - does that make it more likely to be a figurative?

I do not have any samples to post yet, but I will go on ARC and find some famous ones. Like many of WB's - with groups of people - or even just a couple of sisters drinking water... would they be figures or portraits?

I will post mine below that I wonder about. I considered it a figurative because it was my intention to dress the model up in a costume and paint her to sell - using body language to get my idea across more than a dead-on likeness of her face. Is it figurative or portrait? It looks just like her. I could easily keep it on my wall and everyone would know who it is...

[Kimberly Dow]

OK - these are all JSS's. The first two are named after places - so I assume from that that they are figuratives. The second two are names of the sitters - so they are portraits - yet if I did not see the names I would wonder.

[Michele Rushworth]

I think it comes down to the intent of the artist. If it's meant to depict a particular someone, then it's a portrait.

[Leslie Ficcaglia]

Kim, I've always assumed that if the person was secondary to the concept it was figurative. I have the galleries on my portrait site divided into Portraits, Children, and Figurative Works. The latter aren't all purely figurative, but they're there because they're not standard portraits. And I've made giclees of three of them because I think they're of sufficiently general interest that they might sell to strangers, even though they're excellent likenesses of the person depicted. The ones I've copied are Baby Chick, Rose Fairy, and Skipping Rope, but I've also had requests for Naiad in Red and Green.

Don't know if that helps! And I'd definitely call your painting figurative rather than portraiture, regardless of the likeness.

[Jimmie Arroyo]

I'm in agreement with Michele about the intent of the picture. I can't remember where I had written this before, but I believe if the picture says something about the person, it's a portrait. The example I had used was; if I do a drawing of my grandmother's hands, aged and bent with arthritis, I consider it a portrait. A body shot of John Merrick, the Elephant Man should definitely be a portrait.

I am going to do a series eventually of self-portraits, but none will include my face. A drawing of my torso, with two big scars on my stomach, shoulder's tattooed, should qualify as a portrait of me.

Just my $.02.

[Mike McCarty]

I did a painting a couple of years ago of two children, facing away, walking down a country road. Neither of the faces were shown. This painting hangs over a fireplace and the mother would definitely argue that this is a portrait of her two children. The body language, the connection with the scene were/are very clear to her and the family.Take this painting and put it over your fireplace and it looses those personal associations and becomes a figurative painting. I think once you arrived at a safe distance from her neighborhood, you could argue that the lady has a figurative painting of her two children.

I would think your painting above would easily be a portrait to you, but, if I hung it in my house it would be "some girl" by the water, until you stopped by and started commenting on that portrait of your daughter.

I've always thought that when the people are generic, and placed in the composition as "elements" of the overall composition, then it's figurative. If the person(s) in the painting are the focus of the composition, and a likeness was implied, then it's a portrait. But then you get back to -- over who's fireplace does it reside?

When a likeness is implied, then the likeness is judged, which is back to Michele's point.

[Igor Babailov]

Kim, great question for the great topic!

I myself always believed that a "portrait" can be at the level of "figure", and depending on the subjectmatter and the composition can even become a multi-figurative piece.
I agree with Michele, if it's meant to depict a particular someone, then it's a portrait. Besides, to better portray a particular person and his/her personality, we often include in the painting such attributes as books, furniture, photographs, pets, etc. Why not other people?....
Rembrandt's The Nightwatch was originally a commissioned portrait.

With regards to the titles, in museums on painting descriptions you can often see "The Title" and right underneath that Portrait of...

I always cosidered my "For Gold, God and Glory" painting to be a portrait of C. Columbus. When we think of Columbus, we think of the discovery of Americas. Therefore why not to portray him in "action"?.... Besides, there were several portraits done of Columbus in the history of art, they all looked like the portraits of different people, because nobody really knew how he looked like. I created "my own" Columbus based on the description written by his son. Inclusion of the Santa Maria's sail and the people around him and dressed in the fashion of that time, definitely contributed to even better viewer's understanding, that the man is Columbus, and to be convinced, that it is precisely how he looked like, and not any other way.

Another painting I should mention,which I titled "Believe" is actually a commission portrait of Pope John Paul II. When I first started to think of the portrait composition, I just couldn't see this Pope by himself. It would probably be the same for many of us, just try to think of the Pope, good chance, that you may think of him being with other people, which adds to his personality, his character and who he is about.

You can see the above mentioned paintings on my website www.Babailov.com

Thank you
and best regards,

[Kimberly Dow]

Igor -

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I enjoyed looking at your portrait of the Pope and I agree that showing him with people was a great choice.

I do have a question that is off-topic for you though... feel free to ignore me. I just want to know how someone gets their work in front of so many prestigious folks? Your portraits of Presidents and other well-knowns is very impressive!