When is a portrait not a portrait

[Clive Fullagar]

John Berger in his book "Ways of Seeing" made the argument about portrait painting, that a crucial aspect of a painting is seeing how the model/sitter is relating to the artist, or how the artist sees his/her models. (I think that you see this very clearly in the works of Velasquez.) All too often, when painting a portrait, we become overly concerned with how the client "wants" to see the model. I am not making a criticism here - this is probably a necessity of having to sell portraits. That is why self-portraits are so fascinating, because the client is the artist.

I agree, I do not think that the painting I supplied would generally be accepted as a portrait by anyone except myself. Yet for me it captures a very important, and intimate, aspect of the model (my wife) and portrays a lot about the way I (as the artist) see the model. I love doing portraits of my family, because it frees me up from many of the restrictions of portraiture. I can paint perspectives and lighting that would not be acceptable in a conventional commission.

Mike, I think that you are in the company of many great artists who have painted the back side of their subjects. (The one painting that readily comes to mind is Jamie Wyeth's picture of the guy who founded the American Ballet Company...well, maybe not so readily.)

I would be very interested to hear other artists' opinions about their different approach to a subject that they are intimately knowledgeable about versus a client whom they have just met and how (if at all) this changes the portrait process. Or maybe that is the subject of another thread?