"Behind every great man or woman in Washington there is a great painting," begins a front-page Washington Post article published Tuesday. And great cost. "In a throwback to the Jimmy Carter era," says the article, "some fiscal watchdogs and government scholars suggest that high-quality photographs would be a more cost-efficient way to honor departing dignitaries." The article goes on to cite the range of prices for original portraiture: from $7,500 to $50,000. Aghast at this cost was CNN anchor Campbell Brown, who on her "No Bias, No Bull" show Tuesday evening, opined:
I hear what defenders of this practice say: This is for history. A portrait will outlast any photograph. But come on, in this economy? With the financial crisis we are all facing?
Guys -- take a picture.
Well, not so fast. A photograph is not a portrait. And paying between $7,500 to $50,000 for a portrait is pretty cheap.
Flannista remembers the moment 31 years ago when she walked into one of the galleries at the Louvre in Paris and encountered scores of portraits. From floor to ceiling, she was surrounded by portraits. Who were these people, these great lords and ladies, merchants, soldiers and nouveaux riches who had the courage of their riches to have their portrait painted? Flannista was captivated because these were portraits not photographs. Portraits that were created over a long period of time while someone was looking at you very hard, perhaps even bonding with you. Not photographs which were taken so quickly the event barely registered.
Of course, great photographic portraiture can be found, for example, in the work of Annie Liebowitz (who undoubtedly charges much more than $50,000 for a sitting). Perhaps what is at stake here is something deeper and more profound than painting a portrait, and that is the arts.
When times are tough, the arts are usually the first things excised from municipal, state and federal budgets. We must care for Joe the Plumber, but not Tim the Artist, Kathy the Poet, Cheryl the Playwright or Rosa the Documentary Filmmaker. Art in America has always been regarded as a luxury. It is not a luxury. It is a necessity. So necessary Flannista advocates that departing Cabinet secretaries and other elite political appointees give up other perks (like a car and driver and parking space) to cover the cost of having their portraits painted. If Flannista could afford it, she would commission an artist to paint her portrait. Not to pay for her own parade, but to have lasting evidence that a master with a brush stood before her (for a very long time, forcing her to shut up) and emblazoned her forever in the representative glory of humankind.
It has been said that art is the signature of civilizations. Flannista's framed mug (or Donald Rumsfeld's) may not be much of a signature, but perhaps years from now, someone might view it and say, "Who was that broad?" That someone might pause and ponder, perhaps even be inspired. Says Barbra Streisand, "Art can illuminate, enlighten, inspire. Art finds a way to be constructive. It becomes heat in cold places. It becomes light in dark places."
Heat in cold places. Light in dark places. Art does not transcend its time. It perpetuates it. It keeps its moment alive. It is a worthy investment that compounds a thousandfold forever.
Recent Comments