Portraits

There was a time when portraiture was considered near the top of the hierarchy of painting, second only to history painting. History painting, of course, has effectively faded, leaving portrait painting as the highest level, if one believes in such things. Of course these days painting really hasn't the kind of stratification that was the rule in earlier centuries.

Velazquez, "Pope Innocent X" 1650

Portraiture has retained a special place in painting because painted portraits are not only a potential family heirloom but also because a painted likeness is a declaration of status. A portrait is a status symbol because of the time, care, and training required to make one. Painting an individual's portrait is a difficult task, fraught as it is not only with making the painted image resemble the sitter but also making it match the complexion and hair color and show a readable expression. The greatest portraitists--Holbein, Hals, Velazquez, Sargent, among many--capture something of the ineffable that defines the individual. Think of Velazquez' depiction of the cold lip of his master Felipe IV of Spain, or the wary mask of brutality in the face of Pope Innocent X, for example. For me, a great portrait captures the likeness of the person and of the personality.

Masters of the portrait, painters like Anders Zorn, Lucian Freud, James Whistler, and Thomas Eakins have followed their earlier examples by searching deeper than a likeness. Although psychological penetration is the ultimate accomplishment in my own view, many patrons simply want a good likeness of themselves. Famously, Pope Innocent X (whose image is above) wad distressed by his portrait by Velazquez and ordered it taken away because it was "too real." Perhaps it simply showed too much personality.

"Bill," oil on canvas, 2010

In my own practice, portraits have been important but most of my output has been personal rather than commissioned. Doing one's own work instead of pleasing a customer allows a wider range of exploration without worry. A commissioned portrait is often confined by the painter to surface representation, which is not entirely a bad thing. But for me, exploration and investigation of new or different ways of seeing are more important.

In the majority of my personal work, I dispense with background. Traditional portraits often include backgrounds and settings that give the viewer information about the sitter. In these paintings the information about the sitter is intended to be shown by expression and lighting. My hope is that the viewer can speculate about the subject's personality and demeanor, for example. Also,

"Brad," oil on panel, 2009

many portraits are more formal whereas these personal ones are more casual--no dark suits and not much jewelry. The idea, of course, is to focus on the faces and the subtle nuances that show something of the person.

Master of the past did the same thing, in a way. They painted casual portraits, and sometimes simply used a model to paint a person who resembled a type of individual or sometimes a person who was known to the local community.

Frans Hals, "Verdonck," oil on canvas, 1638

A particular example of such a painter is Franz Hals, who painted tronies, types of people, like"Verdonck," (which is the name of the man depicted) showing a disputatious individual brandishing a jawbone (suggesting he attacked everyone). Hals is also known for others such as "Malle Babbe" (Crazy Babbe), a representation of a mentally disturbed woman. Probably all tronies were representations of living people rather than imagined ones.

Although the personal portraits I've done are casual, they're done from life in multiple sittings. Seeing a person many times offers many opportunities to observe carefully and paint accurately, refining as one goes along. For me the portrait sittings are as much about personality as they are about likeness. The image becomes richer for the interactions with the sitters.

---
Similar Posts
Tronies
Portraits and Selfies