Portraits vs. Figuratives

Kimberly Dow · 04-19-2004, 10:02 PM

I want to hear everyone's definition and opinions on where the line is drawn.

I was under the assumption for years that if the person was not staring directly at the viewer than it was a figurative. Since then I have seen plenty like that that were clearly portraits.

For example: If it is a head & shoulders only - looking away - is that a portrait? What if it is mostly the back of the head? Profiles are certainly portraits.

Is it the intent of the artist? In other words if it is not a commissioned portrait, but a painting to be sold like many of Bill Whittaker's - does that make it a figurative?

I am especially interested in groups of figures - how to determine if it is a group portrait vs. figures...

If they are engaged in some sort of action - does that make it more likely to be a figurative?

I do not have any samples to post yet, but I will go on ARC and find some famous ones. Like many of WB's - with groups of people - or even just a couple of sisters drinking water... would they be figures or portraits?

I will post mine below that I wonder about. I considered it a figurative because it was my intention to dress the model up in a costume and paint her to sell - using body language to get my idea across more than a dead-on likeness of her face. Is it figurative or portrait? It looks just like her. I could easily keep it on my wall and everyone would know who it is...

Kimberly Dow · 04-19-2004, 10:11 PM

OK - these are all JSS's. The first two are named after places - so I assume from that that they are figuratives. The second two are names of the sitters - so they are portraits - yet if I did not see the names I would wonder.

Michele Rushworth · 04-19-2004, 11:41 PM

I think it comes down to the intent of the artist. If it's meant to depict a particular someone, then it's a portrait.

Leslie Ficcaglia · 04-20-2004, 08:54 PM

Kim, I've always assumed that if the person was secondary to the concept it was figurative. I have the galleries on my portrait site divided into Portraits, Children, and Figurative Works. The latter aren't all purely figurative, but they're there because they're not standard portraits. And I've made giclees of three of them because I think they're of sufficiently general interest that they might sell to strangers, even though they're excellent likenesses of the person depicted. The ones I've copied are Baby Chick, Rose Fairy, and Skipping Rope, but I've also had requests for Naiad in Red and Green.

Don't know if that helps! And I'd definitely call your painting figurative rather than portraiture, regardless of the likeness.

Jimmie Arroyo · 04-21-2004, 12:04 AM

I'm in agreement with Michele about the intent of the picture. I can't remember where I had written this before, but I believe if the picture says something about the person, it's a portrait. The example I had used was; if I do a drawing of my grandmother's hands, aged and bent with arthritis, I consider it a portrait. A body shot of John Merrick, the Elephant Man should definitely be a portrait.

I am going to do a series eventually of self-portraits, but none will include my face. A drawing of my torso, with two big scars on my stomach, shoulder's tattooed, should qualify as a portrait of me.

Just my $.02.

Mike McCarty · 04-21-2004, 09:56 AM

I did a painting a couple of years ago of two children, facing away, walking down a country road. Neither of the faces were shown. This painting hangs over a fireplace and the mother would definitely argue that this is a portrait of her two children. The body language, the connection with the scene were/are very clear to her and the family.Take this painting and put it over your fireplace and it looses those personal associations and becomes a figurative painting. I think once you arrived at a safe distance from her neighborhood, you could argue that the lady has a figurative painting of her two children.

I would think your painting above would easily be a portrait to you, but, if I hung it in my house it would be "some girl" by the water, until you stopped by and started commenting on that portrait of your daughter.

I've always thought that when the people are generic, and placed in the composition as "elements" of the overall composition, then it's figurative. If the person(s) in the painting are the focus of the composition, and a likeness was implied, then it's a portrait. But then you get back to -- over who's fireplace does it reside?

When a likeness is implied, then the likeness is judged, which is back to Michele's point.

Kimberly Dow · 04-22-2004, 12:50 AM

Thank you for all the replies. I guess it does come down to intent mostly.

I was on another forum talking about how I hate to name paintings. I have trouble with it. I use up my creativity on the visual and can not always come up with a good title. That is one of the reasons I have "Flowers & Friut I" through "Flowers & Fruit VI". I was asking how important the names really were and this is a good example. The names of paintings can tell us sometimes if they are portraits or figuratives. If I names the above painting "Dailey by the Stream" it would be seen differently I imagine. (Then again, with her name someone might think I misspelled daily).

Garth Herrick · 04-22-2004, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kimberly Dow

Thank you for all the replies. I guess it does come down to intent mostly.

I was on another forum talking about how I hate to name paintings. I have trouble with it. I use up my creativity on the visual and can not always come up with a good title. That is one of the reasons I have "Flowers & Friut I" through "Flowers & Fruit VI". I was asking how important the names really were and this is a good example. The names of paintings can tell us sometimes if they are portraits or figuratives. If I names the above painting "Dailey by the Stream" it would be seen differently I imagine. (Then again, with her name someone might think I misspelled daily).

Dailey might visit the stream daily, anyway. It's a beautiful place.

Morris Darby · 04-23-2004, 02:21 PM

I like the comparison of the fireplaces. That says it best.

Naming paintings....now, that's the pits. One of the masters named his painting "Girl in a chair", now no one on earth can use that name again. All the simple names have been taken.

"Boy by a tree"
"The Boat"
"Man in a boat"
"Girl with a pearl earring"
"Woman smiling"

I guess I'll have to resort to the 21st century naming...

"Dude chilling"
"Wassup"
and
"Maaaann"

Janel Maples · 04-30-2004, 10:14 AM

I guess I have to say I agree with Mike McCarty.

My fireplace, "Portrait of my daughters"

Someone else's fireplace, "Stopping for a closer look" (or something like that)

Isn't that the beauty of art? It is what the creator says it is? Even if it is that what they say only to them?

Is the question possibly what is the difference between a portrait and figurative IN THIS FORUM?

Because, obviously, I could not put a bunch of blobs of paint on a canvas and post it in the critique section and call it "Portrait of my half second cousin, twice removed" (Which I recently learned from Family Tree Maker is a valid explanation of a relative, very distant but related)
and expect to get away with it.

Well, now that I think of it, I could call it "Self portrait in the morning" and be accurate.

Never mind.

Janel Maples