Wall Street Journal article on presidential portraiture

[Jean Kelly]

Thanks for the best laugh of the day! These are much, much, better.

Jean

[Alexandra Tyng]

Sharon! That is SO funny!

[Wayne McMichael]

John Howard Sanden doesn't follow trends he sets them. Catesby Leigh and The Wall Street Journal follow trends and are media whores. They are not worthy to even comment on Sanden and nothing they say is worthy of discussing here.
However, I enjoyed the opinions on style and tradition.

[Sharon Knettell]

Mr. McMicheal,

I think your choice of an adjective to describe Mr. Catesby Leigh was an unfortunate one. He is in fact a thoughtful critic of modern art and architecture much like Mr. Kinstler's friend Thomas Wolfe and his opinions show up in Christian journals, much like Sanden's. Frankly I find him a bit too conservative myself and do not agree with some of his points of view but he makes reasoned and educated arguments.

I think criticism is good. We all need it from time to time even if sacred cows are gored. Otherwise, we and the genre become rigid.

Here is a thoughtful essay on art Mr. Leigh wrote which I found on the Mim's atelier site. http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp

[Ant Carlos]

I cannot visualize the second image in the JHS's commentary page. Does it work for you guys?

Ant

[Dianne Gardner]

I think JHS's response was that of a gentleman and very thoughtfully presented. I agree wholeheartedly.

I love the new styles you've suggested for president Sharon!

I think the image of presidency in America has changed so much so that the portraits that we see in George Washington's time reflect how folks saw the president, and today it does the same thing. In the beginning of our nation's history the president was lifted up to a kingly position. After all, it was a kindgom that the subjects of new America stepped away from. That is why you don't see an approachable president. Because the common man didn't want to see a person capable of making mistakes...they wanted to see someone who was completely in charge and completely capable of handling the affairs of a nation with out tarnish. So the image put before the people was one of royality.

Today a man is a man and the president is also a man (or has been so far) and that is exactly what you are going to see in todays portraits. Men that are less than pure, less than holy, less than all knowing. Your next door neighbor if you will. That is why when a president is elected the whole nation can criticize him without thinking twice. In the old days only a few felt worthy enough to comment negatively on a president's decisions.

Its a sign of the times. I think it is profound and completely appropriate that Clinton's portrait is relaxed. The whole country is relaxed. Art is still keeping its place as trumpeter of the times.

Just my humble opinion!
Dianne

[Cynthia Daniel]

Originally Posted by Ant Carlos

I cannot visualize the second image in the JHS's commentary page. Does it work for you guys?

Ant

Check now.

[Garth Herrick]

Great discussion!

I have gathered up some personal snapshots from last summer to throw in. Two are portraits at the Union League in Philadelphia, which has an extensive collection of Republican presidents; some pretty dull. I do not care for their Eisenhower, Hoover, or Nixon portraits.

However I do like the two Kinstlers of Ford and Bush, Sr., and there is a nice Reagan by Shanks. Compositionally (to me), the Philadelphia Kinstler portraits are far more satisfying than the example Catesby Leigh chose from the National Gallery. The Portrait of Gerald Ford, seated, seems a companion to the standing image, authough it was painted some years later in 2004. I think the space is defined better atmospherically with that anchoring chair. Being less frontal, the pose is more interesting too. It says much about the man. The composition builds to the head, as the element with the most dramatic paint complexity and contrast. In general I really like and respect Kinstler as a leading portrait painter.

The National Gallery Ford portrait has a wonderfully strong head as well; certainly well observed from life. But to me, the rest of the painting falls relatively flat, and does not properly support the head. I saw it last summer in DC, and interestingly, I only photographed the head detail, because the portrait as a whole did not interest me enough. For me the space is confusing with its nebulous flatness. All the suit has the same paint handling as does the background, and there seem to be little if any value shifts to organize the elements in my reading of the image; so overall it is a relatively dull portrait to me. The face itself does have some depth of character though. It has wonderful passages of painting. One thing that is missing from the equation is the frame, which may be a fundamental element of the overall composition. I notice that the Philadephia Kinstler's require their frames to tie the whole image together. It's like we are deliberately viewing these through a window opening.

I hope this is not too brutal, so far...

Garth

[Ant Carlos]

Originally Posted by Cynthia Daniel

Check now.

Perfect

Ant

[Wayne McMichael]

Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell

Mr. McMicheal,

I think your choice of an adjective to describe Mr. Catesby Leigh was an unfortunate one. He is in fact a thoughtful critic of modern art and architecture much like Mr. Kinstler's friend Thomas Wolfe and his opinions show up in Christian journals, much like Sanden's.

Sorry Sharon, I just call them as I see them. Maybe we could see some of Casteby's work.

His critique is a bit like my dog Sparky criticizing my cooking isn't it? My dog isn