What do you think about portrait painting?

Question

The New York Time says that portrait painting is popular again among the deserving rich . I am asking why not among ordinary people ?

Answer 1

Among the rich, it is continuing the traditions of the family. Having your portrait hang next to dad, and grand-dad, etc. Afterall, the camera has only been around for 150 years; wealthy people with huge egos have been around lots longer.

From the perspective of art, it no longer applies. Art is the DIRECT transfer of FEELINGS (good and bad), a much higher goal than simple transfer of light and shadow information. The portraits being done now are crisp photo-realistic and, that being the case, why not use a camera?

Now, if the artist chooses to paint his feelings (rather than strict image) about a person, it may enter another realm again just as Impressionism or Expressionism did in their time.

Likewise, a photo or a person can be art, too. Probably not a traditional portrait, but something that conveys the feelings can be just as valid as ART.

Answer 2

The rich love themselves more than anyone else. They like to hang pictures of themselves on the walls because they highly narcisist.

Portrait painting is not bad, however, not my type. I find it boring. The only portraits that I admire up to date include:

"Monalisa" by Leonardo da Vinci
"Leo Tolstoy" by Leonid Pasternak
"The Artist's Mother" by James McNeill Whistler
"Pierre Prud'hon and his daughters" by Gustave Courbet
"The daughters of D. Boit" by John Singer Sargent
"Portrait of Dora Maar" by Pablo Picasso
The "Marilyn" series by Andy Warhol
The "Elvis" series by Andy Warhol

Answer 3

Because most "ordinary" people find it pretentious. I would prefer to spend my hard earned dollars feeding my family. I have a camera for memories. I'm pretty sure the cost is more than most "commoners" would find reasonable.

Answer 4

It certainly should be! The rich? The deserving rich? I know more deserving poor...