Quote:
|
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" .
Hybrid Mode
