who portrays? (in portraiture)
7 october 2003

Portraiture is not objective. It's called portraiture for a reason, because a person is being portrayed. What's interesting here is that there is not one entity who controls the interpretation of a portraiture, but three. The artist, by his design or art, portrays a person by exposing, emphasizing, and presenting particular aspectual details. The subject, wanting to control the image that is forged from him, portrays by regulating his appearance and conduct. Ultimately, the audience exercises control in how the portraiture is interpreted. They decide if the portraiture fits into their expectations of the person, and whether or not it is a faithful reflection. The audience also portrays, because they will not necessarily judge the portraiture by the same criteria intended by the artist and subject.

In Portraiture, Brilliant quite accurately characterizes the classical "portrait" as a complexly planned and calculated depiction of a person, formed through the usually collaborative efforts of the subject and artist. The subject will dress and pose so as to convey a calculated subtext about his reputation, social stature, etc. The artist controls how the portrait is rendered by his or her choice of style and background, emphasis of particular aspects or features of the subject, and depiction of the subject's character. In commissioned portraits, there is a great deal of collaboration between the subject and artist in creating a portrait to convey the agenda the subject has paid for. In non-commissioned portraitures, typically of public figures or celebrities, artists can monopolize control over the representation of the public figure. The ease with which the artist can, using only very subtle techniques, shape the portrait to satirize, glorify, or objectify a person speaks to the control an artist holds in portrayal, and the important role of connotation in portraitures.

While the creation of portraiture is important, the consumption of portraiture is also of great importance, for it is the anticipation of how a portraiture will be consumed which motivates the creation process. In Inside Culture, David Halle explains that portraits are on decline in modern homes because of the erosion of formality, and the instability of the modern family. In the twentieth century, social acceptance standards have changed, causing formal ideas about family to be relaxed and replaced with informal portrayals, such as a family in a leisurely setting. The instability of modern marriages have bred reluctance in couples to invest in potentially un-displayable couple portraits. Finally, the twentieth-century individualism taboo has made people reluctant to pose for clearly recognizable portraits, and because family and couple portraits are equally outmoded, a person often demands an abstract, closer-to-art portrait. The changing role of portraiture in the twentieth century is clearly attributable to the control exercised by the audience -- society and its changing standards.