tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post6911766892069160716..comments2023-06-13T08:29:39.914+00:00Comments on MAKING A MARK: Can a portrait artist play fast and loose with a commission?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-14438213217856139982015-03-04T08:47:27.397+00:002015-03-04T08:47:27.397+00:00The word integrity comes to mind immediately, sure...The word integrity comes to mind immediately, surely the relationship between sitter and artist must first be based on trust. It's obvious that in this case if the artist is telling the truth (?) Then he should never have taken the commission.PEGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16675009287926786774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-74754221872989574072015-03-04T07:28:09.465+00:002015-03-04T07:28:09.465+00:00Like Maria Bennet Hock I like the idea of some oth...Like Maria Bennet Hock I like the idea of some other meaning within a painting but also agree it was mean-spirited and most definitely unnecessary in this case.<br /><br />This was not the place for such a thing. He could easily have done his own later with the dress shadow and still got the same attention.<br /><br />I usually find these kind of official portraits to be kind of dull, certainly 'safe', anyway.<br />Maybe Shanks did too and that was his reason for it.<br />He did not need to do this to gain further portrait commissions since he has done others of famous personalities.<br />Maybe he had Sargent's "Portrait of Madamne X" in mind which was also a scandal in its day but now is considered one of his best and atypical of portraits.<br />At 77 he might NOT be thinking in the present like the rest of us. Is he looking to gain a more prominent place in art history? If so maybe he's had enough of official portraits and this was his chance to finish them with a bang.<br />Who knows?<br /><br />Yeah, it's not his best portrait. The likeness is a bit odd.<br />I do think the shadow you refer to is the shadow of Clintons head wrapping up over the mantel and not the vase. That would make sense for the direction of light. The vase shadow would be off the canvas.<br />The sleeve, now that you mentioned it I can't NOT see it. It's too big!David Teterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16747334525619423349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-42791675565732568652015-03-03T21:40:22.803+00:002015-03-03T21:40:22.803+00:00I find it a sad thing that Mr. Shanks chose to com...I find it a sad thing that Mr. Shanks chose to completely disrespect a former President of the US in this way. If he truly felt he "couldn't get past" the Lewinsky thing, he should have turned down the commission. In most reporting and comments in the US I have read, the consensus is that he has damaged his own reputation by sharing this story. RH Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05497161758269292809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-92103545632866079552015-03-03T21:34:29.463+00:002015-03-03T21:34:29.463+00:00I do believe that adding a "secret" to a...I do believe that adding a "secret" to any painting adds to the interest...but I believe this particular addition was mean-spirited and it was unnecessary to reveal it at any time. Maria Bennett Hockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10991414921895251096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20645140.post-50893328360706569362015-03-03T19:27:46.785+00:002015-03-03T19:27:46.785+00:00Sorry, but t's a bit of a rubbish portrait any...Sorry, but t's a bit of a rubbish portrait anyway...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06156514363255922981noreply@blogger.com