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