MFA Paper Comparative Analysis Texts


            Portraiture is one of the most complicated genres of art in existence. There are so many different factors that come into play while determining what makes a portrait a portrait, as well as what makes that portrait worthy of being called a work of art. Two of the books that tackle this subject are Richard Brilliant’s Portraiture and Shearer West’s Portraiture. Although these books are of the same title and both talk about the same subject, the authors each have very different styles of breaking it down for their readers. However, two of the main aspects of portraiture that both authors agree on and constantly remind us if throughout both books are that portraiture is always based on a relationship between the artist and sitter and that all views of portraiture are subject to change based on the time and place.
            Richard Brilliant’s book focuses mainly on the idea that portraiture should be more about showing the internal identity of the sitter, rather than mimicking the sitter’s physical appearance. The main idea of Brilliant’s book can be summarized in this statement found in the introduction: “It is not principally about how individual portraits can be identified but about concepts that generate ideas of personal identity and lead to their fabrication in the imagery of portraits, deeply influencing their creation and reception (Brilliant, pg. 8).” In this statement Brilliant is not arguing that it is completely unimportant for the portrait to look like the sitter. Instead, what he is saying is that it is more important that the portrait be of the sitter, by capturing the sitter’s identity, than just look like the sitter. This can be done through use of symbolism, exaggeration if features, etc. With this idea in mind a portrait could still be considered a portrait even if it has no resemblance to the sitter’s physical characteristics and focuses only on capturing the sitter’s internal identity in a strictly abstract style of portrait. Throughout the book he discusses how the artist must somehow find a way to represent the sitter’s internal character externally; otherwise the portrait artist is not doing anything other than mimicking what is already present.
            In Shearer West’s book, the same topic is discussed but from a much less opinionated perspective. West discusses all aspects of portraiture from a broader, more historical point of view and gives the reader several reasons for why portraiture is a unique genre of art. As with Brilliant’s book, West’s book does also discuss the importance of capturing identity, but not to the same extent as Brilliant’s book. When West talks about identity, she is clear to state that identity can be defined in many different ways, depending on the views of the artist and sitter, as well as the time and place in which the work is created. She also discusses that even the definition of a portrait is contingent upon the time and place, and what may be considered a portrait now might not have been in the past and may not be again in the future.
Since ideas, styles and values change depending on time, place and people involved it is impossible to give a permanent definition of what is a portrait. In the introduction to this book, West tries to explain by stating that “Portraits are not just likenesses but works of art that engage with ideas of identity as they are perceived, represented, and understood in different times and places (West, pg. 11).” She also gives some reasons as to why portraiture is a unique genre of art which help define some of the general requirements for what makes a portrait a portrait. The first unique quality that she discusses is that, unlike many other types of artwork, portraits can and have been created using any type of media. There is absolutely no limit as to what a portrait can be made from. The second quality is that all portraits deal with the issue of “likeness” in one way or another. Some may deal with likeness on a more physical level while others deal likeness with more on a more internal level, but it is still a likeness. Finally, the third quality that she discusses is that all portraits require the presence of a person. This presence could be a physical presence or a mental image, but a person must always be the idea in order for the work to be considered a portrait and not some other type of art.
There are two main ideas that both authors strongly agree on. The first of these is that all portraits are based on negotiations and relationships. When the only people involved are the artist and the sitter, this compromise is based on what the two of them have decided show the public. Sometimes, however, there are other parties involved and this compromise becomes much more complicated. If the work of art is being commissioned by a patron than the views and ideas of this patron must also be taken into consideration, as well as the views of the intended audience if a specific audience is being targeted. With the case of a self-portrait it is up to the artist only to determine what image of themselves they would like to make public, and very often this decision can be even more difficult for the since this situation is by far the most personal. The second idea that both authors agree on is that everything changes based on the time, place and people involved. Since styles of artwork, values, tradition, etc. are constantly changing depending on the culture of where the work is being created, the ideas of the artist and the time, a portrait that clearly means one thing to someone may mean something completely different to someone else from a different place or time. Therefore it would be impossible, according to both Brilliant and West, to come up with a universal definition and universal expectations of portraiture.
            One of the largest challenges of portraiture that is discussed in Brilliants’ book is with the issue of public versus private identities. According to Brilliant, the portrait artist’s job becomes much more complicated when the persona that people take on in social situations is not a true representation of the internal identity of the sitter. In his words, “The very ambiguity of impersonation complicates the proper evaluation of the portrait artist’s performance in interpreting (or concealing) the impersonating subject, when impersonating something is such an essential feature of the subject social identity (Brilliant, pg .89).” People tend to “role-play” whenever people are watching in order to create their public image. The problem for the artist is to decide whether to portray the sitter based on the public image or try to dig deeper and uncover their true self. The artist must determine in which light they would like to show the sitter based on whether it is more important to show their true identity or their adopted social identity. It all depends on what message they are trying to get across to the viewers. This can then come back to the importance of the artist and sitter relationship because in order to see the sitter for how they really are, the artist must have some type of relationship with the sitter. In addition, this can also come down to compromise between the artist and the sitter to determine what should be brought to the public’s eyes and what should be kept hidden.
Several of the other topics discussed in West’s book include the many different functions of portraiture, issues with group and self-portraits, and how views on portraiture have changed throughout history in terms of age and gender of both the sitter and artist. One of the sections of this book that I found most relevant to my own work was with her discussion of the history and challenges of children’s portraits. She discusses how children’s portraiture, as with all other portraiture, changes based on time and place, but what interests me most is the way she talks about how people view children. She talks about how it is up to the adult, the parent or guardian, to decide the child’s role. Children in the past were previously shown in artwork as being miniature adults, since this is how they were expected to act. Now people realize that children are very different from adults and should be shown for what they are and not what they are expected to be. West then states that when viewing a portrait of a child, what you are actually seeing is the artist’s view of that child. This is especially interesting to me as both the artist and the mother of the children that I most often paint. It causes me to really think about what my views are my children are, how I want my children to be viewed by the public, as well as what I want the public to know about my views of my children.
Previously my own portraits focused mainly on capturing physical appearances. I found both of these books to be very useful as I work on moving beyond physical appearances and into something more personal. Currently I am seeking ways to say more about what my children are like and what it is like to be their mother through my work. I am working towards capturing their identities instead of just what they look like, which is exactly what Brilliant stresses throughout his entire book. I have even found that at times I am able to create a feeling that is much more real when I focus less on realism. Trying to capturing every little detail of their faces has actually been getting in the way of what I am trying to say about them.
                                                                                                     
·         Brilliant, Richard, Portraiture, London, Reaktion Books Limited, 1991

·         West, Shearer, Portraiture, New York, Oxford University Press, 2004

No comments:

Post a Comment