Mike, I may not have been as clear as I would have liked. I didn't intend a reference photo vs. life argument, and indeed have followed many of these discussions with interest over the years. No, I was commenting on the widespread tendency, particularly with commissioned work, for painted portraits to have the same look as photographed portraits. It's almost as if there's a series of templates: sitting or standing, slight turn of the body with the face staring forward, hands a certain well-established way, eyes glazed over (communicating "how much longer do I have to stay like this?"), etc. As you aptly noted, it's part of the "collective psyche." I recall a discussion a while back about the tendency for some people in the art establishment to insist that the painted portrait should not be considered a true art form at all. It's precisely the ubiquitous frozen pose and deer-in-the-headlights look that leads to this misguided idea.
For portrait painters to avoid extinction, I think we need to keep ourselves "in the picture" as it were, moving away from self-effacing objectivity and allowing our personal responses and feelings toward the subject to be communicated. I like to define art as the metaphors with which we share our unique experiences with others. This should extend to portraiture as well.
|
Hybrid Mode
