19. Choice of Subject

Q: Tell me, which do you like best to paint, a man, a woman or a child?

"I do not think I can answer that question either, as the point is one I have never considered. Really, I believe that they all interest me equally. It is fascinating to analyze in a man what makes him worth noting—his strength of character shown in his face, his masculinity, his racial peculiarities and the stamp impressed upon him by his station in life—in a woman, her grace and charm, her refinement, her subtlety and that appealing quality which is called femininity, in a child its innocent beauty, its miniature perfection, its delicacy of coloring. Why should a portrait painter limit himself to specializing in one sex or in a particular age? He ought to be receptive of impressions of all kinds and from all sources, and every new impression that is worth accepting should be to him a fresh inspiration. But whoever it may be that an artist is going to paint I am certain that he cannot hope for success unless there is between him and his sitter confidence and sympathy."

20. What Makes a Portrait Great?

Q: By way of summing up would you say what in your opinion entitles a portrait to be called great?

"The best summing up would be to repeat what I have just said, that confidence and sympathy between the artist and his sitter are essential, because the truly great portrait is the one in which this contact has been so close that it has spurred the artist to his highest achievement. Really, there is a collaboration in which the sitter and the artist both contribute something vital, the sitter a character and a personality which are inspiring and a right instinct, as well, for self-revelation in pose and gesture, the artist a special capacity to observe acutely and to record convincingly those subtleties of characterization which the sitter consciously or unconsciously gives him and, in addition a finely cultivated taste which enables him to make his picture harmonious in design and satisfying in its color scheme. The artist, it is true, can only record what he sees, but when the opportunity is afforded him to look into the mind and soul of his subject he can, if he is equal to his task, produce a portrait in which everyone will be able not only to recognize the physical features of the sitter, but to perceive also the deeper-lying qualities by which he is distinguished. That would be what I should call a great portrait."

What responsible work then it is, portrait painting.

"Of course it is. On the portrait painter lies a very great responsibility indeed, for he has not only to satisfy his contemporaries but also on many occasions to create for the benefit of future generations an historic document of his times and this document would be without authority if it were not at least as much a study of character as a representation of plainly visible facts. The merely exact reproduction of the sitter's features at a particular moment as a camera would do-is scarcely worthy to be called a portrait at all; I say, once more, that in this branch of artistic practice the only painting that can be held to justify itself is the one which in the rendering of those features expresses the full mental and moral stature of the human being to whom they belong. Here it is that the individuality of the painter appears and here it is that his powers are subjected to the severest test. Different artists painting the same sitter would produce differing results, because their individualities would vary; so, you see, the inadequacy of the artist who has assumed a responsibility he has not qualified himself to bear would show in his work and he must stand for all time self-convicted of failure."