I have often found it difficult to frame a message by just painting a face. A lot of people ask me ‘OK, who is this – rather than – what are you trying to say by painting this face..’. Sometimes the title tends to reinforce the painting but few today tend to dwell on titles.
I got thinking about this more a couple of days back as I was reading a review in the New York Times about an exhibition “Citizens and Kings: Portraits in the Age of Revolution, 1760-1830” (underway at the Royal Academy of Arts in London, England). The portraits at the show tended to focus on the ‘message’ rather than the medium, movement or technique (as opposed to the majority of shows today which tend to focus on one or more of the latter). The article also made a reference to the fact that over time, the message tends to fade away while the techniques and talent employed in creating the work live on. While it is commendable that technique and talent stand the test of time (and should), exhibitions like these are relevant in showcasing the effects of social situations on paintings and how painters were influenced symbioticallyby the social milieu ultimately chronicling the society they lived in.
From the article in the NYT (I somehow got to it, but it might ask for a subscription):
“Yet this exhibition’s purpose is radically different: it is to dwell on the message, not the medium. Rather than celebrating the artists as such, it presents them as witnesses to the social and political convulsions of their times. It shows them recording a crucial moment of history as it unfolded.”
What does this painting tell you?
I am interested in your response before you look for my interpretation here.
Sunil,
It’s not such an easy question you ask. I’m still thinking about it. In the meantime, I’d like to ask: is the lighter sparkly quality between the eyes an artifact of lighting when you took the photo, or is it part of the painting itself?
That is a by product of my poor skills at photography. I have realized that I need to get a professional into my basement and take some good shots of the paintings, but I never got around to doing that… Yes, the ‘sparkly’ between the eyes is because of too much ‘flash’, I guess. I also remember thinking that the photo did not do a good job of capturing the colors above her right eye very well.
This photograph tells me that the subject was out somewhere at night, a night club, or near a neon light, and that she knew the photographer (the painting seems done from a photo). She leaned in very close to the camera, which used a flash.
When I think of her, I think: Glazed and Headachy.
When I think of the painting, I think: glare of photograph–photograph–photographer–stylized painting–painter–photograph–photographer–subject–life.
Who she is, is pretty far away.
This painting feels sad and lonely to me….there’s a feeling of desperation in her eyes, the way her head is tilted….like she’s lost and searching for rescue.
(1) In the link to the NYT it says
Put differently, during a brief period that encompassed enlightenment, revolution and Romanticism, power gradually shifted from kings to citizens.
What is happening during our period? Are we recognizing the plight of people – prostitutes, workers in south American mines etc?
(2) I am getting the impression that there are more pictures of women out there than of men. Is that true?
(3) Who is buying the pictures? Men or women?
I get a blues/jazz vocalist feeling from this (maybe becasue I know you have painted other stars). And she is sad, also drunk or drugged perhaps, a bit bleary eyed to say the least. The other reason I get musician is the visual connection to some painters like Archibald Motley who painted musicians using pretty primary colors like you (although not really thickly like you)
THe sharp division on her face between the red and the orangey brown hue amke me feel like she is wearing a mask, an odd one, but that contributes to the sorrow for me.
There’s been a flurry of discussion about meaning in photographs in some photography blogs recently, and the case is not really so different for painting. Without getting into semantics, I’ll just try to tell you what I get from looking at this picture, and it will be interesting to see how it compares with what you get from it or thought you put into it yourself. These shouldn’t necessarily be the same thing, though if you wanted to elicit a particular reaction and mine was different, we might both learn something useful from that “failure.” I haven’t looked at your interpretation or other comments yet.
I do like this painting a lot, and I like how the gaze directly confronts us. The tilt of her head, as well as being nice compositionally, indicates she is engaging the viewer. The eyes, naturally, are critical. They seem to be sad and somewhat distant, looking at me and at the same time through me. If this woman were a singer she would sing the blues (interestingly opposite to your color scheme). The garish colors, though I know it’s your style, make me think of a nightclub setting, but that’s not really important. She may have a question or a plea for me, but is not hopeful it will be answered. It brings to mind times I have not been able to respond to someone or help someone in need. Not a very comfortable feeling, but this painting does not make me want to avoid it, rather I linger with the thought as I linger with the painting.
Hmmm, looks like your painting really spoke to me, Sunil. I think you expressed very well the situation of these women. What was the source of the photograph? I wonder if there’s any way the organization could use your image?
Steve (and Sunil),
“I think you expressed very well the situation of these women.”
I have trouble with this.
I feel strongly that the ambiguity of interpretation results, at least in part, from the stylized manner of painting and the reliance on an image as a representation of a woman’s life. Is the golden masking an offering of enshrinement? Even such a rescue (an unmasking of heart-breaking experiences)seems unbearably safe; another manipulation that makes me uneasy.
So: why paint her?
Sunil, I don’t know this person, but I know her if you understand what I mean. She is very human and about a world that I don’t know yet, but will need to understand. Thirty years ago she would have been seen as exotic. Now she may be the future of the world. There is sense of need in her eyes, maybe a request that the viewer pay attention.
Sunil,
It’s hard for me to interpret the painting because of the flash effect on the oils [I know about this because it happens to me — I need a lesson in how to photograph oil paintings].
But the parted lips, which might have expressed something like sexual yearning, instead here seem to reinforce the sadness that I think I see in the eyes. The sadness, though, is belied by the gold and red, or perhaps it’s a deliberate attempt by the subject (or painter) to mask her feelings. I sense a sad impassivity, a stare that says do what you will, it’s all the same to me. The slightly opened and very lush lips are part of that message.
I’m not expressing myself well, but the lips, which would ordinarily seem to be saying one thing, seem, in this context, to be making us keep our distance.
I suppose the question that I’m hoping your statement will address is what is the social/political situation that your post and the Times article point to. I’m wondering if I’m missing a cultural knowledge here that would be more obvious to a more knowledgeable viewer.
OK, you’ve captured it.
D,
There’s always ambiguity of interpretation, and it can be huge even with a “realistic” photograph. I certainly didn’t mean that the painting represents the woman’s life in any completeness, just that it had an emotional tug on me similar to what I think I’d feel if the woman were physically present and I knew her story.
The stylistic effects such as the impression of a golden statue, did indeed lead me and others to think of a nightclub scene or a singer. But knowing Sunil’s style somewhat from previous viewings of his work, I didn’t think this was the whole story.
I think it would certainly be wrong of me to assume I fully understood the woman’s situation from the painting, or even from a photograph and news story. But is it wrong to make a picture that is incomplete or ambiguous in its message? Is it wrong to make an object that is in some sense beautiful from a terrible situation?
I managed to answer quite some of you. I will be back with responses on the rest…
David,
Good observation on the picture, but unfortunately that was not what I had intended. Projecting a social statement using a single face is very difficult and I do not find fault with your analysis. Thank you.
D,
You give a very interesting viewpoint there (glazed and headachy) – guess some of it could be as a result of me not capturing the painting highlights too well on camera.
Chantal,
The sentiment expressed by you was what I wanted to convey. I am glad you saw through it… In fact I remember being struck by the utter hopelessness and sadness in the original photograph (of a former prostitute in Rwanda on a Rwandan NGO’s website) that I immediately wanted to capture it on canvas. I hope I have managed to capture a small part of the suffering borne by women like these.
The statistics that I read on the NGO’s site were also gruesome. I decided to title this “5 Men a day 7 days a week 49 weeks a year” thus helping shine a spotlight on some of the glaring inequities that we see in today’s world…
Birgit,
I think our period is marked by what I might call ‘insulation that is part self imposed and part media sponsored’. Most of us are insulated from real problems and issues happening to people around the world. A lot of us are insulated to the efforts of soldiers fighting wars in foreign lands or child labor in India or diamond mining in Africa – we hear snippets of news and bolts of information only to be quickly supplanted by other higher priority news and images that compete for our attention (in the form of advertising or the lives of film/porn stars – to give some examples)… In terms of power shifts that you alluded to, I see power shifting from the middle class to the super rich with the middle class getting progressively more disenfranchised with issues that should concern all of us. In fact in many cases the pace of today’s life offers the middle class little to no time to reflect on issues around us… Artists who chronicle the lives and times of people and issues around the world are more important today than ever before (just my view)…
I did not understand your questions on the pictures though… (2 and 3)
Leslie,
It is funny that a couple of you got the blues/jazz feeling and am not too sure how that came about into your perceptive field (maybe it is the distribution of primary colors like you suggested).
As I was mentioning to Birgit in the lines above, this is a picture with which I wanted to project a feeling / expression of pain and sadness on her face. A pain and revulsion borne out of being used on a daily basis – such is the life of some women in Rwanda. The sharp division of the cadmium red hues to the yellow ochres helped accentuate the lines of ‘sadness and feelings’ on her face.
Steve,
You have hit it very very close to the sentiment that I had in mind (especially when you say things like “She may have a question or a plea for me, but is not hopeful it will be answered. It brings to mind times I have not been able to respond to someone or help someone in need.”).
I explained my thoughts on this painting and the motivations that drew me to develop this more on my blog… (http://simplisticart.blogspot.com/) I was happy in the fact that some people actually ‘understood the sentiment’ behind the painting. I have often wondered as I experiment with my ‘painting faces to carry a message’ theme if might need to do more story telling to explain the reason why I chose a particular face… (runs counter to people who think that the painting should stand by itself without any accompanying stories)…
June, Bob and D – I will have my views on this as soon as I get some time on my hands – oops back to work…
Steve,
Thanks for following-up.
“But is it wrong to make a picture that is incomplete or ambiguous in its message?”
I favor work that is incomplete/ambiguous, but I also appreciate work that is Specific. The medium matters and in this work I question the stylistic approach for this particular subject. It seems to me that any further Manipulation, for whatever purposes, is only additional distance from the original experiences.
“Is it wrong to make an object that is in some sense beautiful from a terrible situation?”
Yes. But, of course, what is Beautiful?
Interestingly (and good glare), today in the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/world/asia/08japan.html
Sunil,
“The medium is important and in this work I question the stylistic approach for this particular subject. It seems to me that any further manipulation, for whatever purposes, is only additional distance from the original experiences.”
I have these questions too. By “beautifying” pain are we somehow objectifying or romanticizing it, or benefiting from it in ways that we do not intend to? Because you gave me a link to the origins of the image, I have a fuller understanding of your intent. I would not have had that without the explanation. And I would have missed a lot in my mind. The way you painted her is iconic, like the images of the other women you have shown us,and it seems like your intent is a lot more specific.
Sunil,
I visited the Sisters of Rwanda website.
I am curious about your decision to place a breezy Red Scarf around Sister Rose’s neck. It seems rather upbeat in comparison to the more glum original.
I realize that I am being a bit disguntled about this, so let me also say that I appreciate your ambition to expose a world that many of us are only beginning to learn about. In fact, I am midway through a remarkable book by Dave Eggers, What is the What? It may be of interest to you as Eggers is brilliant at considering how to position himself in relation to the experiences of someone else.
any further manipulation, for whatever purposes, is only additional distance from the original experiences
Why should it remain close to the original experiences? Is it necessarily the obligation of artists (and others) to represent what they see or believe to be real as closely as possible? Or only under some circumstances? Does the representation have to conform to the “usual” conventions?
These questions are meant to be blunt, but not hostile. I appreciate this conversation. There are good arguments on both sides.
D and Leslie,
Great questions on the use of a stylistic approach to objectify a stark subject like the one that this woman represents… My question is why not? In my view, I would say that I wanted to make this lady who was emblematic of suffering and servitude her whole life ICONIC at least when it came to MY painting/rendering of her. I wanted this painting to do things: 1) Radiate the immense hurt in her psyche just by the viewer looking at her eyes 2) Imbue her with the appropriate dignity that I inherently thought she deserved. I could have painted a pale umber for her shoulder and be done with it, but I decided that one way to deify her was by covering her in flowing red and adorning her ears with a little golden trinket. The original picture/photograph only serves as a vehicle to coalesce my thoughts and opinions around an idea that I would like to tackle.
It is also funny that you mentioned the book by Dave Eggers book as I had read a review of the book only about a month back and had decided to buy it.
Sunil,
“Why not?”
Because that is not who she is, only who you want her to be.
Your gifts of silk and gold are curious, especially considering your above thoughts on the super-rich and disenfranchisement. Doesn’t dignity come from somewhere else?
Steve,
“Is it necessarily the obligation of artists (and others) to represent what they see or believe to be real as closely as possible?”
Absolutely.
So why should anyone paint something they could photograph instead?
Steve,
“So why should anyone paint something they could photograph instead?”
I enjoy photographs quite a bit but… What I see or what I believe to be real is so much more complicated than just that experience. Perhaps that is why I appreciate Gerhard Richter so much. Isn’t he trying “to represent what he sees or believes to be real as closely as possible?”
D,
I think we’re probably in agreement then about “what is real” being interpretable by the artist and not just “realistic” in the everyday sense of the word. In which case I’m not sure why you’re bothered by Sunil’s attempt to convey some of his sense of truth in his way. Certainly Richter has painted women who are as distorted and unfaithfully represented from a conventional point of view.
Leslie,
I think I would be as bothered by Goya making a great painting of an execution, or by the possibility of Hello Kitty trivializing that, as I am by Sunil’s painting. Which is to say, it is something I think about (as I know you did, at least later), but would find it very hard to object to if I thought there was no deliberate exploitation. Though I think you were expressing discomfort, not necessarily objection.
All of this seems pretty hard to pin down even on a specific example, let alone as a general principle. Thanks for contributing your views, I’m still working mine out. And I’m still interested in further thoughts anyone has.
Steve,
“I’m not sure why you’re bothered by Sunil’s attempt to convey some of his sense of truth in his way.”
But this is not about Sunil (or at least I don’t think it should be), it is about Sister Rose and the other women she represents.
And just an aside on Richter: he paints Air, his people can breathe.
Wasn’t it Yeats who said (in “April 1916”) “A terrible beauty is born.”?
On the other hand, it was also Yeats who said (in “Prayer for my Daughter”) “let her think opinions are accursed…” That was the line that sent me (in my youth) into an absolute rage. And yet he finishes that poem, which is in fact, quite beautiful, with the lines — “How but in custom and in ceremony/ Are innocence and beauty born?” Which are among the most beautiful lines I know.I have always been conflicted about the poem, which glorifies the passive female in a beautiful way.
However, it was again Yeats who talked about Love, pitching his tent in “The place of excrement./ For nothing can be sole or whole/ That has not been rent.” He was speaking of art as well as love.
I think, Sunil, that it’s possible that you conflated beauty and dignity, and that’s what makes me uneasy. You have captured the indifferent, rugged stare of the raped, but you’ve made her (and the painting itself) so beautiful that it almost belies the pain. It would be interesting to present a dignified homely prostitute — more difficult perhaps. But “rent” in Yeat’s sense.
I think the question — whether we should make the ugliness of the world beautiful – is one that’s worth dealing with, again and again. It (the question) insists on examining whether we’ve managed dignity without losing the pain. Beauty can sometimes be a hindrance — it can present pain so as to sentimentalize it, allowing us to feel smug in our appreciation.
I too feel uneasy about the presentation of the woman. Pain and beauty.
There is too much ‘victim’ in her eyes for her face to still look that beautiful.Life in Africa is too hard. It does not ring true.
Perhaps, she could be a pampered woman kept in a palace by a wealthy Maharadja?
It never occurred to me that Sunil was trying to make the woman beautiful. To me the painting was all about the sadness and appeal in the eyes; it is the well-executed painting that is beautiful as a created object. To me the glaring red is not a beautiful adornment but a symbol of violence that has infiltrated her face.
If I understand D correctly (comments 16 and 26), his view is that there is something inherently wrong in making a beautiful object from a terrible situation. I disagree with this in general and in the current situation, although I do think that, say, executing this painting from life after paying the customary brothel fee and doing nothing else to help would be an exploitation of suffering. But after all, the original photograph from which Sunil worked was taken by or for, or was at least used by, the very organization helping these women.
Depending on how one perceived the painting, it could be seen as a diminution of the power of the photograph, maybe even to the extent of negating the message the users of the photograph hoped to convey on behalf of the women. I can see this point of view, but I personally found the painting more affecting than the photo, which is quite evocative in itself but one of so many similar images we’ve seen that the impact is reduced compared to the painting that I lingered with. And of course, I would probably never have seen the photo were it not for the painting, which Sunil used to introduce us to this situation and the helping organization. The painting makes me uncomfortable, but not the fact that Sunil made it.
Steve,
The red scarf: “… a symbol of violence that has infiltrated her face.”
Given what we learn about who she actually is and how she has suffered, how can we retreat to symbolism. This is what I meant when I said earlier: “I appreciate work that is Specific. The medium matters and in this work I question the stylistic approach for this particular subject. It seems to me that any further Manipulation, for whatever purposes, is only additional distance from the original experiences.”
“If I understand D. correctly (comments 16 and 26), his view is that there is something inherently wrong in making a beautiful object from a terrible situation.”
I do not think this painting is beautiful. Even though Sunil has stated his intention to “imbue her with the appropriate dignity that I inherently thought she deserved,” I feel the painting is actually garish, heavy and determined by suffocating and unfriendly light. Hungover and to blame.
June, D and Steve,
I never meant for the lady to look beautiful in any way. In fact the garishness of the primary colors reflects the harshness of the situation. But I did want to give the lady in the picture dignity. Dignity was one way I thought I could redeem the suffering in her eyes. I see the painting reflect this tension.
Of course in the course of giving the person dignity (in the form of the flowing red scarf and the gold earring), I might have diluted the import of the message and consequently the situation that the lady is in – but it nevertheless serves one of the purposes behind this painting – to shine a spotlight on difficult situations faced by unfortunate brethren in different parts of the world. To the extent that it sparked discussion, I feel that the painting is achieving some of that purpose.
June asked a very relevant question when she asked if we have managed dignity without losing the pain? I think I have in this painting, but the final arbiters are the people who look at the painting.
This forum has been extremely helpful to me in furthering my understanding of how different people perceive a single image and the thought processes that underlie the development of that perception. Long live A&P.
Sunil,
I am reminded of a collaboration I worked on several years ago, inspired by an inquiry from a US Military person in Afghanistan requesting clothing for the people in the area he was stationed.
This was the project: I approached people, asking them to contribute a single piece of clothing from their wardrobe. I would also take their picture. After removing all of the corporate labelling and transferring their image onto fabric, I loosely sewed in a new label with the portrait of the contributor.
Finally, I contacted the Red Cross about having the clothes sent to Afghanistan. I was told that they no longer sent Western Wear. Instead they contributed to the financial support for revitalizing the native clothing industry.
(And related: it seems that the NFL sends the leftover caps and t-shirts from the Super Bowl’s losing team to Third World Countries. Go Bears.)
D:
I do not know if I should be happy or sad.
I find it interesting that some people seem to have a problem with finding beauty in suffering. To me, it is a question of whether or not Art can trump reality by representing something that people would rather not see in an aesthetically pleasing way.To make art that calls attention to suffering in an intriguing and beautiful way is (or should be) the utmost concern.
The other thing I find interesting is how the interpretations of the painting (which is very good, btw) have been influenced by the back story. If this painting were hanging on a wall without context, these issues would likely not be raised. The power of the painting is derived from the knowledge of the subject. I think the issue of ambiguity is called into play here. It is possible that by making this painting, it fulfilled the desire of the artist to capture the feelings of despair and persecution of the subject but its ambiguity shields that intent fromt he viewer. Not that ambiguity is a bad thing but sometimes I feel that not enough context is given for the power of a painter’s intentions to show.
Geoff,
That’s a great point about what other information we have along with the artwork itself. Sunil has a title (tentative?) which is fairly suggestive, but far from telling as much as he did in other ways. I don’t believe an artwork must be totally self-contained; if the artist sees some text or other material (e.g. a second painting) as an integral part of the experience they want for the viewer, that should be considered as a unit.
Sunil,
Would you expect to present you work with only the title? Do you think you might include other information in some way? It seems that in this case it might be important but also tricky to add the right amount. Is it your goal to move people to a specific action?
Geoff,
Thanks for the comment. I think you have put it well when you said “it fulfilled the desire of the artist to capture the feelings of despair and persecution of the subject but its ambiguity shields that intent from the viewer”. The ambiguity does prevent us from fully realizing the suffering undergone by individual in the painting but at the same time the painting does manage to ‘present’ a tough subject in an aesthetic way that helps draws attention to the cause (shades of pride here – I must say).
Steve,
I have really not decided how I will present this – if presented with a group of other relevant paintings, the title is not as important… I am currently working on two paintings depicting indigenous people – maybe find a way to present the set coherently… I have not thought that through completely. Yes, my aim is to draw attention to unfortunate situations faced by a lot of people around the world. My ultimate aim would be to sell some of these works and donate 100% of the proceeds to charitable organizations of the buyer’s choice.
This was posted ages ago… however when I came across it today and I interpreted what I thought to be the message then read what others had written I felt compelled to add a comment.
The painting reads to me as:
1. Based on the subject’s expression and position – a woman filled with hurt, anxiety, and desperation… she’s pleading for help or relief from her circumstances.
2. Based on the color choice – a woman being afflicted by violence or anger
Juli,
You’re absolutely right on point 1, but on point 2, it happens that Sunil was using that color scheme in much of his work at that time, including a painting of his grandmother, which has a much happier feeling:
niice work.
the first painting tells me that there is a lot of people that cant afford to buy a lot of things and that we should be happy with what we have because they pretty much dont have anything.