Could you state your reasons for this choice? (The Dutton book was far too problematic, IMO.) ------Original Message------ From: [email protected] To: [email protected] To: [email protected] ReplyTo: [email protected] Subject: Re: Contemporary Portraits Sent: Dec 3, 2009 7:05 PM
We could continue this conversation while reading Fictions of the Pose,Berger,Stanford,2000. Kate Sullivan In a message dated 12/3/09 5:33:50 PM, [email protected] writes: > The goal of a great painter is to make a great painting. If it's > also a portrait, ok. James Valerio's portrait of me is in the collection of > the Union League Club of Chicago. He's doing another "portrait" right now > of me and my wife (although we are models in this large allegorical > painting). > > Most portraits of officials, CEOs and others, done today are run of the > mill painted photographs but the National Portrait Gallery , Smithsonian > D.C., has some terrific portraits, some quite recent. Phillip Pearlstein did a > portrait of Hanna Gray, one time president of the Univ. Chicago. of > course, Lucian Freud has done some of the most outstanding contemporary > portraits. And I suppose we shouldn't forget Andy Warhol. > > Unless you're doing a historical figure, most portraits are done on > commission, so that limits the artist's opportunity to exhibit, etc. Yet lots of > artists today are doing them. Again, Miller's assumption re portraiture > leads his comments. If he were aware of the breadth of the whole art scene, > he'd realize that all the stuff in painting that was ever done is still > being done, some of it top quality. > > wc > > > > > wc
