Is Portraiture an Art Form

[Natalie Hunsaker]

I thought this was a particularly insightful video clip. In fact, it changed my perspective a great deal--and it would most certainly support the idea that portraiture is art.
Scott Burdick's "Banishment of Beauty"

[John Reidy]

Natalie,

Thank you for that link. I've never heard Scott string together so many words before and he has hit a powerful shot to the head (if you will forgive the pun) of the nail.

I wish I had the beauty inside me to create such beautiful art.

[Richard Bingham]

Who cares what someone decrees who identifies themselves with some aspect of "Art" (with a capital "A") ? The field of contemporary art is rife with divisions that admit of no particular value in another . . . conceptual artists, installation artists, abstract artists, abstract impressionist artists, neo-impressionists, "realists", photo-realists, academics, classicists in modern-day ateliers, the folks at ARC, people who make an olympic event out of plein-aire painting, the list goes on and on.

Looking back over the centuries and the "commercial" aspects of the work of yeoman painters who created 2-D illusions for a living, for every Leonardo, for every Rembrandt, there are literally thousands of also-rans whose art never even came close to communicating "that certain something" that makes 21st century viewers pause before a Rembrandt portrait . . . of someone they cannot ever know.

Ever since Mr. Daguerre invented his infernal device, the challenge for all portraitists has been to rise above the superficial, and a mere 2-D simulacrum of the likenesses of our sitters, to communicate "that certain something" . . . something (God willing) that can be meaningful. Too many "competent" portraits do not.

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

I'm trying to create paintings that reflect the same kind of artistic integrity that the great masters of previous generations utilized.

Spot on, Marvin!

[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.

[Richard Bingham]

Originally Posted by 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.

John, please don't take me wrong. I applaud your quest for discussion, and would not participate if I did not feel it would be valuable for everyone who participates, reading and posting. All my life I've heard comments dismissive of portraiture, illustration, commercial art, generally centering around the argument that they are "whorish" pursuits, given the direct commerciality of the milieu in which they operate. To be sure, the majority of the work produced in these fields does not rise to the level of high art, but in fairness, neither does the output of the legions of MFAs who enjoy the cow-college sinecures which presumably insulate them from the "taint" of "selling out" commercially.

Through reading and occasionally having the pleasure of meeting artists past and present who have been considered among those at the top of their profession, it seems the consensus is that one should first strive to become an artist, then a portraitist.

Another principle which was fairly universal in my early training as a painter was the irrelevance of subject matter . . . that is to say, a "good painting" would be a good painting whether it were a portrait, or a landscape, etc. I don't mean to digress from the quest to define what determines a "good portrait", i.e., one that is truly "art" .