I have read an online article about presidential portraiture last year (can't remember the source) in which the author talk about hundreds of bland contemporary portraits that clutter the walls of White House, The Capitol, Supreme Court etc.
They do not know what to do with all those portraits since they do not mean nothing to anybody (except, perhaps to the sitters), stir neither emotion nor any other reaction. Even National Portrait gallery do not want them.
The bottom line is - their artistic value is very low or absent.
Unfortunately I can not post that article here, but I do agree with author's points.
In my opinion, it is not only the question of weather to instill symbolism in portrait or not, whether to work from photos ot not. I am talking about the formal qualities, composition, color scheme, mood, good taste (of the painter), and the way the paint was handled.
It is the indescribable quality which transforms a paint covered surface into a genuine piece of art. One looks at it and just knows that it will mean something to a generation hundred of years from now, just like portraits of Raphael, Titian, Velazquez, Van Dyck, Thomas Lawrence, Ingres, Sargent, Zorn etc mean something to today's generation (well, to those who care about art and have developed a good taste).
You can feel it in the works of, say, Silverman, Whitaker, Dinnerstein and some (but not too many) others.
btw, Shanks knows his trade, but (besides good point Garth made) he put Bill Clinton in an awkward pose and made him too short. It is not a good portrait.
|
Threaded Mode
