Portraiture a Dying Art?

[Michele Rushworth]

...using his logic the DeBeers family might as well close up all the diamond mines in the world now that we have stunning cubic zirconia.

Nicely put!

[Mari DeRuntz]

If as artists we mechanically copy photographs, we are contributing to the death of our art. The craft was nearly killed off by modernism; it is our responsibility to reconnect with the art, the craft, the soul of painting.

[Steven Sweeney]

then using his logic the DeBeers family might as well close up all the diamond mines in the world now

Off topic, I realize, but I rather wish the DeBeers would take a hike or a dive. More heartache has likely been caused by the "price" of the artificial shortage of diamonds in the world (which is the only reason diamonds are "expensive") than could ever be outweighed by the pretended, leveraged pleasure produced by them -- at least with regard to those whose personal self-worth isn't measured by material objects.

But then, I'm also a guy whose only interest in cars is whether they transport me reliably and comfortably, and I couldn't care less what they look like. I have 15 guests in the house right now and somebody put NASCAR on the tv, which is why I escaped to this room with the computer.

[Ngaire Winwood]

This is heart warming now knowing that I have a good line or two the next time any photographer has a go at portrait artist's viability. My career looks sound and promising by the views posted unless an economic collapse takes the wind out of our sails. Full speed ahead!

[Mary Reilly]

I had two bad experiences in 2003. Last summer I was contacted by a Bar Association in the area, and they interviewed me for a prospective portrait of a retiring judge. They told me that I was one of 5 artists being considered and they would get back to me. Well, when they got back to me I was told that I was not awarded the commission. They decided to save money and use an out of town photographer who was capable of making a photograph "look like a real oil painting". I didn't mind loosing the commission if it was to another artist, but losing it to a photographer bothered me. I tried to nicely explain why a painting would be more appropriate but they had their minds made up. Since I didn't want it to sound like sour grapes, I didn't say anything else. This portrait was for a large courthouse located about 50 min. outside of D.C. It is filled with oil portraits of judges all the way back to the 1800's. It was truly a disservice to the retiring judge.

Then about a month later I received another phone call from a different bar association. They were looking for portrait artists for a retiring judge and received my name along with other artists from another bar association. You can guess what happened. Myself and the other artists lost the commission to an out of town photographer who was capable of making a photograph "look like a real oil painting". I then knew who gave them the list of names to contact, and also knew that the photographer was included in the list. They probably also told them the decision they had made. This second courthouse is also large, and in a very populated area which is located about 10 min. from D.C. Money should not have been an issue for them.

The real concern for both of these Bar Associations is that a new precedent has been set for future portraits, and the way the first one influenced the other, who knows how many other Bar Associations they could influence.

I do agree that there are plenty of people who still want portraits, but I think it important that we not take anything for granted. The suggestion that we consider banding together to aggressively market portraiture as an art form is an excellent idea. The Bar Associations could certainly benefit from a little education.

As a side note, the "out of town photographer" was from about 2 hours from the D.C. area. That tells me he is marketing his "just like real oil paintings" to a wide area.

To end on an encouraging note, right now I am happy to report that I am working on some commissions with some more coming in - just not any judges at this time.

Mary

[Michael Fournier]

Originally Posted by Mary Reilly

Then about a month later I received another phone call from a different bar association. They were looking for portrait artists for a retiring judge and received my name along with other artists from another bar association. You can guess what happened. Myself and the other artists lost the commission to an out of town photographer who was capable of making a photograph "look like a real oil painting". I then knew who gave them the list of names to contact, and also knew that the photographer was included in the list. They probably also told them the decision they had made. This second courthouse is also large, and in a very populated area which is located about 10 min. from D.C. Money should not have been an issue for them.

The real concern for both of these Bar Associations is that a new precedent has been set for future portraits, and the way the first one influenced the other, who knows how many other Bar Associations they could influence.

Mary

I feel That the person making the decisions here was not looking for a painting in the first place and someone should tell them that using a photo especially if there are paintings of previous judges hanging is tasteless and tacky. And that it distracts from the honor they are intending to pay this retiring judge. It reflects very poorly on them as well and in my opinion they dishonor this judge by only hanging a photo no matter what the photographer does it is still a photograph.

[Mary Reilly]

Originally Posted by Michael Fournier

I feel That the person making the decisions here was not looking for a painting in the first place and someone should tell them that using a photo especially if there are paintings of previous judges hanging is tasteless and tacky. And that it distracts from the honor they are intending to pay this retiring judge. It reflects very poorly on them as well and in my opinion they dishonor this judge by only hanging a photo no matter what the photographer does it is still a photograph.

Michael, I agree. I tried to nicely explain to the committee why a painting would be more appropriate then a photograph, but I didn't want to sound like sour grapes, so I didn't belabor the point. Their choice was truly a disservice to the retiring judge, and that is where educating the public can make a difference. Unfortunately, the choice for a judicial portrait is left up to a committee that may or may not know the best choice to make. It would be very appropriate for portrait artists to come up with information that would enlighten the "committees" that make some of the portrait decisions. Just as a Realtor will point out the reasons why a house is worth a a specific amount of money. People don't buy pricey things just because they are pricey, but rather because they have a perceived value. If someone perceives that the value of a photograph is the same value as an original painting, then why pay more for the painting. However, educating the person is a way to help them know the value of the painting is worth the higher price.

On an indiviual basis I try to educate my potential clients, but I think information offered on a broader scope would be great. An individual jeweler may educate a specific customer about diamonds, but what stirred the interest in the first place is the knowledge shared by the diamond industry to the masses. Yes, there are many who will always want original portraits painted, but there are also many more that could benefit from the knowledge of why they should choose original portraiture over photography.

[Ngaire Winwood]

Mary and Michael, I agree, great stuff.

Yes, there are many who will always want original portraits painted, but there are also many more that could benefit from the knowledge of why they should choose original portraiture over photography.

Mary, I think this hits the nail on the head.

[Mike McCarty]

I tried to nicely explain to the committee why a painting would be more appropriate then a photograph, but I didn't want to sound like sour grapes

Mary,

I think that if I had suffered through these circumstances I would be sending a letter off straight away. You've already lost the commission, unless their sensibilities are altered you probably won't get any future work. I think you would be doing them a huge favor by pointing out, in a very frank way, the error of their ways.

And besides, how many times do you get to blister a bunch of lawyers?

PS: From this point on I would like to disassociate myself, my daughter, all heirs and assigns, subsidiaries, comingled funds, loose conjoinments in kind, from Mary Reilly and any actions she may take in the above styled matter. Any percieved association with this thread has been induced through either alcohol, drugs (including peyote for religious purposes), or genetic defects.

[Ngaire Winwood]

Mary thank you, that was very informative. I suppose the essence I was aiming for in this thread was to see how portraiture was been challenged by photography. To hear of personal challenges was eye opening to say the least. The main reason was to once again highlight the need for a public relations coop possibly, to enlighten the public of an old and valuable service.

Yes, there are exquisite portraits that are produced by accomplished artists and most have a waiting list no doubt, but to use maybe a set of well written press releases that we could all use to soften the public to being supportive of our work was maybe my angle. Just to make sure that incidents like yours Mary and Mike's do not become contagious.