Is Portraiture an Art Form

[John Reidy]

You may think this is a meaningless discussion but I have run across many art enthusiasts who claim that it is not. Normally when confronted with such a point of view I turn and shake the dust from my feet and move on.

Today, however, I met with one of the premier art supporters in this geographic and business area. He admitted that approximately half of our art supporters believe that portraiture is not a true form of art.

I would love to be able to gather these people together to show them just how off of the mark they are. In fact, that was one of the reasons why I worked so hard to meet him.

My question to this forum is why you believe Portraiture is a true art form and to cite your reasons in a way to support the proposition.

I have been drawing and painting for over 40 years in a studio of others and my own. I can not imagine a truer art form than portraiture.

Where some see it as a limited effort to capture a likeness I see it as a narrow field of focus that incorporates more art theory than most of all of the post modern era.

After all, a portrait is one of the most disciplined art forms blessed with natural subjects of divine beauty. And what is easier to spot, a bad portrait or a bad painting of modern art? One is innate, the other requires a pedigree.

How often do you hear other artists discuss soft edges, composition, beautiful colors?

How often do you hear the 'compliment', "It looks like a photograph."?

Or better yet, not as a compliment.

I feel that I am too close to the subject right now as my nature is getting in the way of my reason. So I leave it to cooler heads now to respond.

Thanks.

[Marvin Mattelson]

When we think of great paintings, the first names that comes to mind are are artists like Rembrandt and DaVinci, who most people consider to be the greatest of artists, or at least be in the discussion. Who would argue that the "Mona Lisa" is not a great work of art? So why the pejorative point of view, regarding portraiture, that you encountered yesterday?

In my opinion, the perception that portrait painting is not a valid form of fine art can be based, to a very large degree, on the quality and approach to the majority of portraiture being done today. The way that I see it, portraiture is being sold as a commodity, with the emphasis on a quick turn around in order to generate high volume cash flow. Where exactly is the art in that?

Few people, obviously even those in the arts, have the wherewithal to filter through the chaff to get to the wheat.

Just yesterday I received a call from a "potential" client who was interested in a family portrait and was focused primarily in the price point. Her first words were, "How much will it cost to have

[Stanka Kordic]

In my opinion, it boils down to finding "your tribe".

There has been so much discussion in the cyber art world about 'beauty" and 'realism vs. modern art'. How one defines Important Art, is a matter of personal taste. Clearly as portrait artists, we have to deal with people's preconceived notions of what this means. To many, it is indeed ONLY a likeness in oil paint. Indeed, the commodity to hang over the mantle. Very few people can transcend this definition, and sit back to admire the skill involved with creating a personal piece of Art that is cherished beyond an accurate likeness.

The modern art world often dismisses realism for playing it safe, and NOT pushing the boundaries of expression. There's that opinion. The realist camp likes to dismiss the modernist's internal processes as trite, junk, and not worth discussing.

My interest with the work involves melding elements of each camp. For me, it has taken a lot of effort to ride the wave of both, and find my own voice. At the same time, trying my best to hit the mute button when the cacophony in the art world gets to be too much for my sensitive ears.

In the end, that's all we can do.

[John Reidy]

This is the discussion I had hoped for when I posted this.

Marvin, your points are well thought out and crafted. And, Stanka, I couldn't agree with you more.

I have an upcoming commission for a gentleman who is fascinated with my work. My efforts at all of the finer points of portraiture capture his imagination and he is truly in my "tribe". I feel blessed to have him in my life.

I still believe that we need to be more outgoing in educating the public but not to downplay other art forms. Given enough time maybe our successors will find a kinder, gentler and more prolific audience.

Until then we must continue to beat the bushes.

[Debra Jones]

Before there was "modern" art there was "commercial" art.
I think the odd attitude that if you do a work for pay, you have sold out (well duh!!!!) is part of the very new attitude that there is high art and low art.

Not one of the struggling artists of the past ever turned down the money.

Portraiture is based in commerce. We are paid for a service. That is a good thing. It elevates us above retail art. It is more noble than begging for grants and more predictable than entering contests.
Before photography there had to be skills. The camera obscura was a major breakthrough that saved time. No reflection on skills. Time is money.

The modern attitude reflected here is that art MUST only be for art's sake. In the good old days, the artists had secrets that make them more marketable. Now they are judged as tricks. Because anyone can turn on a computer and believe they can make something that LOOKS like what we do, they think it is common.

The talent that is necessary for realistic portraiture is a lot of work. It is also not something that advocates for the arts can actually see their niche as a middle man. Honestly we are represented as a commodity, not a charity. What advocacy should do best is educate. Because their photoshop print out LOOKS like a portrait, they don't have a CLUE how we did it.

By supporter, do you mean patron? Purchasers of work? These people are more interested in decorating walls, not actually promoting the old reasons for making portraits. To these people we introduce ourselves as FIGURATIVE painters. I believe it has to do with my theory that anonymous portraits are like strangers watching you eat. The skills we have of making a likeness is somewhat lost on a person who cannot relate to the piece. Pull out some of your life studies and you will get a totally different reaction.

They want to shop for their art, not commission it. What is needed is a paradigm shift. Be presentational, not representational and they will talk.
dj*

[Natalie Hunsaker]

I thought this was a particularly insightful video clip. In fact, it changed my perspective a great deal--and it would most certainly support the idea that portraiture is art.
Scott Burdick's "Banishment of Beauty"

[John Reidy]

Natalie,

Thank you for that link. I've never heard Scott string together so many words before and he has hit a powerful shot to the head (if you will forgive the pun) of the nail.

I wish I had the beauty inside me to create such beautiful art.

[Richard Bingham]

Who cares what someone decrees who identifies themselves with some aspect of "Art" (with a capital "A") ? The field of contemporary art is rife with divisions that admit of no particular value in another . . . conceptual artists, installation artists, abstract artists, abstract impressionist artists, neo-impressionists, "realists", photo-realists, academics, classicists in modern-day ateliers, the folks at ARC, people who make an olympic event out of plein-aire painting, the list goes on and on.

Looking back over the centuries and the "commercial" aspects of the work of yeoman painters who created 2-D illusions for a living, for every Leonardo, for every Rembrandt, there are literally thousands of also-rans whose art never even came close to communicating "that certain something" that makes 21st century viewers pause before a Rembrandt portrait . . . of someone they cannot ever know.

Ever since Mr. Daguerre invented his infernal device, the challenge for all portraitists has been to rise above the superficial, and a mere 2-D simulacrum of the likenesses of our sitters, to communicate "that certain something" . . . something (God willing) that can be meaningful. Too many "competent" portraits do not.

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

I'm trying to create paintings that reflect the same kind of artistic integrity that the great masters of previous generations utilized.

Spot on, Marvin!

[John Reidy]

In starting this thread I wished to discuss the aspects that make portraiture a true art form. We all gather at this web site recognizing that it is. What I am hoping for is a discussion of the points of GOOD PORTRAITURE as an art form and not the other genres of art, wether landscape, still life or modern art.

As I see it our collective survival depends on raising the curtain on the aspects of the art of portraiture. How many shows have you attended where the Best in Show is named but the qualities that make it Best in Show are not mentioned. I find this particularly true in portraiture. It makes the judging seem a personal choice and that's all. As one who is experienced in putting on shows and facilitating judges it already appears to be too much of a personal choice.

Let us educate the viewers as to what makes a portrait a true piece of art? It seems that in doing so we will create a wider audience for us, raise the awareness of our existence and art and, then, create a larger buying pool.

Granted, we will never overcome the market as a whole. People's buying power and their choices dictate the market. However we can increase our share of the market by such means as education.

So, let us throw out the elements we think are responsible for making portraiture an art form. Let them become as lights in the night sky so all can enjoy them. And, too, thereby we as artists will still strive for success in our hearts, try to be true to what guides us and watch as a few of us become wildly successful while the remainder continue to strive.

I was never promised a rose garden when I chose portraiture as my love. But I was warned of the struggle and advised to abandon it. I chose portraiture, however, with all of its trappings. I would be lost if I couldn't participate.

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by John Reidy

In starting this thread I wished to discuss the aspects that make portraiture a true art form. We all gather at this web site recognizing that it is. What I am hoping for is a discussion of the points of GOOD PORTRAITURE as an art form and not the other genres of art, wether landscape, still life or modern art.

John, please don't take me wrong. I applaud your quest for discussion, and would not participate if I did not feel it would be valuable for everyone who participates, reading and posting. All my life I've heard comments dismissive of portraiture, illustration, commercial art, generally centering around the argument that they are "whorish" pursuits, given the direct commerciality of the milieu in which they operate. To be sure, the majority of the work produced in these fields does not rise to the level of high art, but in fairness, neither does the output of the legions of MFAs who enjoy the cow-college sinecures which presumably insulate them from the "taint" of "selling out" commercially.

Through reading and occasionally having the pleasure of meeting artists past and present who have been considered among those at the top of their profession, it seems the consensus is that one should first strive to become an artist, then a portraitist.

Another principle which was fairly universal in my early training as a painter was the irrelevance of subject matter . . . that is to say, a "good painting" would be a good painting whether it were a portrait, or a landscape, etc. I don't mean to digress from the quest to define what determines a "good portrait", i.e., one that is truly "art" .