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.