What painting portraits is about...on our terms
 

When i hear similar comments like this, i'm suddenly reminded about how things are in Singapore art market. Literally, people don't understand the notion that "the art market is not a mass market", as Michele have put it. Worse when one gallery owner defines good art as one which "looks sharp, not blurred"!
So nowadays i came up with an informal "client screening" process, which includes educating them about painting styles; not just mine but a few artists' styles that i know and understand.

I agree with Chris that it is imperative to reach out to clients with our works and prices, and allow them to react to it.

Then comes the second part where either at the start of in the middle of the process, clients ask list of questions that Mike has faced before here. I'm not good at artspeak, or business-speak for the matter, but i explain to them about my purpose being an artist (somewhat artist statement in SIMPLE ENGLISH), and that my work represents the ESSENCE of what i understand of who they represent in their own lives - and what they mean to the people around them.

Most of all, the so-called "incompleteness" in our paintings was not because we are scrimping on oil materials (yes, we get those comments too...) or we got bored with it, but simply that any more work on it, kills that ESSENCE. Like the best chefs in the world, any extra pinch of salt kills the flavor of their culinary creations. If you really want a fine work, i think we jolly well can recommend a couple of photoshops that does great photo portraits.

At this point, i suddenly remember an oath that one artist jokingly puts it to her clients, to swear that "this is a painting, not a photograph"!...errr, was it from you, Chris? :D

So to end mike, what is important is not about spouting technicalities to people who query about the finished work, i mean after all they pay hefty sums for it. But to continue to affirm ourselves, and with them with who we are as artists, our missions with them, and fufilling that mission to the point that the people around our clients identify with the artists. At least, that's what i learnt from watching the DVD on Norman Rockwell, when they interviewed his relatives and neighbours at Stockbridge.

Thank you all. Your observations have helped a great deal.

I would like to make an observation. Ignorance is almost always ugly, but there is a cure. People often try to disguise their ignorance by being coy or flippant. I think this is really a cry for help.

I have encountered many intelligent, successful people that have reached a point in their life where they want learn different things, and maybe now want to surround themselves with the trappings of their success. These people no nothing about art and are embarrassed and intimidated by the fact that they are as mature as they are and, while they may know all there is about running a chain of restaurants, know nothing about art.

As they set out in their own stealthy way to learn, they encounter something which confuses them, like seeing a vignette style of painting. They may very well like what they see, but their inability to understand it is off putting to them. And so they will make a cry for help (like me).

I want to recognize what it is that they want and be prepared to educate them in a way that does not seem arrogant or insensitive. This is a person wanting to be a client, but doesn't want to be fooled or tricked. They have seen plenty tomfoolery in their day.

I just came across this thread. I think it's a very, very important subject. As to the history of vignette paintings or drawings, when and where do they appear, by whom...I am, sad to say, totally ignorant (I'm ugly!!)!!. Having read all this, I am now determined to educate myself. But I do know why they are so appealing to me. And I think Allan hit the nail on the head:

It's as if the unfinished parts serve as a gentle reminder to the viewer of the simple, dumb, inert, DEAD materials that are used. And then we see a transition into this wonderful illusion being created that makes it seem that these simple, ordinary materials mysteriously come to LIFE, through the magic hand of the artist. We go back and forth, and are amazed at the skill of the artist. When everything in a painting is finished, rendered to a high degree of realism, I think that we, as the viewer, buy into the illusion - and stay there. I don't want to say there is anything wrong with this type of painting - I'm sure there are many great examples in the history of painting, where every square inch is lovingly and exquisitely rendered - and they are great paintings. But, for my money, the most exciting, powerful, and alive paintings, are those where a wonderful illusion is being created AND the surface qualites of paint on canvas are so rich in and of themselves, that something happens...(whether it's a vignette or not) - like Allan said, it's in the interplay of the two ways of seeing - that's where it's happenin.' Sargent comes to mind....

And I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who may be uneducated about art, but who would love a well-executed vignette, without knowing why.

And if you're dealing with a client whose measure of a great work of art is to what degree it looks like a photograph... ;C

I guess after educating ourselves, we just try to pass it on, wherever there is a hearing ear.

Vignette examples?
 

I'm resurrecting this thread in the hope that somebody will post some favorite examples of vignettes.

Specifically, I'm wondering if as a compostional matter it is important to leave something reaching the bottom of the canvas to "connect" or ground it, versus letting a head and shoulders "float" amiably in (darkened?) space.

Personally, I never liked the vignette look and whenever I leave a head and shoulders portrait unfinished at the bottom I'm always compelled to "finish" it off. If you do leave a portrait vignetted I like the idea of having part of it connected to the bottom of the canvas. I guess it depends on the specific composition.

Hi Linda,
Here are two of my favorite ones. The first is mine (sorry about the photo, I always say that I'm a painter, not a photographer!) and the second is Greene's.

You know, that Daniel Greene example might just be enough to make me change my mind about vignettes. Of course, it is a devilishly handsome young model too...!

Raymond Kinstler was certainly a strong advocate of the vignette. If you visit his website here: Kinstler you will see many examples.

These are a few of my favorites. Notice the last one of Tennessee Williams. Would this be a vignette? What kind of risk was this?

Here are a couple more vignette examples.

The first is a drawing from the recently deceased Jean de Montebello, and the next a pastel from our own (seen much to infrequently) John de la Vega.

Thanks, Mike, for posting these examples. A tremendous help to me!