|
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*
|
Threaded Mode
