Portraiture a Dying Art?

[Mike McCarty]

I think there may be people here that know him.

[Mary Reilly]

Henry, it is true that the art of portraiture will never die out. As artists we would continue to paint even if we didn't sell - just because we love to paint. However, when the rent is due and the electric bill arrives it is nice when the money comes from what we love to do as oppose to having to get a different job to meet expenses. I paint becaues I love to, but since it is also my chosen profession I can't ignore the practical business end of art. If we start to lose commissions to photographs because they "look like oils" then it is time to educate the public before a momentum begins to grow.

Mike, I think Bob Schieffer is an excellent suggestion. He was the keynote speaker at the Portrait Society of America 2003 conference and he was excellent and very much in tune with portrait artists. Maybe Cynthia can suggest to one of the sites members that are on the board of the Portrait Society of America to check out this thread and pass the info on to Bob.

I also like the suggestion Ngaire made for a couple of well written press releases. It could be provided as a word document that artists all over the place could download and send to their local newspapers,Bar Associations, Medical Societies etc. Press Releases are a very inexpensive way to get the word out.

Mary

[Mike McCarty]

Actually, I think I was morphing "Face the Nation" and Bob Schieffer into "Sunday Morning" with Charles Osgood. The later is a more general topic magazine type program. I guess we need Charles to have Bob et al on his program.

There is a bit of a catch 22 that takes place in all kinds of professions, the people at the top see no need for reform, or promotion. They have broken the code and have little patience with others who have not suffered sufficiently. And so the most effective communicators, those who understand best, remain hidden behind their back log.

Those who are generous enough to give back do so with instruction. This is a good thing. But, there may come a time when we will need to stop painting, stop teaching, and start promoting. The gaze may need to turn from educating the art student to educating the buying public.

[Ngaire Winwood]

Not knowing the people, I think it is a great idea Mike.

I am curious as to what writing knowledge we have here amongst the members. Surely a well written set of campaigners to keep on file for those who needed it could do us all good over time!

[Michael Fournier]

Well the death of realism in art has been a prediction ever since photography came along. Photography has even been given as one reason for the rise of abstraction and the modern art movement of the 20th century.

I for one think that those who make such statements do not understand why people by art or those that buy it.

Automated looms have been making mass-produced oriental style rugs for over a hundred years now but the market for Antique and traditionally hand made Oriental Rugs is as strong as ever.

You can purchase a dresser to put your cloths in from a discount furniture store for a $100 Or you can purchase a hand made 18th century High boy reproduction for $5,000 to $20,000. Those with the skills to make these reproductions have no shortage of customers.

You can build a 1800 Sq. ft home. for $70,000 or you could spend 2 million. Builders who build luxury homes over 2 million have no shortage of buyers. In fact Real estate brokers will tell you it is easier to sell a five million dollar house then a $900,000 house. It is because of the economic gap. The majority of buyers can't afford a $900,000 home but those few that can most often could also afford 1-2 million or more. Also there are a lot more $900,000 homes competing for the few buyers looking in that price range. Homes in the 5 million plus range are exclusive and there is never a shortage of those with the money willing to pay for exclusivity.

No one tells a builder that because you can build a house for less that he should stop building luxury homes and only build what most people can afford.

But many say that because most people can't afford a painted portrait that it is a hard way to make a living. But I feel contrary to that belief the more exclusive the market the less effected by economic down turns it is.

I will admit that the economy does have some effect at all levels but for the most part sales of luxury items that traditionally are purchased by the wealthiest members of society are mostly unaffected by economic down turns that primarily hit the middle class the hardest.

History also bares this out. Although even the very wealthy were effected by the depression of the 1930s they were far from becoming poor and in fact the wealthiest at the time benefited by the low cost of labor and materials to construct grand homes that today would cost billions.

Yes only those artist who are established enough to demand high fees ($10,000 or higher) normally have such clients as Rockefeller's but most of the artist in that range have waiting list years long and are for the most part unaffected by the past few years of stock market down turns.

Now for those starting out who's clients include the middle class to upper middle class yes we are very effected by economic slow downs as was every industry selling luxuries to the masses. But although many have done a lot of belt tightening when it comes to their necessities often people will still splurge on luxuries if they can still afford them. Obviously if you are struggling to pay your rent or put food on your table you are not going to be buying art. But except for the rare occasion those vulnerable to such hardships are not traditional art buyers.
For those who have the money they are just as likely to go ahead and commission that painting even if their stocks are no longer giving the 20 percent returns they had before the bubble burst. They also still buy diamond rings, Bentley Auto's and Yachts.

The key is to become skilled enough that your work is in high demand. Those who's have achieved this level of skill are few. Exclusivity equals price.
Other artist have found ways of increasing their exposure and the demand for their work.

But regardless of how one creates this demand be it marketing, connections, great skill or a combination of them all. The fact is those artist that are in demand no matter what the economy does will always have clients willing to pay for their art.

And Photograph is not a issue or even considered by those who want a painting. Anyone can buy a photograph (or even Take one them self) So there is no exclusivity so it will can never replace the painted portrait.

Saying this may sound like I am being elitist. In some ways I guess I am in the same way that public television is labeled elitist by some because they choose to feature culture and art over mass media television you find all over the dial that chooses to show the lowest of human achievement. The Jerry Springer's of the world can have the masses I for one will choose those that appreciate the finer things in life those that appreciate the arts and the greater of human endeavors. They may be fewer but they have deeper pockets.

[Michael Fournier]

Originally Posted by Mary Reilly

Then about a month later I received another phone call from a different bar association. They were looking for portrait artists for a retiring judge and received my name along with other artists from another bar association. You can guess what happened. Myself and the other artists lost the commission to an out of town photographer who was capable of making a photograph "look like a real oil painting". I then knew who gave them the list of names to contact, and also knew that the photographer was included in the list. They probably also told them the decision they had made. This second courthouse is also large, and in a very populated area which is located about 10 min. from D.C. Money should not have been an issue for them.

The real concern for both of these Bar Associations is that a new precedent has been set for future portraits, and the way the first one influenced the other, who knows how many other Bar Associations they could influence.

Mary

I feel That the person making the decisions here was not looking for a painting in the first place and someone should tell them that using a photo especially if there are paintings of previous judges hanging is tasteless and tacky. And that it distracts from the honor they are intending to pay this retiring judge. It reflects very poorly on them as well and in my opinion they dishonor this judge by only hanging a photo no matter what the photographer does it is still a photograph.

[Mary Reilly]

Originally Posted by Michael Fournier

I feel That the person making the decisions here was not looking for a painting in the first place and someone should tell them that using a photo especially if there are paintings of previous judges hanging is tasteless and tacky. And that it distracts from the honor they are intending to pay this retiring judge. It reflects very poorly on them as well and in my opinion they dishonor this judge by only hanging a photo no matter what the photographer does it is still a photograph.

Michael, I agree. I tried to nicely explain to the committee why a painting would be more appropriate then a photograph, but I didn't want to sound like sour grapes, so I didn't belabor the point. Their choice was truly a disservice to the retiring judge, and that is where educating the public can make a difference. Unfortunately, the choice for a judicial portrait is left up to a committee that may or may not know the best choice to make. It would be very appropriate for portrait artists to come up with information that would enlighten the "committees" that make some of the portrait decisions. Just as a Realtor will point out the reasons why a house is worth a a specific amount of money. People don't buy pricey things just because they are pricey, but rather because they have a perceived value. If someone perceives that the value of a photograph is the same value as an original painting, then why pay more for the painting. However, educating the person is a way to help them know the value of the painting is worth the higher price.

On an indiviual basis I try to educate my potential clients, but I think information offered on a broader scope would be great. An individual jeweler may educate a specific customer about diamonds, but what stirred the interest in the first place is the knowledge shared by the diamond industry to the masses. Yes, there are many who will always want original portraits painted, but there are also many more that could benefit from the knowledge of why they should choose original portraiture over photography.

[Ngaire Winwood]

Mary and Michael, I agree, great stuff.

Yes, there are many who will always want original portraits painted, but there are also many more that could benefit from the knowledge of why they should choose original portraiture over photography.

Mary, I think this hits the nail on the head.

[Mike McCarty]

I tried to nicely explain to the committee why a painting would be more appropriate then a photograph, but I didn't want to sound like sour grapes

Mary,

I think that if I had suffered through these circumstances I would be sending a letter off straight away. You've already lost the commission, unless their sensibilities are altered you probably won't get any future work. I think you would be doing them a huge favor by pointing out, in a very frank way, the error of their ways.

And besides, how many times do you get to blister a bunch of lawyers?

PS: From this point on I would like to disassociate myself, my daughter, all heirs and assigns, subsidiaries, comingled funds, loose conjoinments in kind, from Mary Reilly and any actions she may take in the above styled matter. Any percieved association with this thread has been induced through either alcohol, drugs (including peyote for religious purposes), or genetic defects.

[Mike McCarty]

Where the wind comes... comes... oh I can't remember the rest.

There is up in the Oklahoma legislature, Senate Bill 1347 - State of Oklahoma: Art in Public Places Act.

I met today with the head of the Oklahoma Arts Council, among other things we discussed the above mentioned bill which I will describe briefly here:

One and one-half (1 1/2%) of the cost of construction or renovation of state owned public buildings shall be allocated to incorporate artwork in, on or near the project. One percent (1%) is allocated for the commissioning of the artwork, one-half percent (1/2%) is allocated for administration of the program and maintenance of artwork.

Cost of renovation or construction must be $250,000 or more. The maximum assessment shall not exceed $500,000.