Wall Street Journal article on presidential portraiture

[Jeanine Jackson]

Originally Posted by Cynthia Daniel

John Sanden has posted a follow-up to his original commentary on presidential portraiture: http://worldofportraitpainting.com/c...etjournal2.htm

I am grateful to the WSJ writer for one reason only: prompting such fabulous commentary from Sanden. Once again, he leads with passion for this great art and knowledge. The final portrait he sights by CSOPA Senior Advisor, Bob Anderson is one of my favorites!

The National Portrait Gallery after the rennovations is definitely a sight worth seeing. I encourage you all to go and add your favorites to this list.

Thank you, Cynthia for alerting us to this thread. I have laughed out loud reading these replies!

[Chris Kolupski]

John Sandon, you have my respect. Your reply to WSJ articulated my thoughts better than I could have. Nobody could have replied with a better mix of restraint and clarity. Thank you.

Sharon, I haven

[Mischa Milosevic]

The Wall Street Journal and other such rag will print what they will. Will it generate interest and what will be the response? Each has the right to chose.

My respect and hat of to our advocate John Howard Sanden. It is my belief that the response made by Mr Sanden and others of his stature is quite adequate. Wisdom rests in the heart of him/her who has understanding, but what is in the heart of the one who has not understanding is plain to see. Mr Sanden speaks with wisdom and being that this is plain to see I shall not do or say anything that will diminish his words. All I can say is, thank you Mr Sanden. Thank you weary much!

Cynthia, thank you for starting this thread we truly appreciate your time and dedication.

[Michele Rushworth]

Garth wrote about the Shanks portrait of Clinton:

I am led to question his intent with this presidential portrayal.

I also saw this portrait last year at the National Portrait Gallery and there is one other thing that comes across seeing it in person that I didn't notice from reproductions printed after it was first unveiled.

The coloring in the facial skintones, quite frankly, make it look like the man had too much to drink! The nose was very red and the face was quite flushed. I wonder how often you can infer an artist's voting record by the portraits they make?

On a side note, the Sherr portrait of Bush Senior is hanging on the next wall and when I saw it it had spittle on the face! Someone, just a few minutes before me, had come and spat on the portrait. That was a shock to see!

[Valentino Radman]

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.

[Wayne McMichael]

Well in my humble, not knowing the truth opinion, of the pics above, the Kinstler of Blackmun and the Reagan are the only ones suitable for anything more than the cover of National Enquirer. I realize that I am a watercolor artist, and it is considered less noble than an oil portrait, but I do mostly children, and my moms wouldn't let me get by with a misplaced freckle or iris pattern. Somehow I have never touched oil, but I believe I could do better than anything I've seen here, if I couldn't, no one else would see it for sure. Hey somebody teach me to work with oils

[Sharon Knettell]

Originally Posted by Valentino Radman

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 in too many) others.

There are maybe a few others, but I do think Valentino is right on. These are made to be icons of our government, they rarely can be transformative in the way say a Manet is. The content is completely dictated as well as the rather rigid parameters.

[Karin Wells]

I pretty much agree with Catesby Leigh

[Wayne McMichael]

Karin Wells, you have a poetic flare that I appreciate, and I agree. Ice Cream for everyone!

[Garth Herrick]

Originally Posted by Michele Rushworth

On a side note, the Sherr portrait of Bush Senior is hanging on the next wall and when I saw it it had spittle on the face! Someone, just a few minutes before me, had come and spat on the portrait. That was a shock to see!

Michele, If Bush #41 wears spittle, and Clinton is maligned it seems, in his portrait, then given these times, what might we expect with Bush '43's turn at being immortalized? Are there any meaningful portraits of him yet?

Last Fall, while touring the retropective Nelson Shanks exhibition "Mastery and Meaning" at the Union League in Philadelphia (a decidedly conservative Republican club and bastion of portraiture of every Republican president up to Bush #41), the docent and I segwayed into a conversation about these portraits. I mentioned how nice it was to have the iconic image of Reagan by Shanks, and those two fine Kinstlers of Ford and Bush #41. The docent beamed with pride.... She was aware my newly unveiled League President portrait was hanging beside Lincoln's in the next room.

Continuing, I had the nerve to inquire who might be painting Bush #43 for this consecrated and prime collection? The docent turned a pale white with an aghast look on her face and uttered in her most horrified response tone "OH PLEASE DON'T GO THERE!" I caught her drift.

By the way, there is one Democrat in their collection: President Andrew Jackson.

Garth