The (im)Perfect Portrait
Artwork: Portrait of Bill Clinton
Painter: Nelson Shanks
Medium: Oil on Canvas
Date: 2009
Dimensions: Stretcher: 228.6 x 121.9cm (90 x 48") Frame: 257.5 x 151.1 x 7.3cm (101 3/8 x 59 1/2 x 2 7/8")
The painting is larger than the average person’s height, so Bill Clinton is nearly life-sized.
The portrait has the classic depiction of a politician in a suit with a cream-ish background (in this case, the fireplace, which often appears in presidential portraits). The hidden feature is the shadow seen on the left of the painting, which sellouts a woman in a dress. This is meant to resemble the stained blue dress of Monicas Lewinsky that became a symbol of the scandal during the 1990s.
I use this as a discussion point in the argument of how knowing the artist’s name and intentions changes the artwork and if it is valuable to search for these meanings. This relates to the article The Death of an Author (written in 1967, initially in French) by Roland Barthes by questioning the value of the artist’s intentions when creating this portrait. Barthes begins with the statement that we can not assign a specific origin to literary art. He claims that this is a good thing since writing consists of “several indiscriminate voices.” Barthes later says that a text is meant to be distinguished, not deciphered, traversed, not penetrated. He says this to clarify that we should not carelessly ignore a writing structure nor the significance of text within itself. But the search for meaning preceding the text is ‘meaningless.” Barthes’s final notes center the theme that “the unity of text is not its origin, it is in its destination…” Keeping in mind this destination is without the history the author had as mentioned. Why do we focus on the artist’s original intention instead of focusing on what it delivers to the reader? Should we focus on the boldness of the painter in his hidden message or the reaction from the viewers once they see the scandal reference if they notice it at all?
Of course, the artwork challenges the typical politician portrait by being released to the public while including an unfavorable feature. It is said that though the goal of the presidential painting is commemorative, at a more ambitious level, it is political: “to influence and, if possible, control posterity’s judgment of a president.” Several other presidents have used talented artists to project their public image. In a portrait by Everett Kinstler, Ronald Reagan radiated his renowned affability by smiling so broadly that his teeth show. Presidents would even have paintings destroyed and redone if they felt the wrong image of them was portrayed. Theodore Roosevelt had the portrait of himself (painted by a Frenchman) redone to have him painted standing on a staircase to make him seem less meek and more in control. This may be why the simple portrait has such a shocking effect when looked at closely.
