![]() ![]() The artist and subject had a rocky relationship from the beginning Johnson even fell asleep during a sitting. The work was returned twice to artist Abrams to slim him down.īut the loudest cry of all came from Lyndon Johnson when he saw Peter Hurd’s portrait of him in 1967. Baker Jr., who retired from the Senate last year as its Republican leader, objected that his portrait made him look too heavy. Kissinger got another artist and another portrait. When Kissinger objected to his likeness, artist Gardner Cox not only refused to touch it up but even showed it to the press. The same cannot be said for a bipartisan group of Washington politicians who have sent their portraits back to the artists or switched painters altogether. Although he is a trained artist, he said, he prefers to concentrate on seeking commissions and leave the painting to Resnicoff.Īt least Watt liked his portrait, regardless of who painted it. “I never refer to my having painted the portrait,” Fox insisted. “We’ve done more portraits in Washington than any other single signature,” Fox said. Fox, who founded the family business and lent his name to all its works. Fox signature.įox, who touched up Resnicoff’s portrait of Watt, is the grandson of Charles J. For decades, Resnicoff has worked for the Fox family turning out portraits with the C. In fact, it was painted by one Irving Resnicoff, an 89-year-old artist who worked in his New York apartment from photographs supplied to Fox by Watt. ![]() What she did not know was that Fox did not paint the portrait. “The wonderful thing about this portrait is my husband’s features,” said Leilani Watt, who watched for several hours as Fox retouched Watt’s face and other details until she was satisfied. Richardson in his book “Painting in America.” The young nation produced an impressive array of such artists, including not only Stuart, but also John Singleton Copley, Thomas Sully, Samuel F. By the mid-1800s, there were 3,000 portrait artists, according to E. It may never reach the level of the early days of the Republic, before photographs began eroding the portrait-painting business. ![]() The taste for portraiture may be re-emerging.” “It’s not a field that has had great prestige in the art world,” conceded Marc Pachter, assistant director of the National Portrait Gallery. And elsewhere, universities, corporations, law firms and other such institutions are scrambling to fill empty wall space with likenesses of their illustrious leaders. A sea of portraits-presidents, Cabinet members, congressional leaders, military officials-adorns Washington’s corridors of power like wallpaper. In Washington, politicians great and small have developed a keen interest in leaving their images for posterity. Yet, despite the difficulties in the White House and elsewhere, art experts say portrait painting is undergoing a profitable revival all across the United States. Painting official portraits of high government officials, it seems, has not always been easy. Nixon quietly supplied a replacement years after he left the White House. Kissinger indignantly demanded a new one and Richard M. ![]() Johnson rejected his as “the ugliest thing I ever saw,” Henry A. What Gilbert Stuart did for George Washington was hailed as a masterpiece. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |