When is a portrait not a portrait

[Clive Fullagar]

I have a few "Guerboisienne" thoughts. When does a portrait no longer exist as a portrait? Or, when does a portrait become a figure painting? To get the discussion going I have included a little oil painting of my own (forgive the quality of the picture, but this is not for critique purposes). I regard this picture as a portrait - I think that it captures the model very well and is a very good likeness of her head. Yet many would regard this as a figurative piece. If you are of the latter school, how much do I have to turn the model's head in order to make it into a "portrait?" (I am not going to broach the issue as to whether this is a nude!! I'll leave that to another cafe drinker.)

[Mari DeRuntz]

For me, the line is very fuzzy. Most important to the work is that the artist has fleshed out a narrative of the individual. If there is no story to tell, there is no point for the viewer to look at the painting. Essential is an emotional connection to the piece. We're not in the realm of abstract "decorative" painting. We are painting a moment in the complex narrative of the figure. And this narrative does not have to include a full-frontal image of the face.

Other thoughts?

[Stanka Kordic]

I believe when doing a "figurative portrait" the gesture will define the likeness more than anything. The portrait shown (beautiful by the way) for me is wrought with emotion and narrative. Oh the bliss of being able to convince a client that this, too, is descriptive. It truly depends on the goals of the portrait. IS IT to convey to pictorial likeness, accurate for everyone including the neighbor? OR, will the portait be an intimate depiction of a moment, a feeling, only recognizable to a token few?

[Jim Riley]

Welcome Clive,

I don't think your question is as impossible as some of those tackled elsewhere on the forum that have tried to answer such questions as "what is art?" but it has similar complexities. I have no trouble with a liberal interpretation of "portrait" but a quick review of earlier discussions will reveal little acceptance of anything outside the conventional use of the term. From a generally useful and practical standpoint it only presents confusion in the market place to raise or argue the question of what is or is not a portrait. The description does become important and is occasionally argued when a painting is placed in competition. And again, perhaps, when our work gets hung in the portraiture section of the Met. Otherwise, I'm not sure there is any useful purpose to qualify it.

Having said as much, I should note that a fine painting like yours can tell a viewer a lot about the subject and friends might recognize her as readily from this painting as any photograph or conventional portrait painting. I like to remind students that we often recognize friends from a great distance and often with their backs to us. While the usual tendency for the developing artist is to dwell on careful measurement, the slant of an eye, shading, and detail, when likeness is often much more about attitude, bearing, and overall disposition of the subject. As much as the mechanical skills are a critical need in portraiture, the ability to capture the whole of the person is prime. For this reason I like to show caricatures to demonstrate that likeness and character can often be achieved more readily by recognizing the special things that make people unique and that exaggeration may be more interesting than slavish attention to detail and risking an overworked and plastic quality.

[Cynthia Daniel]

We also have this earlier related topic:

http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...&threadid=1127

[Marvin Mattelson]

There is a "fine artist," whose name I can't recall, that specializes in doing portraits of the back of peoples' heads.

The big answer is: a portrait is anything you can convince your client to cough up the big bucks for. Basically, I think you would have a very difficult time convincing most potential clients to hire you if your portfolio was comprised only of portrait samples like the one above. I think clients want to see samples that showcase the kind of skills that will satisfy their questions as to whether or not an artist will be able to produce the type of portrait they desire.

BTW its a very nice painting.

[Steven Sweeney]

Whatever our personal experience and ideologies, perhaps we can agree that the usual understanding of "portrait" includes facial features. Obviously not always two eyes, or we scuttle all the profiles, but noses and mouths are interesting and usually expected.

Though extreme examples of what has been claimed to be portraiture aren't definitive, there is surely room for interpretation, and even semantics.

I don't know if the stellar portrait societies have a definition of "portrait" when they solicit entries for their annual competitions. If it's not in black and white, I'm sure it's in the murky area of judicial preference when the entries are vetted.

My father, and his brother, and their father, had such characteristic posture, walking gaits and hand movements, that I absolutely guarantee that I could paint my dad walking away from me (or even toward me, at a distance from which you couldn't see facial features), and every one of my family members would look at it and say, "That's Dad, isn't it?" As far as I'm concerned, that would be a portrait.

But I'm not trying to convince my family members, or sell to them, and so I'd suggest going with the facial features as the defining variables and constants. If you can agree with a client that a back-of-the-head presentation is the epitome of your subject or loved one, go for it, but see if the deposit check clears before you're too far into it.

[Mike McCarty]

I am presently working on a commission of two children walking down a dirt road showing nothing but thier backsides. Their identity is crystal clear to thier mother.

[Clive Fullagar]

John Berger in his book "Ways of Seeing" made the argument about portrait painting, that a crucial aspect of a painting is seeing how the model/sitter is relating to the artist, or how the artist sees his/her models. (I think that you see this very clearly in the works of Velasquez.) All too often, when painting a portrait, we become overly concerned with how the client "wants" to see the model. I am not making a criticism here - this is probably a necessity of having to sell portraits. That is why self-portraits are so fascinating, because the client is the artist.

I agree, I do not think that the painting I supplied would generally be accepted as a portrait by anyone except myself. Yet for me it captures a very important, and intimate, aspect of the model (my wife) and portrays a lot about the way I (as the artist) see the model. I love doing portraits of my family, because it frees me up from many of the restrictions of portraiture. I can paint perspectives and lighting that would not be acceptable in a conventional commission.

Mike, I think that you are in the company of many great artists who have painted the back side of their subjects. (The one painting that readily comes to mind is Jamie Wyeth's picture of the guy who founded the American Ballet Company...well, maybe not so readily.)

I would be very interested to hear other artists' opinions about their different approach to a subject that they are intimately knowledgeable about versus a client whom they have just met and how (if at all) this changes the portrait process. Or maybe that is the subject of another thread?

[Debra Jones]

This was commissioned as a gift from a young wife to her older husband.

She was unhappy with herself. Not necessarily the painting and was changing and improving everything...besides it was not the best marriage and she was a bit hostile at that time.

This was her compromise. She is thrilled with it, he is delighted and EVERYONE knows it is her.



(Image deleted in accordance with "No Nudes" rule for forum posts.)