Portraiture a Dying Art?
 

New member Ngaire Winwood posed this issue in another thread, and I thought it worth offering up in the Cafe to solicit insights from practitioners who are up on the front lines. I know that I've heard some harrowing accounts lately from some pretty accomplished painters.

I don't know if I'd give much weight to the opinion of a photographer when it comes to the future of painted portraiture. Yes, what we do is more expensive than what he does, and not many people can afford our work, but that's like listening to the Volkswagen salesman saying negative things about the Jaguar dealer across town. The Jag is more expensive and the Volkswagen may last just as long, but the two cars are created for very different purposes...

As far as how portraiture is doing as an industry, like any other luxury item it's very sensitive to the swings of the economy. Other than the problems some artists have had because their prospective clients have felt a bit of belt tightening lately, it seems that portraiture is doing very well in the big scheme of things.

Forbes magazine ran an article about portrait artists in late 2001 and had the subheading "Business is booming for artists who paint likenesses at up to $50,000 a pop." Later in the article they wrote, "Despite market woes, professional portrait artists aren't pawning their palettes to pay the rent."

In the last couple of years Business Week and Vogue Magazine have both run articles on how to pick a portrait artist and what to wear when you get your portrait done.

When the high end media pays this much attention to what we do I don't think we can call it a dying art quite yet.

Steven I try to address this in a poster size ad that I hang at my shows. I am not sure how readable this image will be since I had to reduce it so much, but the point of the text is:

[quote]Upon the death of a loved one when their treasures are passed on, neither the auto/nor shoes will be of any consequence...what will be the most valued item of worth?

A portrait of yourself or loved one is an investment in generations.
A portrait will be passed on until the end of time; we know this as a "timeless treasurer".

If the quality is outstanding and reflects the lessons of "The Masters" or those who chose to celebrate the art of academic realism you can rest assured that this piece of artwork will hang forever. It may be displayed on many walls, but the soul of the subject will look out for an eternity.

[SIZE]

I agree
 

Michelle and Beth, I agree with you both. The soulful characteristics of the subject is captured more eloquently by an artist and is felt in the way of the brushstrokes, values etc which I suppose would be quite difficult for a photographer to accomplish in a studio with props etc.

I have just finished reading Daniel Burleigh Parkhurst's online book, The Painter in Oil at ARC re portraitures special qualities not only just by achieving a likeness. For those who might not have read it yet go to http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/2...parkhurst9.asp

My daughter attends a private school that from all outward appearances, and from the the tuition charged, would seem to be quite healthy.

I was in their office last year and noticed on the bulletin board a photo of one of the long time teacher/administrators. Seems as though this man was retiring and preperations were being made to honor him. He had given some 30 odd years of service to the school, and the sports complex was just given his name. A much beloved figure it would seem.

Thinking there may be an opening here for a not too shy portrait artist, I made a pitch to the lady at the desk (people I have known since kindergarten). "Wonderful idea" she proclaimed, let me take your information, (a proposal including samples, size and cost estimates etc., which I had later e-mailed to her) and forward it on to the persons who make these calls.

I soon after got a letter that my proposal was being evaluated. Shortly after that I got a letter stating that they had decided to take a photo of the gent instead.

I know this doesn't prove the point one way or the other, it's just one more anecdotal story. Our work will never just die abruptly on some random Thursday afternoon, however, there may be a shrinking, a slow walk toward a time when the market is so small that only a handful can call it a living. It would seem that regarding these matters, technology, and what may be an ever decreasing discretionary budget, are not our friend. I hope I'm wrong, I'm feeling a bit crotchety this evening.

Mike thanks that was very informative into the cogs and wheels of a healthy organisation. Would it help if there maybe was more publicity, marketing campaigns as there is with every other item has that we buy today. Is word of mouth, internet enough? Should there be more articles written as Michelle mentioned earlier re investment portraiture. You know a public relation carriage to hop on to make sure your last comment is not validated.

I just found this in Daniel Burleigh Parkhurst's Book (page 22, 23)as stated earlier. Could this be the difference between a photograph and a painting?
Could we maybe do a mass public relations gig to open up the hearts and wallets of more public, concerning Mike's statement?

Quote:
There is the difference between the artist and the photograph, which sees only facts as facts; which while often distorting them does so mindlessly, and at best, when accurate, gives the bad with the good in unconscious impartiality. But back of the painter's eye which sees and distinguishes is the painter's brain which selects and arranges, using facts as material for the expression of beauties more important than the facts.

A picture is a visible idea expressed in terms of color, form, and line. It is the product of perception plus feeling, plus intent, plus knowledge plus temperament, plus pigment. And as all these are differently proportioned in all persons, it is only a matter of being natural on the part of the painter that his picture should be original.

Thanks for posting that quote. I particularly liked this part:

I don't think this is an issue of quality, longevity, the dipiction of the soul, the essence of the man/woman revealed. It's about the difference in hard dollars and perceived value added.

In a previous life I worked for a food manufacturer. I bought massive quantities of fruit, mostly IQF (individually quick frozen) cherries and apples from Michigan. Michigan grows maybe 80% of the countries cherries. The cherries were grown by many, many small (some large) farmers which stretch north/south along the eastern shore of lake Michigan.

What these guys were good at was growing cherries, what they were not good at was selling cherries. So, they developed a coop and chipped in a few cents a pound and created the ICGA (Itnl. cherry growers assn, or whatever). This organization was a powerhouse of marketing and sales, constantly putting cherries in the face of those who's job it was to buy cherries.

The growers grew, the sellers sold, all were served. I'm not saying that this would work for us but it makes me wonder. I wish the beauty and the value of portraits were tauted somewhere on a larger scale. Maybe somebody needs to bare their breast on national TV while whipping out a premier coup. Any takers?

It's also about an issue that many of us have a hard time confronting ... the lack of quality in our own work. I suppose for the realy gifted there will always be a demand. For the almost gifted, not yet gifted, will never be gifted, there will be excuses,. the economy, the competition, the dull geographic region etc.

I'm torn by stating a half dozen good reasons why portraiture painting will always have a market.

I the end I think it's not important to find arguments to prove to any photographer friend whether a portraiture career is valid or not. It's only important that the person who wants to be a portrait artist is confident it's valid. And for that I'd say two key things: Firstly, what does the market say - if your work is well received and you find clients, then you're on your way to a valid career.

Secondly, making some assumptions about a person's cost of living, the price they charge per painting, and how efficiently they paint and market themselves, one does not need but 20 or so clients a year to do very well. So unless the artist is working in a small town, there should be enough potential clients to make it work.

If that photographer "friend" was right, then 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!

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.

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.

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! ;)

Not such good news.
 

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

Yes the essence!
 

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.

My career is short enough to say I haven't lost any business to a photographer, but I can see it happerning eventually in some situation. I'm sorry that happened to you , and perhaps it could become more encroaching on the oil portraiture market if photoshop and printing wants to "replicate" us, but I think too one could just see that those Law people are just dealing with the tough economic times we're in and hiring some photographer fixes a painful $ situation.

I would be curious if what this photographer hypes is what he delivers. Also, when budgets come back, I would think people would rather pay for the real thing (an actual painting) than a fake thing ( a photo that pretends to be a painting)

It just occured to me who should lead our "PANDER" (Portrait Artist's Never Die Except Regionally) coop group - Bob Schiefer(sp). Mr. Shiefer is the moderator of "Face the Nation," which is a political talking head show that has been coming on Sunday mornings ever since TV begain. It's my understandng that Mr. Schiefer is a serious portrait artist.

Sombody should send him a copy of this thread. Tell him to invite a few of our best and brightest to his round table on a Sunday morning, with examples in tow, it's a perfect target audience. It's not impossible, it could happen!

The art of portraiture will always remain unique. I don't think it will ever die, not completely. The human element, the eye of the artist, paint, brush and canvas will always hold a fascination.

Photography on the other hand is mechanical, quite cold in comparison and very common. Photography isn't as interesting as a good oil portrait.

Even if I never made another penny creating portraits, I would still continue trying to capture the human form on canvas. Painting portraits is not just about making money, I think of it as a celebration of life.

For some painters there will always be a desire to capture the likness of other human beings, whether or not they get paid for their efforts. Certain individual's will always be willing to pay for the chance to have their image's created on canvas. To own something unique and quite rare, just as they themselves, in their human form are quite rare and unique.

The only way the art of portraiture will die is tie the hands of the artists, confiscate their paint and brushes and make it illegal.

What are you waiting for Mike?:D

I think there may be people here that know him.

Henry, it is true that the art of portraiture will never die out. As artists we would continue to paint even if we didn't sell - just because we love to paint. However, when the rent is due and the electric bill arrives it is nice when the money comes from what we love to do as oppose to having to get a different job to meet expenses. I paint becaues I love to, but since it is also my chosen profession I can't ignore the practical business end of art. If we start to lose commissions to photographs because they "look like oils" then it is time to educate the public before a momentum begins to grow.

Mike, I think Bob Schieffer is an excellent suggestion. He was the keynote speaker at the Portrait Society of America 2003 conference and he was excellent and very much in tune with portrait artists. Maybe Cynthia can suggest to one of the sites members that are on the board of the Portrait Society of America to check out this thread and pass the info on to Bob.

I also like the suggestion Ngaire made for a couple of well written press releases. It could be provided as a word document that artists all over the place could download and send to their local newspapers,Bar Associations, Medical Societies etc. Press Releases are a very inexpensive way to get the word out.

Mary

Actually, I think I was morphing "Face the Nation" and Bob Schieffer into "Sunday Morning" with Charles Osgood. The later is a more general topic magazine type program. I guess we need Charles to have Bob et al on his program.

There is a bit of a catch 22 that takes place in all kinds of professions, the people at the top see no need for reform, or promotion. They have broken the code and have little patience with others who have not suffered sufficiently. And so the most effective communicators, those who understand best, remain hidden behind their back log.

Those who are generous enough to give back do so with instruction. This is a good thing. But, there may come a time when we will need to stop painting, stop teaching, and start promoting. The gaze may need to turn from educating the art student to educating the buying public.

Not knowing the people, I think it is a great idea Mike.

I am curious as to what writing knowledge we have here amongst the members. Surely a well written set of campaigners to keep on file for those who needed it could do us all good over time!

Well the death of realism in art has been a prediction ever since photography came along. Photography has even been given as one reason for the rise of abstraction and the modern art movement of the 20th century.

I for one think that those who make such statements do not understand why people by art or those that buy it.

Automated looms have been making mass-produced oriental style rugs for over a hundred years now but the market for Antique and traditionally hand made Oriental Rugs is as strong as ever.

You can purchase a dresser to put your cloths in from a discount furniture store for a $100 Or you can purchase a hand made 18th century High boy reproduction for $5,000 to $20,000. Those with the skills to make these reproductions have no shortage of customers.

You can build a 1800 Sq. ft home. for $70,000 or you could spend 2 million. Builders who build luxury homes over 2 million have no shortage of buyers. In fact Real estate brokers will tell you it is easier to sell a five million dollar house then a $900,000 house. It is because of the economic gap. The majority of buyers can't afford a $900,000 home but those few that can most often could also afford 1-2 million or more. Also there are a lot more $900,000 homes competing for the few buyers looking in that price range. Homes in the 5 million plus range are exclusive and there is never a shortage of those with the money willing to pay for exclusivity.

No one tells a builder that because you can build a house for less that he should stop building luxury homes and only build what most people can afford.

But many say that because most people can't afford a painted portrait that it is a hard way to make a living. But I feel contrary to that belief the more exclusive the market the less effected by economic down turns it is.

I will admit that the economy does have some effect at all levels but for the most part sales of luxury items that traditionally are purchased by the wealthiest members of society are mostly unaffected by economic down turns that primarily hit the middle class the hardest.

History also bares this out. Although even the very wealthy were effected by the depression of the 1930s they were far from becoming poor and in fact the wealthiest at the time benefited by the low cost of labor and materials to construct grand homes that today would cost billions.

Yes only those artist who are established enough to demand high fees ($10,000 or higher) normally have such clients as Rockefeller's but most of the artist in that range have waiting list years long and are for the most part unaffected by the past few years of stock market down turns.

Now for those starting out who's clients include the middle class to upper middle class yes we are very effected by economic slow downs as was every industry selling luxuries to the masses. But although many have done a lot of belt tightening when it comes to their necessities often people will still splurge on luxuries if they can still afford them. Obviously if you are struggling to pay your rent or put food on your table you are not going to be buying art. But except for the rare occasion those vulnerable to such hardships are not traditional art buyers.
For those who have the money they are just as likely to go ahead and commission that painting even if their stocks are no longer giving the 20 percent returns they had before the bubble burst. They also still buy diamond rings, Bentley Auto's and Yachts.

The key is to become skilled enough that your work is in high demand. Those who's have achieved this level of skill are few. Exclusivity equals price.
Other artist have found ways of increasing their exposure and the demand for their work.

But regardless of how one creates this demand be it marketing, connections, great skill or a combination of them all. The fact is those artist that are in demand no matter what the economy does will always have clients willing to pay for their art.

And Photograph is not a issue or even considered by those who want a painting. Anyone can buy a photograph (or even Take one them self) So there is no exclusivity so it will can never replace the painted portrait.

Saying this may sound like I am being elitist. In some ways I guess I am in the same way that public television is labeled elitist by some because they choose to feature culture and art over mass media television you find all over the dial that chooses to show the lowest of human achievement. The Jerry Springer's of the world can have the masses I for one will choose those that appreciate the finer things in life those that appreciate the arts and the greater of human endeavors. They may be fewer but they have deeper pockets.

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.

Mary and Michael, I agree, great stuff.

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

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.

Oooooklahoma
 

Where the wind comes... comes... oh I can't remember the rest.

There is up in the Oklahoma legislature, Senate Bill 1347 - State of Oklahoma: Art in Public Places Act.

I met today with the head of the Oklahoma Arts Council, among other things we discussed the above mentioned bill which I will describe briefly here:

One and one-half (1 1/2%) of the cost of construction or renovation of state owned public buildings shall be allocated to incorporate artwork in, on or near the project. One percent (1%) is allocated for the commissioning of the artwork, one-half percent (1/2%) is allocated for administration of the program and maintenance of artwork.

Cost of renovation or construction must be $250,000 or more. The maximum assessment shall not exceed $500,000.

Did he say anything about how you apply for any of the projects being planned?

Actually it is a very nice lady from Oklahoma City.

Reading from the information she gave to me ...

*
A Site Committee selected by the project agency includes representatives from the community and is charged with making recommendations to the Oversight Committee in the selection of the location for the artwork, artist selection and development of a project-specific educational program for tourism and public school curriculum.
*

Bureaucracies are always a mess but often the only way things like this can be put forward. I doubt that the State has a huge building fund, but, all things considered I thought it was a pretty nice gesture. Of course it hasn't passed yet.

I keep thinking about the earlier discussion for us to come up with something to get the word out about the fine art of portraiture vs photography. If anyone wants to send me some sentences that sound good about why a portrait should be painted etc, I would be happy to try to pull together a "brochure" that everyone could download, print and use . What I am imagining is something that could be included with a letter that might be sent to bar associations and medical societies or whoever. I would love the brochure to be broken up into small easy to digest sections on the importance, tradition, etc of portraiture. I know in my head what it should say, but I'm not sure how to say it concisely and professionally. Michael Fournier made some excellent points along the line of what I am referring to.

Now if I could get some statements that are concise, to the point, and educational without being condecending that would be great. If anyone wants to email me sentences and/or paragraphs I would be happy to try and pull something together. My email is [email protected].

Thanks

That's a pretty good idea Mary. It's interesting to think that up until very recently such an addendum has never been needed.

You might think about starting a new thread to collect thoughts on the subject. Thanks for taking this on.