LIKENESS; FURTHER THOUGHTS ON THE HOLY GRAIL by Russell Lumb
I had intended to contribute to last week’s blog discussion on the subject of likeness, but, having drafted a careful comment, I was summoned to dine before well-done became cremated and found that the comment feed had timed-out on my return. This may be no bad thing as yesterday’s visit to Redbrick allowed ample time to reconsider this matter “in play”, as Ray Winstone would have it.
Putting aside the special circumstances of commissioned portraiture, where the sitter will usually require and expect a likeness, with every intention of demonstrating the achievement to anyone willing to look and listen , Chris’s original query concerned work undertaken in the Life Studio. Although I am sure that the question of likeness recognisable by a third party, versus expressive interpretation, was rhetorical , it is interesting to explore the generators of this urge to capture the sitter in two dimensions (or three, in recognition of Fiona’s modelling).
Rachel is a very memorable model with several permanent labels to identify her. But we humans have a remarkable facility for the assessment, storage and recall of facial features, and I think that we all use this particular attribute to catalogue others, and, most significantly, to process images of acquaintances. I have always valued the making of a good likeness, irrespective of the technique or degree of detail, because it is the most demanding task of our hand, eye and mind coordination, and is subject to highly critical assessment by any observer . “It looks just like her” is the equivalent of the pat on the head rewarding a dog for retrieving yet another ball; pointless but intoxicating.
Tom had suggested for the afternoon painting lesson that I might make a couple of generic head images, onto which I could paint Rachel’s portrait in the evening. This immediately established the difference between any old head and a portrait of a specific individual. This was to be a picture of Rachel and I was accordingly focused on transferring what I could see onto the prepared ground. The vigorous treatment of rich colours, and the larger-than- life scale suited Rachel’s strong features and ,eventually, I had a recognisable, if somewhat caricatured portrait. This morning, I can see several areas where I could make profitable improvement but I remain content that this is a portrait of Rachel using paint and pastel in an expressive manner. This balance is ,on reflection, what I aspire to achieve; one of many recent reviews of Freud’s work noted that “ you are always aware of the paint first”, and I would like that to be true of my work.
So the pursuit of likeness is both innate and premeditated but , surprisingly, is not functional in transferring recognition to others. In most cases, when the work is complete, it will stand alone irrespective of its likeness, and that, I think, is how we should view this matter. Pursue the illusion, enjoy the occasional success, but make sure that the finished work is interesting as a painting or drawing, because that is how the majority will consider it.
It is not difficult to recognise Rachel around the posted gallery; how many tattooed, naked girls climbing through a wooden set square did you see last night? But, surprisingly, the number of works which would allow accurate recognition in six months’ time , without the aforementioned tags, is very low. Full marks to Sue in this respect, although the entire gallery proves my conclusion that an interesting, expressive work does not require subject recognition to be successful .
Paintings and drawings by Abi, Barry, Fiona, Haydn, Ivan, Neil, Patrick, Peter, Roger H, Roger S, Russell, Sandra, Steve, Steven, Sue, Tom and Tony.
