Alice Neel: What do you think?

[Tom Edgerton]

So what is the relationship between truth and beauty? (I've found this to be a hot issue when painting commissioned portraits) And how does this affect your response to Neel's work?

We've discussed this before here, but it's still interesting to me.

I honor my clients in my commissioned work. I think that's my job. I'm not ashamed to show them as they appear on a really good day. But I don't portray them in an untruthful way, and I don't accept direction to do so, and I don't accept the commissions in which I'm asked to.

My explanation for this is that I think people are perfect as they are, and don't need me to make them more so. So when I'm working on a commission, I try to be as straightforward in my depiction as I can, but to stay out of the way. When you look at my commissioned work, you should be aware of the subject and not of me.

If I begin to chafe under this, I do a personal work where I can experiment and paint anyway I please.

Some artists might think this is a pact with the devil, but any commission you accept is in some measure a collaboration, and if you don't believe so, you are free not to paint them. I don't worry about it a lot, because if I'm being paid to stand there and practice, it's purely heaven and I don't take this circumstance for granted.

Finally, stylistically speaking, I can see the boldness and force in Alice Neel's work, but it isn't my cup of choice. But ANYONE who picks up a brush and tries to make a picture has more guts than the average bear, and don't forget it.

Love to all--TE

[Michele Rushworth]

Tom, this is surely one of the most thoughtful and thought provoking posts in recent memory on this Forum. Thanks for posting your perspective on what we do!

[Alexandra Tyng]

It's true, Tom--artists who paint portraits run the gamut between those who think accepting commissioned work is equivalent to making a pact with the devil, and artists who do only commissioned work because it is deeply satisfying practically and artistically.

Don't think I'm wishy-washy, but I think the whole spectrum of viewpoints is valid. No one should feel defensive about the chioces they make. There is a lot to be learned from the cooperation that goes into commissioned work; it can challenge the artist to make things better and solve problems, and it can challenge the client to think in new ways, too. There is also a lot to be learned from having complete freedom to compose a portrait and solve problems without the parameters of the client steering the artist in one way or another. As Tom was saying, he does both at different times. I also do both, and in very much the same spirit that Tom works. Some people only do one or the other, and that's fine.

My impression from watching the documentary on Neel (Andrea, correct me if I am not right) is that she often asked people if they would sit for her. Her portraits were appreciated by some subjects, but not others. She was inspired to paint her version of truth, whether or not it was appreciated. She was okay with living more on the edge financially than some other people. I'm not saying that that is more admirable. What I'm saying is she was living the way she wanted to live. If we express ourselves the way we want to, if we are true to our particular kind of creative spark, then that is what is important in life.

Alex

[Linda Brandon]

Originally Posted by Tom Edgerton

My explanation for this is that I think people are perfect as they are, and don't need me to make them more so. So when I'm working on a commission, I try to be as straightforward in my depiction as I can, but to stay out of the way. When you look at my commissioned work, you should be aware of the subject and not of me.-TE

Yes, but, yes, but... (always love your comments...)
Tom, I can always tell which are your portraits and which are somebody else's. I don't think it's possible to remove the artist's point of view. Even your decision to be straightforward, an honorable attempt toward honest impartiality, is a point of view.