How John Mitchell Shakes Up Portraiture Mitchell is conscious of the many profound changes occurring in our society, and the urgent need to challenge old tropes. (NSFW)

Hyperallergic ^ | October 19, 2022 | John Yau

[C19fan]

I have been thinking a lot about portraiture over the past few years because of the changes that artists of color have made to what has long been regarded as a conservative undertaking. Museum surveys of Kerry James Marshall, Jordan Casteel, and Jennifer Packer have upended the long-held presumption that portraiture is the domain of White artists and White subjects. As I see it, there is still much to be done in this area to increase self-definition and the visibility of people of difference.

[C19fan]

Never heard of this so called artist. But he and the writer are both engaged in artistic ******bastion. "Challenged old tropes"...where has this writer been. These "old tropes" have been beaten to a pulp for perhaps 150 years. Us "philistines" will be still admiring a Winterhalter or Ingres long after this "artist" and this writer have been long dead and buried.

[ifinnegan]

“I’ve been thinking a lot about portraiture…”

Liberals are insane.

[C19fan]

Sometimes I think about portrait, you know, Empress Sissi or the stunning women Ingres painted, not fat female POCs in a bathtub.

[humblegunner]

How John Mitchell Shakes Up Portraiture Mitchell

What is Portraiture Mitchell?

I'll bet punctuation is a key to this mystery.

[llevrok]

John Mitchell shakes up portraiture? I bet Martha is behind this

[reformedliberal]

It sort of rings true to me, as an artist. While I haven’t painted for decades, I do enjoy thinking about how to render various surfaces and I will often spend time looking analytically at all sorts of people/things and the works of various artists.

Mitchell is a modern classicist, from the work shown. My major critique is that he renders fabric better than he renders flesh. His flesh isn’t convincing or even handled differently than the fabric, IMO. Also, I expect some poignancy in portraits. His are enigmatic, contained seperately within the canvas.

He’s no Reuben.

[RoosterRedux]

I wouldn’t buy them or hang them in my house, but I like them all. They were all interesting and evoked “something” in me but I’m not sure what at this point.;-)

[noiseman]

What they hate is the fact that white Europeans and their descendants are responsible for most of the cultural advancement in the world, while most of the historic cultures of what they call “People of Difference” (That’s a new one, POD people?) never advanced beyond tribalism and superstition. If they were objective, they might look at that history and conclude that primitive cultures need to abandon their ways and adopt what has worked so well for Western Civilization, but instead they hold up primitive beliefs and practices as some equivalent (or even superior) to actual civilization.

And when some individual “POD” wisely casts off the primitive nonsense and decides to adopt what works, namely Judeo-Christian values and western social and governmental principles, they are excoriated for “acting white.” Well, the indisputable fact is that what they derisively call “acting white” is what is necessary for all people, regardless of skin color or cultural background, to succeed. It has nothing to do with “whiteness” and everything to do with morality, diligence, and common sense.

[Boogieman]

What’s the point of portraiture when our society isn’t really churning out great men and women to memorialize anymore? Who needs a monument to the mediocre?

[jacknhoo]

“people of difference“

😂🤣😅😂

[Bigg Red]

Well said.

[drSteve78]

Thought this was about the singer Joni Mitchell that just lost two members of her family.

[RoosterRedux]

You don’t think conservatives have an interest in art? Just because art means nothing to you doesn’t mean the rest of us are just as vapid and shallow.

[ifinnegan]

My comment has nothing to do with not having an interest in art.

You think this is not an insane article?

[RoosterRedux]

My comment has nothing to do with not having an interest in art.

Then I apologize for my accusation. Sorry if I misunderstood your comment.

[RoosterRedux]

You think this is not an insane article?

I just reread it to see if it seemed insane.

To me, it just sounded like a rather typical kind of over-analysis done by an art critic. Frankly, I have no idea what this author is talking about but then I never understand what art critics are talking about.

Art critics are to art what baseball insiders are to baseball. The both develop their own language and, to outsiders, they seem to see things that just aren't there.

As to insane? I can't see it. But that doesn't mean it isn't.

If there was something specific that you saw as insane and I missed it, let me know.

[ifinnegan]

“ Frankly, I have no idea what this author is talking about…”

It’s because the writer is nuts, you’re not.

“…but then I never understand what art critics are talking about.”

Because they’re also insane.

There’s plenty of art criticism that’s understandable.

[RoosterRedux]

When I was living in NYC, my office for a time was across the street from the MOMA. I used to go there regularly and, for that matter, have since childhood been a fan of modern art.

But when I would read what art critics would say about the very art I had been admiring, it would seem like they were speaking a different language.

I go back to the inside baseball comparison. Fanatics develop their own little language. They even like the fact that outsiders can't understand it. It puts a wall around their exclusive fraternity.

That's the way that article sounded to me. Like inside baseball.

[ifinnegan]

Yes. Inside baseball stuff is at least based on concrete factual things, statistics, measurements. In other words it based on and about reality and facts.

Academics create their own worlds. Like twins creating their own language.

Usually their flights of fancy are Marxist based, that’s the problem.

You notice this article was really not about art or portraiture, it was more a political/sociological article.

From a Marxist perspective.

[dfwgator]

This is what comes when people have too much time on their hands.