Sometimes when I’m working on an artwork, I will engage in a mental discourse where I begin asking myself a series of questions on the validity of the thing that I’m doing. As I work on portraits that conversation sometimes goes a little like this.
Q- “Why do you paint portraits?” A- “Well, I think that the human person is inherently dignified and it is valuable to take the time to attempt to accurately portray them.”
Q- “What makes them inherently dignified?” A- “God makes them inherently dignified. They bear the image of God as his unique creations amongst the created beings and when one paints or portrays a human being in portrait painting or drawing they are showing the person and God, a justified reverence.”
Q- “So, does the person need to be accurately portrayed in order to show them a proper respect? And if so, how accurate does the portayal have to be?” A- “The accuracy of portayal does not justify or disqualify the validity of the act of creating the portrait, but the attempt with a reverence towards the person and God’s creation is part of the validity. The person creating the portrait is engaging in an activity that is reverential, for it’s form is one to slow down and to appreciate the person and this process is intentional.”
Q- “So, what if, for example the person who portrays the portrait mutilates the portrait of the other as they create the portrait? Take for example some of the portraits of Picasso, or George Baselitz.” A- “One would have to define what is said and meant by mutiliate. For example one could say that to do anything but attempt total realism or naturalism and to achieve it would be the only way that one could properly dignify the person and avoid all human frailty in the portrayal. Anything that would deviate from this standard, that is impossible for the human person to do, would be in some ways a deviation or mutilation. The mutilation of the person would have to be a proper mutilation or act of violence against the image of the human person. An inaccurate portayal of the physical being is not necessarily an act of mutilation, but could just be an act of human creation. For example one could create an abstracted painting or portrait, or caricature and it could be a more accurate portayal than a realistic portrait and do more justice to the personhood of the sitter and thus be a better portrait, even though it is not as realistic or naturalistic. The naturalism or realism is not the thing that determines a good portrait, and neither is the lack of it an indication of mutilation.”
A pt.2 -“There must also be a human dignity to the image of God in the artist who is creating the portrait too. The artist is engaging in a form of the image of God by creating and the creative power is a derivation of God the Father and His creative powers. God the Father can create ex-Nihilo, but man cannot. He must create through corruptible means and materials and these faculties will not allow him to ever create perfectly, because he cannot escape the curse. Perhaps he will create perfectly in heaven, but even then it is likely he will create through means that are a derivation of the perfect God. Therefore it is a condition of being human that one must create imperfectly and thence it is a matter of degrees of excellence in ones artistic making. This is another matter, but has to do with more than the skill in making in the sense of a form of material manipulation. This goes back to the idea that one can create an abstraction, a realistic work, an impressionistic work, or something different in likeness and the form itself does not dictate whether or not it is better or worse, because the form itself can be a means by which a portrait is portrayed and the portrait is not dependent on the style to be justified as a good or bad portrait.
A pt. 3- “I believe it to be the portayal of the imago dei, or the image of God that is to be seen. A destruction of the image of God in the person is the violation. Though this is inseparable from the person. Each person displays that differently and through their subjectivity and so since the painting of a portrait is ultimately an act of collaboration, meaning that there is a sitter and there is an artist, thus the image of God and respect for the subjectivity of each person without the violation of either or of the image of God in either is what is to be desired.”
End of short discourse.