Van Gogh did self portraits because he had no money to pay models. Rembrandt used it as a vehicle to improve his artistic skills as well as to study the minute emotional states inflicted by muscular inflections on his face. Women artists of the 1800’s did it because they were not allowed access to live models and social restrictions made it difficult for them to paint publicly. Others like Frida Kahlo examined the different psychological underpinnings behind the ‘self’ using the self portrait as a tool, a vehicle. Gentileschi used the portrait as a mask that tended to hide the viewer from the self that the artist wanted to conceal. There are so many different reasons for creating a self portrait.
It is also instructive (and fun) to read the opinions of Art and Perception contributors to this art form.
Richard Rothstein said:
For reasons I can’t clearly explain I’ve never been comfortable with self portraits by any artist. So that’s what you look like or want me to see about you? Fine. Thanks. Now go away.
Carina said:
I made a self-portrait because I was a little sad and a little serious.
Rex said:
1. It is our way of experimenting; hence, they have personal value and are purposely non-commercial; 2. they are a way of saying, “Fuck you.”; 3. if you’re pretty, they are advertising; 4. they are a way of dealing with suffering; 5. self portraits are fun and need no further excuse
June said:
I do self-portraits to try to get a fix on myself. At the risk of sounding schizophrenic (or aged), the inner me and the outer me aren’t quite in sync. In my self-portraits I’m hoping to catch something of the inner me while not absolutely ignoring the outer me. It’s a great challenge.
Birgit said:
Wouldn’t an artist doing a self-portrait look at herself critically, evaluating how the painting looks?
Karl said:
Artists making self-portraits in the mirror often have this strained “can I paint myself?” look.
Steve said:
My only self-portraits are like Richard’s: shadows or reflections noticed while photographing other things, or maybe not noticed until the picture is seen later.
I typically plan on developing one self portrait every year just so that I can look back at the changes in drawing style and influences using the one thing that hopefully will stay constant through the entire journey. My self. I have been toying with the color wheel and decided to move from the red – yellows to the blue – green sector and explore all the color nuances that come in this sector… and what better image to experiment this new palette of colors than my own face…
Sunil Gangadharan, ‘Self Portrait – 2007’, Oil on gessoed MDF, 40″ X 48″
‘Self Portrait – 2006’ here.
Sunil,
What a wonderful painting! Your expression reads really “true,” for lack of a better word. You seem very present and solid. And the nuances of all the little crevices and folds seem much more specific that in some of your others. A big difference between this and last year. Was that how you were painting last year? You have changed a lot!
Interesting too, that you chose in both to cut off the edge of your face. It makes it feel like you are so close to us that we can’t even see your whole face at one time. Was that on purpose? Show us 2005, 2004, 2003, etc. versions!
I rarely do self portraits. However I did just complete one in the guise of an effigy/wish doll. SOmetimes it’s I do one just for the exercise, sometimes it is because I want to capture something specific. Have no idea why I chose to do a doll, just seemed moved to do it.
I like how your did this one and your idea of doing one a year.
Sunil:
I’m still getting to know your faces. I’m also seeking to reconcile what I see with the rather matter-of-fact way that you have described your approach which tends, in my reading of it, to emphasize the procedural over the psychological.
Now I know what you look like – or do I? Without a reference image I find it a little hard to talk about the rounded shape to the right of your lower lip or the particular set of your nostrils. Perhaps you do have an asymmetry around your mouth and have chosen to include it, or not. Either way, the emphasis provided by the shape works to anchor the lower right corner of the picture. In a similar vein, you depict your nostrils in an outward-facing manner, which adds interest to your nose, regardless of accuracy. The treatment of your ear catches my attention as well.
Can we surmise about the choice of colors? Folks have favorite colors. But then again, these hues might be cued to an emotional state. And anymore, it could be that you have just returned from a sporting match where you had donned your war paint to better cheer on the old Blue and Gold. Or the colors and their application might relate to purely aesthetic decisions. Whichever, your handling of color is both strong and subtle and highly effective in its own descriptive dimension. The eyes are just right.
I’ve used myself as a subject in paintings for a number of reasons.
If I wanted to paint from life, I was often the only model I could afford. Plus I wouldn’t have to risk offending the model’s vanity, which is a potential problem with friends, family and paying clients.
I’ve used myself as one of a cast of characters in my narrative paintings. I never thought of these so much as self-portraits as a story-telling device. Kind of like an author writing fiction in the first person, or a director playing a role in his movie.
Other times I’d put myself in a painting just to keep the birds company. They get lonely.
Sunil,
Despite the color change, this is very much in your distinctive style. The yellow highlights still put me in mind of a metal sculpture, and, come to think of it, the texture is like a Rodin. You have a very strong gaze. If you were looking at the viewer, you could compete with Gravel for President (referenced in Winkleman yesterday).
I also like the crop. I think I may have asked this before, but isn’t this kind of treatment considered characteristic of photography? Not that it should be confined there, of course, but I thought I’d read somewhere that such cropping was derived from photographic approaches.
I think the annual self-portrait idea is a good one. I’ll have to look around for a rock that I can pass off as me…
I’ll have to look around for a rock that I can pass off as me…
You’ll end up as a rock star.
Sunil,
I have to say I had a hard time making the 2006 portrait not look like a reindeer climbing up a tree. Guess the figure got pretty ground up. Very interesting once I get it.
David,
I’ll probably look stoned.
Leslie,
Glad you enjoyed this one.
It is funny that you ask for artwork created for all those past years. I began painting about a year back. The art before that was very fragmented and very abstract. I lost interest in abstraction because it did not represent too much in terms of meaning for me. Over the last year, I decided to invest time, energy and effort into my art (aided by copious amount of support from my wife). I now find myself getting ever more deeply into it and enjoying myself immensely (they say when you enjoy something intensely, you are doing something right). I had always had ideas about art and creating paintings, but time was the biggest enemy. Even now time is a big enemy, but I manage to stay up late nights (sometimes by sheer will) and pursue it.
Corrine a.k.a. Jafabrit,
Great to see you here. I knew it would only a matter of time before you stop by here. Keep coming, visit us and give us that dry cockney wit. By the way, I looked at you self portrait and it is zany. Great going.
Jay,
If you are referring to my post ‘Painting from digitally enhanced …’, then I must say that I wrote that one purposely procedural rather than plumb the emotional depths because I was asked by a member on this group to explain how I went about and created these paintings. The post attempted to go over the process step by step.
Of course they mean a lot for me emotionally (I try and describe some of the underpinnings somewhat in my blog, but try and keep the baggage minimal here).
In regard to you comment on the treatment of eyes, ears and mouth, I rarely try and depict an exact rendering of faces (you have photography to do that for you). I try and coalesce abstract patterns of paint using attendant colors into the development of a human face. I am getting to a point where I could use hues to depict a particular emotional state, but I am not there yet. I know I will be there in about a couple of years…
David,
I love your narrative self portraits. They have always reminded me of Ted Hughes for some reason (maybe it was because of the crow poems that he masterfully wrote)… Your ravens add a great angle and twist to the painting.
Steve,
As soon as Arnold Schwarzenegger succeeds in getting the laws changed such that people who were not born in the United States could run for the presidency, I will take up your offer on that. At this point just about anyone could do a better job (in my humble opinion)… Yes, I did see that post by Ed (although Gravel might be too artsy to be president – but then again I need to keep reminding myself that just about anyone can be better).
I purposely decide to crop out certain sections when I develop some of the faces (you could see this in some of my other faces also)… I really do not know why, I thought it was neat. Honestly
When you say:
I’ll have to look around for a rock that I can pass off as me…
Please read below link for additional pointers… http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/040621074009.htm
Steve:
How about Michelangelo’s David?
The spittin’ image!
Big hands and all?
Ginormous.
Hey, that’s officially a word now! You’ve probably heard…
Steve:
Mind if we call you Dave?
Of course, Sunil’s painting is also ginormous. The head, if not cropped, would be half the size of the head of the Great Buddha at Kamakura, Japan. Very impressive! The more I look at it, the more solid and sculptural it seems.
There go the boys again. Sheesh. Aren’t they lucky we are all appreciative audiences.
Sunil, your recap of the varying ideas about self-portraits is wonderful. Thank you.
I would add to what others have said about your own portrait that what I notice is it’s lack of neck or shoulders. It’s floating in air. AM I correct in thinking that you may have digitally removed any background or remnants of the rest of the body? The space around the face looks more like a digital removal than a brush line to me.
The reason I ask this is that if you have digitally removed it, there’s even more serious intentionality to what you are doing than might appear from looking on the features alone.
Isn’t the great Oz represented by a floating head?
June,
I am not too sure why would anyone want to digitally remove portions of what they have painted. No, noting was ‘digitally’ removed. I never do that.
I have posted here another picture of the above painting in a more ‘contextual’ format (but one that shows the dirty floor of our basement also) – not the most flattering one but hopefully you notice that there is no ‘digital removal’… http://i187.photobucket.com/albums/x56/sunilgangadharan/IMG_6630.jpg
The space around the face is pure white gesso, there is no paint there…
David and Steve,
Even at 2 am in the morning, your comments evoked a laugh out of me… Yes, I did read that about the word ginormous yesterday.. I did not like the word too much, but what the heck – gradual accretions are the hallmarks of a living language…
Sunil,
Your green and blue hues are spectacular.
Sunil.
I share June’s observation of “pixelation”.
When you apply the paint from a brush do you stroke or dab? The edges and surface glare in the upper corner suggest the latter.
D,
It is good to hear from you. I miss your pointed critiques (of course, it may be rough at times, but that is what makes me learn). Hope to hear more often from you.
I use dabs of titanium white for highlights that I use towards the end to imply depth. For the most part I use long strokes with additional blending to lower or higher hues.
The artifact on the upper corner that you are referring happened due to poor lightning in our basement and the effects of the flash striking off the surface of the oil paint at that point (they are not dabs of white paint as might be visually implied). I plan to haul the painting up from the basement one of these days and take a proper picture under natural light conditions and then post it here. The MDF board that I used for this painting weighed around 30 pounds…
Sunil:
Your easel is certainly cooler. That, sir, is my kind of studio.
Jay,
;-).
Yes, I propped a sheet metal tool box on an old insulated picnic cooler box that we stopped using and used the combination to balance the canvas/boards…
In addition to supporting the painting, I manage to get a laugh out of anybody who steps into the basement with this contraption.
S.
I think a very interesting element of a Face is that it is composed largely of open shapes (nose blends into cheek blends into jaw into chin, etc.). Your topological approach, to me, screams for the varied and extended brushwork that moves through these areas. The “dabbing” effect not only creates its own topography (and glare) but it is also too static, a limit to the overall experience.
Of course such brushwork is Of Genius, but still, a worthy endeavor (give it more than “a couple years”).
D,
When you refer to brushwork that blends together the topographically disparate regions, are you referring to a technique where I look to creating an exact realistic replica of the individual that I am trying to paint?
I was not really trying to reach that level of representation as it could be better accomplished by photography.
I was not really trying to reach that level of representation as it could be better accomplished by photography.
Sunil, do you mean to imply that you would paint more realistically if photography did not exist? Isn’t there some positive reason reason you use the form of abstraction you do? It may not be articulated further than “liking how it looks,” but it might be interesting to consider.
S.
I should have been more specific to my thinking: I sense that you want me to view the Face as a whole yet I view it mostly in parts.
Brushwork lends Conviction and with so many unknowns for me (color selection, cropping, size, no Neck (no Body), shaky edging, etc.), I feel a bit frustrated as to a Where To Start.
I also like what Steve suggests: that the qualities of Photograhy should not limit the potential of Painting.
Sunil,
Now that you mention monsoon rains, I see a lot of ‘streaming’ in your face
Sunil:
My son has an illustration of Krishna in a tree, serenading his cowgirls as they bathe in a stream. Krishna is blue as usual. Does this example influence your decisions while painting portraits?
Sunil:
More than once I have digitally removed portions of what I have painted, and had the bloody fingers to prove it.
D. and Steve,
I sometimes want to believe in the fact that if a tool is eminently suited for a particular task, then why not make use of that tool than substitute something else for the same. I view photography in the same vein – it is unparalleled in taking real-life as it exists in various formats – why emulate the same with paint when I know that I cannot achieve any of the inherent quality of real life through paint. But I guess you are right in the sense that I should not limit myself that way, but I am not too sure if I have the required talent to explore this realm in that depth outlined.
Jay,
It is funny that you mention Krishna and blue in this regard. One of my first paintings was a four foot tall Krishna playing the flute. It was faceless, full length and painted with deep Prussian Blue. The flute was umber. The peacock feather on his crown was phtalo green blue with shades of ultramarine.
Sunil:
Was your Krishna an aberration or an inspiration?
Jay,
Not so sure if it was either. I seem to be attached tto it as it was my first piece of artwork that I managed to not discard…
Why do you ask? Do you still have your first piece of art that you treasure – or have you gone ahead and sold it?