On Oct 16, 2008, at 3:30 PM, Michael Brady wrote:
While we're on the subject of portraiture, why does Miller not mention the paintings of Neel, Klimt, Picasso, and many others-- actual portraits, done as such, and not just a distorted modernist picture of a known sitter--Modigliani, Diebenkorn, Freud (including a portrait of the Queen, no less, who actually sat for him, not just an exercise of copying a photo), etc. etc.
(This is for Miller:) I forgot to include the implicit conclusion to this musing: The notion of what is "portraiture" has expanded quite a bit in the last century, moving away from the almost unvarying official straight-jacketed poses still seen in the images of famous men, to far more casual poses and styles. This change, when you think about it, actually exemplifies a democratizing of the art of portraiture, invigorating it with more of the vox populi --call it pict populi-- of the less well trained, or the less academicized styles.
Around here, I can walk into practically any important institution with a sense of self and presentation and see portraits of important figures. Almost all of them appear, to my nekkid eye, to have been painted from photographs, not from life. Or if from life, from a short stint, a token pose of an hour or so, at which time the sitters were also photographed and the details of chair and drapery and background scenery were added separately from the face.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
