Kent Dorn, Fugitive (Blue With Cigarette) 2008, mixed media on canvas
Andrew Guenther, Will to Change Things, 2007, mixed media on board
Usually when I think of portraits I tend to think of pictures of real people, or at least pictures that resemble real people. I chose both of these pieces because they confused me at first and made me think about what a portrait could actually be. When looking at Dorn's piece Fugitive I was repulsed. What stared back into my eyes was something that resembled a melting corpse. The piece was 3D in a sense in that it actually rose from the canvas. The work consisted of piles of blue and black mush, cut out pictures of two eyes, a mouth, and pins. Andrew Guenther's work was very similar to Dorn's in that it also was very chaotic and dissembled . Will to Change Things consists of an outline of a human male plastered with what appeared to be brown paint and glue. Random objects are suspended around the figure with sticks, string, and glue. I noticed sunglasses, slippers, cigars, and lotto tickets folded carefully between the teeth of a comb.
After reading The Roving Eye I thought of two questions that professor Goody posed: "What makes a portrait genuine? What constitutes artificiality?" I began to read the artist statements for both artists and things began to make sense. Dorn's work tends to focus on exploring a lifestyle that would be played out in epic survival tales. With this statement in mind I thought of the actually meaning of the word "Fugitive." The picture that I saw may not have resembled the man itself but it certainly embodied how one in his position would feel. Guenther's piece was different in that I found more meaning in the portrait itself then in the title. Looking at the items individually meant nothing but when I started to put them together I got a feeling that I was looking at an old relative. I made a connection with my uncle who wore similar sunglasses, similar slippers, and loved to gamble. After having these realizations I walked away with a better understanding of how portraits could display more then a persons facial characteristics.
I can appreciate your approach because I too had a vague sense of what a portrait was. I thought of perhaps a renaissance painting or a simple photograph of someone, but I've come to realize that a portrait can be much more ambiguous. The pieces you chose were difficult and ,for some people, uninviting. It seems that you prefer a challenge when observing a piece of art and I really respect that.
ReplyDelete"After having these realizations I walked away with a better understanding of how portraits could display more then a persons facial characteristics."
ReplyDeleteI also connect with the idea that portraits can convey more concepts than simply being an image of someone. It is more of a means to transport outside themes and ideas to the viewer. Sometimes the sitter is more a vessel for the meaning of the portrait. In your discussion of Dorn's work, you say "The picture that I saw may not have resembled the man itself but it certainly embodied how one in his position would feel." And here is where I feel Portraiture becomes very interesting, that the look inside someone's life can be so striking that you become part of the work.