You find what you look for
 

Jeff, your question has motivated me to work out in my own mind what I think is the paramount goal of a portrait - to reveal the intelligent humanity of a subject. All the surface considerations of painting - of style, technique, painterliness, classicism, underpainting, etc. - matter little to me compared to what appears to be going on in the subject's head.

What matters most to me is than an artist has found the subject to be an interesting, compelling and intelligent human being. All people have some kind of intelligence which has nothing at all to do with level of education, social class or physical appearance. It's the duty of the artist to find it and reveal it. When I see a painting of a person who looks vapid, insipid, dull or sappy, I NEVER blame the subject. I blame the artist for either: 1. not finding the better part of the subject; 2. not having the technique to portray expression; or 3. not having the taste to know what's going on.

I think portraying intelligence on canvas is very difficult and maybe indefinable. Take a look around the artists on the SOG site and ask yourself which artists have managed to find intelligent, interesting, personable and intriguing subjects. When I make my own private lists of artists I love and artists I can't stand, invariably it's the artists who can articulate intelligent human expression that make the grade.

Jeff started a sensitive topic, (Jeff in Chinese is Jie Fu, means "standout"), in which Cynthia interested. (I mean Cynthia Daniel, Daniel--fair-minded judge). Shall Our forum not be ignored by those candidates?

Many lessons were in choosing a right artist, Sargent for one, is a wrong one to paint those generals.
One coin has two sides, who in art history would you least consider to paint your portrait?

Lucien Freud.

Easy! Picasso, it's taken mega money and therapy to put my fragments back together. Last thing I want is to see me split up again!:D

Jean

James Childs - NOT
 

Hello, S.B.

This is a very mischievous twist you've spun on Jeff's original question. I like Lucien Freud very much, and I'm sure he would do a good job on a portrait of me. I'm not sure what Picasso would have made of me, but my intuition tells me that I'd have had nothing to fear from him.

What really brings beads of sweat to my forehead, raises the hairs on the back of my neck, and turns my bowels to water is the prospect of having James Childs do to me what he has done to poor Mr. Forbes in the portrait below.

It would have to be be either William Whitaker or Sebastian Kruger. Kruger would show the truth with humorous but unerring honesty; W.Whitaker would somehow make the bags under my eyes appear dignified. I could never ask for more than that.

Dear John Zeissig:

Thanks for your candid post. I have a print done by James Childs, if it is the one you mentioned.

Our guideline is, if I recall correctly, that no attack on a living artist, so firstly quit me from any accusation; however, I'm curious about what is your criticism, argument, on this painting, so all of us can learn.

Let's keep this on a positive vein - "who would" rather than "who would not."

Thanks

Greetings, S.B.

I

Dean John,
Thanks! I knew your remark on me is out of goodwill, you may read my post again. I am more than happy to know you and hear more from you. I might introduce your works to my art students at my upcoming trip.
There are some artists I admire in its fullest meaning, I will certainly tell Chinese students
that we should learn from those superb American artists, whose sincerity, quality of work set a highest standard for us to look upon.