Pablo Picasso once said, “Painting is a blind man’s profession. He paints not what he sees, but what he feels, what he tells himself about what he has seen.” The essay “Every Portrait Tells a Lie” by Debra Brehmer in a way supports this quote. The article brought up many good points that I haven’t even stopped to think about before. One of these points was that an artist manipulates the reality he is drawing when creating an artwork to reflect what he/she wants to see. Brehmer went up to bring up her family portrait that her father took when she was little. The photo portrayed Brehmer and her brother, and they both seemed very happy and excited to be together on Christmas eve. But as Debra goes on to say, that is not the case at all.
In reality they aren’t the happy family that is portrayed in the portrait. Brehmer hated her brother who was always mean and wanted nothing to do with him, especially taking a picture with him and pretending to be happy. Her father was “attempting to create an idealized imagine” that’s show not who they really are but who they want to be. That’s the main problem with portraits, they never show the “full picture.”
Robert Louis Stevenson and His Wife by John Singer Sargent (1885). Courtesy of Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, Bentonville, Arkansas. Photography by Dwight Primiano
This new train of thought got me thinking about John Singer Sargent’s painting of Robert Louis and his wife. I began question myself what this painting was really trying to tell the audience. Did Singer really alter the image to show what he perceived about Robert Louis and his wife. In the picture they seem very distant from each other, as if they have gotten into an argument or have grown apart. I guess we’ll never know.
I couldn’t agree more. Human nature dictates us to desire the memories of things that are perfect, or reality in our respect. That’s why humans tend to forget things that are emotionally depressing to them.
You bring up a good point with the painting of Louis Stevenson. I speculate that Louis probably didn’t view their relationship that way, but Sargent probably did. I state that based on the point that who would have the time to pose like such in the painting for extended periods of time.
Art is a form of expression that gives the artist freedom to paints what he himself sees, and not necessarily the reality.
Borys, indeed, portraits try to morph reality into an everlasting scene that makes the viewer constantly question what he or she is looking at. The portrait of Sargent’s friend, Stevenson, exemplifies the puzzlement for the viewer of whether they are in a distant relationship, or if he is just trying to think and get something from the refrigerator. I also liked your quote that “portraits never show the full picture.”
“That’s the main problem with portraits, they never show the “full picture.””
I agree, but I think that’s what makes portraits art. Art can never show the full picture because everything has more than one dimension. Art can show you one dimension but not the infinite number of them – after all, it only shows what the artist sees, and of that, what the artist wants YOU to see. I guess that’s why Picasso is right in saying “Art is a lie that makes us realize truth at least the truth that is given us to understand.”
Borys, you bring up a good point that with art, we can never know for sure. This statement reminds me of the conversation we had on one of the first days of class where we discussed what art really is. While an artist can have one intention in a painting, ultimately the audience can receive a completely different message if they even receive any at all.
I guess Debra’s article really got people thinking differently about portraits now.
Portraits can certainly bring life into a person who has been gone and can show expression to the viewers of the painting. However, like you said, the portraits don’t show the full picture, and I think that’s something many people do not like. Many want to know more, more information, more reasons, the motivation behind the picture. But sometimes, the answers just can’t be found or told. That new way of looking at portraits does change one’s mind when now looking at Sargent’s portraits. Is he trying to show the “whole picture”, or just trying to recreate what he sees at that moment?
I thought it was really interesting how you applied the concepts from Brehmer’s article to Sargent’s portraits. I also agree that in “Robert Louis Stevenson and His Wife”, it could very well be possible that although they seem distant in the portrait, that may not actually be the case. Because, as Brehmer noted, portraits are partially what the artists sees or wants to see. And so in artistic portraits, I agree with you that the “full picture” is never realized. “Full picture” as in the true instance that is actually occurring. But we do see the full perception of what Sargent sees. And perhaps that is distance between Stevenson and his wife. Maybe the attitude portrayed through the facial expression in “Lady with the Rose” is Sargent’s own attitude being portrayed through his art. But, like you said, I guess we’ll never know.
“Every Portrait Tells a Lie” brings up several interesting points. However, even if the smiles and poses seem somewhat fabricated, I think everyone can agree they would rather have memories of fake smiles than realistic frowns.
This applies to Sargent too. I think he made as portraits as interesting as possible so they could pleasing to look at, so I have no problem with him slightly tampering with reality.
It seems as if John Singer Sargent is purposely making his audience think about his artwork. There is so many hints and ideas that are laid on his seemingly simplistic artwork. It’s kind of frustrating not knowing every little detail or reason for his work. You brought up a great point, whether or not John Singer Sargent purposely altered the scene in anyway. What is he trying to achieve? What are his intentions? Just like his artwork, we’ll never know for certain.