Is Portraiture an Art Form

[John Reidy]

You may think this is a meaningless discussion but I have run across many art enthusiasts who claim that it is not. Normally when confronted with such a point of view I turn and shake the dust from my feet and move on.

Today, however, I met with one of the premier art supporters in this geographic and business area. He admitted that approximately half of our art supporters believe that portraiture is not a true form of art.

I would love to be able to gather these people together to show them just how off of the mark they are. In fact, that was one of the reasons why I worked so hard to meet him.

My question to this forum is why you believe Portraiture is a true art form and to cite your reasons in a way to support the proposition.

I have been drawing and painting for over 40 years in a studio of others and my own. I can not imagine a truer art form than portraiture.

Where some see it as a limited effort to capture a likeness I see it as a narrow field of focus that incorporates more art theory than most of all of the post modern era.

After all, a portrait is one of the most disciplined art forms blessed with natural subjects of divine beauty. And what is easier to spot, a bad portrait or a bad painting of modern art? One is innate, the other requires a pedigree.

How often do you hear other artists discuss soft edges, composition, beautiful colors?

How often do you hear the 'compliment', "It looks like a photograph."?

Or better yet, not as a compliment.

I feel that I am too close to the subject right now as my nature is getting in the way of my reason. So I leave it to cooler heads now to respond.

Thanks.

[Marvin Mattelson]

When we think of great paintings, the first names that comes to mind are are artists like Rembrandt and DaVinci, who most people consider to be the greatest of artists, or at least be in the discussion. Who would argue that the "Mona Lisa" is not a great work of art? So why the pejorative point of view, regarding portraiture, that you encountered yesterday?

In my opinion, the perception that portrait painting is not a valid form of fine art can be based, to a very large degree, on the quality and approach to the majority of portraiture being done today. The way that I see it, portraiture is being sold as a commodity, with the emphasis on a quick turn around in order to generate high volume cash flow. Where exactly is the art in that?

Few people, obviously even those in the arts, have the wherewithal to filter through the chaff to get to the wheat.

Just yesterday I received a call from a "potential" client who was interested in a family portrait and was focused primarily in the price point. Her first words were, "How much will it cost to have

[Stanka Kordic]

In my opinion, it boils down to finding "your tribe".

There has been so much discussion in the cyber art world about 'beauty" and 'realism vs. modern art'. How one defines Important Art, is a matter of personal taste. Clearly as portrait artists, we have to deal with people's preconceived notions of what this means. To many, it is indeed ONLY a likeness in oil paint. Indeed, the commodity to hang over the mantle. Very few people can transcend this definition, and sit back to admire the skill involved with creating a personal piece of Art that is cherished beyond an accurate likeness.

The modern art world often dismisses realism for playing it safe, and NOT pushing the boundaries of expression. There's that opinion. The realist camp likes to dismiss the modernist's internal processes as trite, junk, and not worth discussing.

My interest with the work involves melding elements of each camp. For me, it has taken a lot of effort to ride the wave of both, and find my own voice. At the same time, trying my best to hit the mute button when the cacophony in the art world gets to be too much for my sensitive ears.

In the end, that's all we can do.

[John Reidy]

This is the discussion I had hoped for when I posted this.

Marvin, your points are well thought out and crafted. And, Stanka, I couldn't agree with you more.

I have an upcoming commission for a gentleman who is fascinated with my work. My efforts at all of the finer points of portraiture capture his imagination and he is truly in my "tribe". I feel blessed to have him in my life.

I still believe that we need to be more outgoing in educating the public but not to downplay other art forms. Given enough time maybe our successors will find a kinder, gentler and more prolific audience.

Until then we must continue to beat the bushes.

[Debra Jones]

Before there was "modern" art there was "commercial" art.
I think the odd attitude that if you do a work for pay, you have sold out (well duh!!!!) is part of the very new attitude that there is high art and low art.

Not one of the struggling artists of the past ever turned down the money.

Portraiture is based in commerce. We are paid for a service. That is a good thing. It elevates us above retail art. It is more noble than begging for grants and more predictable than entering contests.
Before photography there had to be skills. The camera obscura was a major breakthrough that saved time. No reflection on skills. Time is money.

The modern attitude reflected here is that art MUST only be for art's sake. In the good old days, the artists had secrets that make them more marketable. Now they are judged as tricks. Because anyone can turn on a computer and believe they can make something that LOOKS like what we do, they think it is common.

The talent that is necessary for realistic portraiture is a lot of work. It is also not something that advocates for the arts can actually see their niche as a middle man. Honestly we are represented as a commodity, not a charity. What advocacy should do best is educate. Because their photoshop print out LOOKS like a portrait, they don't have a CLUE how we did it.

By supporter, do you mean patron? Purchasers of work? These people are more interested in decorating walls, not actually promoting the old reasons for making portraits. To these people we introduce ourselves as FIGURATIVE painters. I believe it has to do with my theory that anonymous portraits are like strangers watching you eat. The skills we have of making a likeness is somewhat lost on a person who cannot relate to the piece. Pull out some of your life studies and you will get a totally different reaction.

They want to shop for their art, not commission it. What is needed is a paradigm shift. Be presentational, not representational and they will talk.
dj*

[Natalie Hunsaker]

I thought this was a particularly insightful video clip. In fact, it changed my perspective a great deal--and it would most certainly support the idea that portraiture is art.
Scott Burdick's "Banishment of Beauty"

[Virgil Elliott]

What greater challenge could any artist face than to try to depict a personality on canvas or panel, to create the illusion of a specific living person at his or her best, with that person's distinguishing personality traits and characteristic bearing coming through as if it were the real person right there? That is what a good portrait does. And it must be compelling as well, in order to stand as a great work of art.

When done well, its value as a work of art cannot be denied. When done poorly, well, that's another matter, but the objective is to do it well. The idea that one must argue to validate a given work as legitimate art only comes into play when the work itself is not compelling on its own terms upon direct viewing. When the work speaks Quality eloquently enough, verbal arguments are irrelevant. It's up to the artist to silence the critics by the quality of what we do, so to call into question the credibility of anyone who might try to minimize it or marginalize it.

I think it's best not to waste time arguing such points with people who are too ignorant to understand, anyway. The world is full of them. We either win them over by painting compelling works of art that breach their preconceived notions and register positively on their quality receptors, or we recognize that their prejudices are too strong against what we do, and therefore their opinions are not worth being concerned over. College art appreciation classes are most often where these prejudices are introduced into the minds of impressionable young students, and in many cases these indoctrinations blind them to Quality forever, where art is concerned. That is a travesty, to be sure, but let's not waste too much energy worrying about it. We have paintings to paint.

Virgil Elliott

[Michael Fournier]

Well this is a great discussion but and as I often do I will play devils advocate here and say. No Portraiture itself, is not a Art form or a movement in art. But a portrait can be art. For me portraiture is not a art form but a subject matter. Just as a landscape or still life is not a art form or style but simply the subject depicted. Picasso considered these portraits http://www.miracerros.com/artwork/g_picasso_0.htm
Are they no less valid a portrait as a more realistic representation of the subject? Most commissioned portrait Art falls in the realist realm as that is what the person commissioning the painting wanted. But at some point most good portraits differ in some way from what a photograph can capture. It is that quality that draws you into a painted portrait I have never heard anyone say that photo gives me the creeps it's eyes seem to follow me around the room yet I have heard that about painted portraits often. I have see a few truly great photographers that have been able to capture personality on film but not many it is very hard as photographs can only capture a moment in time and light but the artist eye and hand and the medium not only captures the subject but also the personality of the artist himself. It is Not what you paint but How you paint. So I have to say No portraiture is not a art form but I also say nether is landscape painting or still life painting. But all of them can be art. I paint one way no matter what I am painting I do not change myself so my art does not change based on my subject It is still distinctly mine. THAT is what makes art any style or subject art. It captures as much the personality of the artist as it does the subject.