the aristocracy, the church and the upper middle class or bourgeoisie, it was necessary for the portrait to be a flattering representation of the subject. Eventually artists could freely express themselves in their own introspective manner when painting a portrait.
Obviously the noblest revelation of character is in the artist’s idealization of the figure. When the painter can illustrate his understanding of the soul of the sitter, he fulfils the highest function of his art. Psychological insight is a second quality that is equally important in the portrait painter – the power to give lifelikeness to a sitter. In a dynamic portrait it should seem like blood is actually coursing through the veins of the figure. The spectator should actually feel as though they are looking at a breathing human being, not a painting nor a sculpture. There should be a sense of a real presence or even vitality and liveliness. At times this is achieved through the realistic portrayal of the actual physical traits however sometimes it is less concrete and vitality is achieved by the position of the sitter within the painting. In the early representations of military groups by Hals the figures are so alive that it seems that they could almost walk out of their frames and on to the floor next to the spectator. The quality is flawless even though the subjects are not restricted to a seated or constrained position. Velasquez’s portraits of Philip IV are exemplary of this idea, as they depict the sitter in a more relaxed position.
The degree that physical resemblance should be valued as essential to a portrait is a matter of varying opinion. The original purpose of portraiture has always been an ostensible, if not real objective of the painter. In the beginning stages of portrait art there was little technique and usually the sitter or the group of sitters were easily satisfied because there were no previous comparable pieces of art. At this point in time, half the challenge was creating an accurate depiction of the person and their attire let alone capturing the essence of a human being. If the main characteristics of the facial features were visible and somewhat recognizable, the resemblance was considered a marvel. With the advancement of technique and style a more photographic accuracy was expected, much like the work of Domenico Ghirlandaio and the Jan van Eyck. Often portraiture was pursued for more practical reasons it wasn’t until later that artists chose to illustrate the portrait in a more aesthetic manner. This was the primary aim of the Venetians who believed that the decorative aspect of the painting was of special interest to the artist. With this point of view resemblance was often neglected. Titian, Rembrandt and Rubens often executed an exaggeration of the motif of the person represented and forfeited, at times, key characteristics considered pertinent to the portrayal of the subject. It was because of the importance of beauty that these great artists sacrificed the accuracy of the features that was generally expected in classical portraiture.
The northern European schools excelled at reproducing exact facial features and topography. The meticulous realism of the fifteenth century Flemish art was carried over into the German portraiture of the sixteenth century, as seen in Albrecht Dürer and Hans Holbein’s works. In the Dutch school of the seventeenth century this exemplary realist technique reached its climax, with Rembrandt becoming the only notable exception to the rule. Velasquez had his own way of portraying the sitter, rather than focusing on the meticulous imitation of detail, he attempted to convey the total impression of the person.
Generally, portrait painters are distinguished as either being subjective or objective which depends on their decision to either use themselves or other sitters more regularly as their subjects. Nobility and distinction were attributed to Titian and Anthony van Dyck and grace and charm to the French and English schools of the eighteenth century. Different schools of artists and masters like Holbein, Hals, and Velasquez, utterly lost themselves in their subjects giving themselves up wholly to their personal impressions and idealizations. Their work stood outside themselves and gleamed in brilliance as if they had merely held the brush for an external motive force to wield its subject.
In the history of portraiture one artist’s limitation was another’s opportunity to flourish. In Van Dyck and Jean-Marc Nattier’s compositions there was always the constant reiteration of the same subject, or class of subjects, which later became mechanical and redundant to the point where they lost their ability to grow and evolve within their artistic styles. Velasquez and Rembrandt found one single model as an inexhaustible field of study. A lifetime was not long enough for them to devote to the multitudinous variations that one figure could inspire.
Again it is interesting that while some men were distinctly the product of their time; others seemed anachronistic. Titian came at the climax of Venetian art and epitomized the best of its characteristic qualities while Velasquez came two hundred years ahead of time, and created new compositions that his predecessors had never dreamed of. The environment of Titian and Holbein or of Peter Paul Rubens and Van Dyck, shaped the character and quality of their work, but other painters seemed to have no relation to their surroundings. It was the straight forward Dutch mentality that produced the most visionary of painters such as Rembrandt. Other countries such as Spain, a land of warmth and romantic adventure, brought forth the naturalists like Velasquez. So through the whole range of great portrait painting, we are able to find many temperaments, and many types of work. No single painter possessed all the qualities that would represent the “ideal portrait artist,” but all are necessary to present and explore the many different aspects and hidden sides of this substantial artistic genre.
By the nineteenth century, with the advent of other artistic mediums such as photography, portraiture was viewed as a dying art. Photography encompassed virtually all of the elements that portraiture had thus far attempted to achieve and therefore portraiture had to take a new direction. French Impressionists such as Camille Pissarro and Claude Monet began developing new techniques involving the effects of light and their own artistic interpretations. The Postimpressionists, notably Vincent Van Gogh, popularized the self-portrait and the use of vibrant colour. These evolutions acted as a catalyst for numerous artistic movements that would produce some of the most influential artists such as Picasso and his Cubist masterpiece Les Demoiselles d’Avignon. The powerful Surrealist movement cultivated artists like Salvador Dali and Max Ernst who propelled an epoch that paved the way for abstraction and the contemporary portraits. With artists such as Norman Rockwell and Andy Warhol, contemporary art and portraiture took on a new image that began after World War II and incorporated the new 50s and 60s consumerist culture. What follows are examples of more than a few paintings that in themselves not only represent the portrait genre, but also are representative of specific movements in art history.
For the reader and viewer, the pages that follow show a panorama of more or less famous personalities from the past that form a chronological timeline of art. While the collection gathered here is a mere taste of the plethora of portraits created over time, the works within this book are representative of some of the most important artistic genres in the history of art. The power of the portrait is defined by its ability to preserve a memory of the person being represented, thus implying the indispensable quality of these works. Therefore this dynamic collection of one thousand masterpieces creates a dialogue of sorts between the artists and even their respected time periods that allude to the different aesthetic and stylistic hurdles that enabled them to express their creativity.
Antiquity
2. Gudea, Prince of Lagash (anepigraphic statue), Mesopotamian, Tello, ancient Girsu, c. 2120 B.C.E. Diorite, 70.5 × 22.4 cm. Musée du Louvre, Paris.
The art of portraiture did not begin with Antiquity; in fact, historians found the first traces of the portrait during the Upper Paleolithic (c. 30000-12000 B.C.E.) period up until the Neolithic (c. 8000–3000 B.C.E.) period when “artists” already knew and developed many different forms of human representation. From the Venus of Brassempouy (or the Lady with a Hood) to the King of Uruk, thirty thousand years of technical experience had already passed. Although we can not analyse ancient art in a general sense, because of the diversity of all the civilisations involved, we can explain why portraiture during antiquity was radically transformed. The birth of the first writing systems changed the perspective on human form from a supernatural
