Michael's comment reminds me that one of the great national museums is the National Portrait Gallery in D.C. On a visit a few months ago I saw Queesn's portrait plus many other contemporary portrait. The permanent collection includes some great portraits by Elaine DeKooning, Phillip Pearlstin and others of note, to say nothing of the terrific portraits of past leaders. Another good place for portraits is the Yale Museum. And more.
WC --- On Thu, 10/16/08, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Is art sacred? > To: [email protected] > Date: Thursday, October 16, 2008, 2:30 PM > On Oct 16, 2008, at 3:06 PM, Chris Miller wrote: > > > Are the works of the leading commission portrait > painters of today > > ever hung > > in major museums ? > > Why would they be hung there, instead of in the > sitter's home or > office? "Nice portrait. I like my chin and ear, you > know. Here's > $30,000 for the picture. Luvverly. I'll give it to the > museum now. ... > Oh, hmmm. They don't know who I am and don't want > it. Oh, well. There > goes the tax write-off." > > 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. > > I wish somebody would speak up and ask if Miller means only > portraits > in the academic style of recognizable pictorial techniques, > > draughtswomanship, aesthetically authorized chiaroscuro and > tennebrist > effects, and good foreshortening, too. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
