Portraits
Can you really tell character from a portrait? I suspect not, any more than you can tell much from a person’s bookshelves. So much depends on the skill of the artist, the circumstances of the work – were they rushed to finish or did they have enough time to do a good job? Were they feeling well during the sittings or were they liverish? Did they like the sitter, was there any doubt as to whether they were going to get paid? Surely all these factors play a part.
And so often I think the character traits the experts say they get out of a portrait are really things they have heard elsewhere about the sitter and graft back onto it instead. It’s easy to see what you want to see when you know what to expect. Velazquez, for instance, was objectively, without doubt, one of the greatest painters there has ever been. Now look at his famous 1650 portrait of Pope Innocent X, the one Bacon based his ‘Screaming Pope’ sequence on. Wikipedia uses the epithets which have most commonly accrued to the sitter: “highly intelligent, shrewd and ageing”. I see a tetchy and impatient individual with a face of ageless evil, a person who is no more capable of a truly Christian act than the piece of paper he’s holding in his hand – probably an order for the excommunication of someone who owed him money. Nobody made finer portraits than Hans Holbein and Thomas Lawrence and John Singer Sargent, but the viewer who ascribes specific moral or ethical or intellectual qualities to their subjects surely does so at their peril.
For me, it’s all about the likeness, first and last, or the thing is a failure, no matter what prodigies of sensitivity or feeling or texture the artist may bring to bear. Here are a few I did where at least the sitter is recognisable. Of course they are. I was working from photographs most of the time, just like most of those ultra-talented competitors in Sky Arts’ Portrait Artist of the Year, who do that even when they’ve got the real live subject sitting ten feet in front of them…