Long ago, before I was whatever kind of artist I am now – I’ve yet to find the right word – before even I went to art college, I was known to paint the odd portrait. And when I did start college, portraits were a massive thing – self portraits usually, as your ‘self’ was the model you always had to hand, and it made for rigorous observation and practice. If you'd got a mirror, you could work.
This one was painted in 1987 – a commission from and of a man I’ll abbreviate to B.P., to respect his privacy. In case you’re wondering, it does look like him – or at least it did way back when I painted it, and he was very pleased with it. It was painted from a photograph, and the characteristics of photography are carried into the painting – the figure seems to inhabit a different tonal world from the background. It's not the greatest piece of work you'll ever see, but give me a break - I was only trained to 'A' Level at that point!
I thought about this because the piece I’m currently working on includes a portrait, or rather it includes a copy of part of an old renaissance portrait, appropriated into a diptych; and this has made me revisit old, half-forgotten skills. Of course, appropriating a thing and building it into a larger piece changes the meaning. The portrait of B.P. is just that; the new work concerns relationships between its various elements and the question of what it means to drag a 400-year-old work (the long-dead personage and perhaps archetype re/depicted, along with the painting as an artefact) into this new context. I’ll post images once it is far enough along to be worthwhile.
I can't say I'm the most enthusiastic painter of portraits. I rather echo Gainsborough's view - he referred to 'this cursed face business', but then he was rather good at it and it fed him and left him a bit of time to do his other, preferred work.
Finally, I should add - the image looks about right on my computer but the skin tones are bright orange on my phone! I hope you get a reasonable rendition on your device.