[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.