Portraiture is a specific form of representational artwork, usually a painting or sculpture, characterised by a recognisable depiction of an individual. “Recognisable” is the operative word here; a depiction of a person that does not show any distinguishing features or traits or one that is constructed from a formula is not usually considered a portrait.
Arguably the earliest portraits appear in ancient Egypt, though humans have drawn faces since prehistory. Though it was usual to draw individuals according to formula, distinguishable only by name labels or quirks in costuming and size, in some periods this idealised formula was altered significantly enough for individuals to be recognisable. Statues were particularly important to the Egyptians, both politically as ways for pharaohs and dignitaries to reinforce their position and religiously as an immortal and impenetrable vessel for the soul. Sesostris III of the Twelfth Dynasty (who ruled between about 1879BC and 1839BC) is unusual in that he was always depicted as a fairly old man, with deep-set, heavy-lidded eyes; gaunt cheeks and a slightly down-turned mouth. Sesostris came to power late in life and had a particularly difficult reign, so it seems his statues were designed to reflect this. When compared to images of his father, the difference is clear. Interestingly Sesostris’ son, Amenemhat III is depicted similarly in statuary during his own reign. It is not clear whether Amenemhat shared his father’s physical traits or was simply reinforcing himself as the son of such a powerful and popular pharaoh.
Image from Wikipedia: Three statues of Sesostris III from the British Museum
In the Egyptian period we also see portraits taking on the roles they would continue to serve for millennia to come: in a world were literacy was uncommon even among the rich, portraits were a way for rulers and the elite to communicate with the public. A good example of this comes in the Eighteenth Dynasty with the reign of the notorious Akhenaten (best known today as the father of Tutankhamun). Akhenaten founded the first monotheistic religion, destroying many of the earlier polytheist sanctuaries and moving his palace to Amarna. To visually illustrate this change, Akhenaten employed artists (Bek, sculptor of the great Amarna temple, and Tutmose, sculptor of the famous bust of Nefertiti, Akhenaten’s chief wife) to create an entirely new way of depicting people. Akhenaten’s religion and the Amarna art style did not last, however, and though an Amarna influence can be seen in the tomb decoration of Tutankhamun both art and religion reverted back.
Image from Wikipedia: In Amarna art, figures are depicted with elongated heads, long necks, drooping bellies and long thighs. There is some debate as to whether or not Akhenaten and his family really looked like this, some mummified remains seem to suggest that they had some form of genetic disorder. It doesn't really matter whether or not they looked like this, the change has a clear political message: the family are different to their predecessors.
Portraiture in Greece took a lot longer to start showing signs of individualism. In the archaic period (contemporary with New Kingdom Egypt) depictions of people followed a formula very similar to Egyptian statues (in styles called kouroi and korai) but adding a smile to give a sense of the statue’s “soul”. Naturalism starts to appear in the early classical period but although figures start to look like real people they are not representations of real individuals. More often, statues are designed to depict gods and mythological figures, so though they may be realistic copies of the models used they were not intended to represent these models. However, we do start to see statues that were intended to depict real people (even if those people were long dead). The Tyrannicides monument commemorated Harmodius and Ariestogeiton, two lovers who killed a tyrant, and though it was rebuilt after the original statue was stolen by the Persians over fifty years after the pair were put to death, it is significant in being a fairly naturalistic depiction of two individuals.
Image from Wikipedia: The Tyrannicides monument. Notice how the detailing in the face and hair suggests the different ages of the two figures. However, notice the stance with one leg put forward, still typically archaic in the kouros form.
As the classical period went on, “portraits” of historical figures became more common, such as this one of Athenian statesman Pericles or this one of the philosopher Socrates. (As an aside, most of these statues as they survive are Roman marble copies of the bronze originals, which were probably melted down. We do not know how accurate these copies were, and in many cases changes to the composition were made to support the marble where they would not be necessary in bronze). Portraits of living individuals are fairly rare, presumably it would have been considered hubristic. Even in funerary art portraiture is rare, it was far more common to decorate a tomb with mythological figures, simple pottery or formulaic made-to-order slabs depending on the time period.
Augustus as a conquering hero wearing armour covered in symbolism; images of Caligula with Alexander the Great’s hairstyle and a solar crown, and images of Hadrian with a Greek-style beard to show his love of Greek culture. Imperial sculpture was carefully moderated; state-approved statues would be made and then copies would be made of these to take to towns and cities around the empire. This method ensured the image the emperor wanted would be the one his subjects saw. It also means we have a very clear idea of what the emperor really looked like; mistakes are less common and each individual becomes clearly recognisable, if idealised.
But portraiture also becomes more accessible for the upper (and perhaps even middle) classes of the Roman period too. The house of Lucius Caecillius Secundus, a wealthy banker, in Pompeii contains portraits of its owner, for example. In the Fayum district of Egypt, a series of fascinating painted death-mask portraits were found in the tombs of wealthy individuals. These are particularly interesting as paintings from this period are very rare. These paintings seem to have been commissioned by type but are remarkably naturalistic and show clear signs of individuality, not only in dress but in facial features too.
Image via. One of the beautiful, if idealised, Fayum portraits, painted with surprising naturalism. From her hairstyle and gemmed necklace we can see that she was a wealthy woman.
In the medieval period, portraits become far more generalised and so probably can’t really be called “portraits” at all. Figures are drawn by formula and, like Egyptian paintings, often only identifiable by written labels. It was only the rediscovery of classical styles in the Renaissance that returned portraiture to the levels of individualism and detail of the Roman period. In the Renaissance, painting was the primary form of portraiture and, moving away from the generalised forms of the Middle Ages, there was now an increased emphasis on capturing the distinguishing features of the individual. However, like the art of ancient times, symbolism was still a key part of portraiture, as this painting of Elizabeth I shows. Painted to commemorate her victory over the Spanish Armada, it shows the battle occurring through a window behind her and she wears an extravagant dress covered with pearls to reinforce the image of her as ruler of the seas. The level of symbolism is enormous and leads to a slightly fantastical feel for modern viewers. For example, this engraving shows Henry VIII and his wife Jane Seymour standing before Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, both of whom were long dead by the time Henry VIII married Jane. Also, although there was an increased emphasis on capturing the sitter’s likeness, some artists were clearly more skilled than others (as the varying depictions of Henry VIII show) and artistic license proved problematic in a time when painting was the primary visual medium: Henry VIII famously fell for Anne of Cleaves based on a flattering portrait by Hans Holbein which was unfortunately quite unlike Anne herself.
Image via the Wikipedia link above. The unfortunate Anne of Cleves as painted by Holbein.
By the 17th century, the preferred style of painting was lighter and more naturalistic, with heavy emphasis on costume and hair. Early in the century the Tudor influence is clear in costuming if not in the treatment of the face itself (look at this painting of Elizabeth of Bohemia, notice the contrast between the treatment of the skin and the treatment of the dress) but around the time of the English Civil War, the overall treatment of the portrait becomes more unified. Clothing becomes a little simpler, in keeping with the views of the Republican government, and symbolism starts to give way in favour of settings that reflect the sitter’s character and interests. For example, this painting of the Royalist supporter Lord Capel and his family. The composition mirrors a painting of the King’s family, fitting as Capel was a Royalist, and shows the family’s garden through a window; Capel’s daughters Mary and Elizabeth were a distinguished horticulturalist and botanical painter respectively, while his son Henry helped to establish Kew Gardens. As the century wore on, extravagant fashions meant that more focus was put on clothing and hair than before (as can be seen in this painting of Charles II) but effort was still made to ensure the sitter’s character showed through.
In the eighteenth century naturalism and detail continued to be important. Naturalism can be seen not only in the style of painting but also in the poses and settings chosen for the sitters and detail is sought out in extravagant clothing and muted backgrounds, such as this painting of George III. There is also an increasing tendency to depict the sitter at work or at play, so portraits with musical instruments (such as this or this) become common, as do self portraits of artists at work (such as this one or this). There's a frivolity and playfulness about these paintings.
In the nineteenth century the purpose of the portrait was changing. Changing attitudes to schools lead to increased literacy meaning portraits no longer had to take the place of text. Increased literacy and use of printing presses meant culture was changing too, making “celebrities” of writers like Charles Dickens, and increasing the public appetite for cartoons and caricatures (like this one. Caricatures had been popular since the 17th century, but it's only with increased literacy and readily available printing in the 19th that they really take off). The invention of photography changed matters further. Painting was no longer the most accurate form of representation, and though it started as something of a side-show amusement, it took off among the middle and upper classes after Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, who was very keen on new technology, were photographed. Photographers drew on the compositional skills of painters and incorporated details that were in keeping with the traditions of the portrait, such as this photograph of Dickens with his writing materials, or this photograph of Brunel. As a result, portrait painters began to experiment with more techniques that gave a more stylised appearance, as can be seen here and here.
In the 20th century these trends continued. Though naturalistic portraits were still produced, stylised work is more common. Photographic portraits became increasingly sharper and more defined. The purpose of portraiture has changed further. Advances in technology made photography far quicker and more accessible, meaning pictures of ordinary people are far more common and, often, more informal. Fine art photography, by contrast, has become almost as stylised as painting. Many photographers returned to black and white to create sharp, hyper-real portraits of their subjects.
Today there are many different styles and genres of portraiture, as advances in technology and changes in social structure have meant that the formal, symbolic portraits of previous centuries are no longer current. Even state and political portraits have changed significantly, just look at this comparatively informal photograph of Elizabeth II or Barack Obama’s “hope” campaign.
Image via. Shepherd Fairey's iconic poster (this version now in the Smithsonian) shows a very modern take on the traditional political portrait. Just like portraits from ancient times, it makes use of both symbolism, naturalism and a stylised style to present an idealised and instantly-recognisable image of its subject. However, unlike portraits from ancient and historic times, this portrait was not commissioned by the "sitter" but was created by the artist from a photograph.
No comments:
Post a Comment