|
I think 1839 was the year Louis Daguerre made discriminating between painted portraits and photographs an issue of concern for "artists". For nearly 170 years, painted images have been more or less redundant, at least technologically.
Some aesthetes would dismiss portraiture from the realm of "high art" just as they do "mere illustration". Anything hinting of the utilitarian just has to be suspect! To the extent that painted images may be as superficial as snapshots, I'd have to agree. For the certainty that emotional depth can be recorded in paint and is therefore timeless, one might look to Velasquez' Juan de Pareja (and a number of others) for assurance.
For my part, a "good portrait" is one that communicates to the viewer truths about the subject that are the result of psychological interaction between artist and sitter during the process of creation. Some photographs are capable of it; many paintings, unfortunately, are not.
A painter working from the life has a tremendous advantage over the photographer, whose moment in time must encapsulate instantaneously what the painter can observe and absorb through an extended sitting.
|
Threaded Mode
