I recently embarked on a portrait of Peter Tobin, multi-murder suspect, which raised a few comments in the Wednesday afternoon group viz ‘I couldn’t paint a face like that.’ ‘I would feel uncomfortable living with his eyes following me around.’ ‘Whatever made you want to paint such a subject?’ To which I replied,‘How often do we get the chance to paint evil? (allegedly)’.*
I’m not averse to painting pussy cats and fluffy bunnies but what a dull life it would be if we lived on chocolate cake and honey. Wouldn’t we crave a misshapen jacket potato or a juicy steak?
Tobin presented a challenging subject with his wild eyes, unkempt hair, his contorted features and look of utter defiance. I realised that it would make the portrait even more indigestible if I made him gaze directly at the viewer. I hope I have achieved my aim of capturing (alleged) wickedness. That this grotesque face should be the last thing (allegedly) that those poor girls saw is truly chilling.
So why not depict ugliness or the extraordinary? Leonardo da Vinci did. I understand that he wandered the streets sketching such unfortunates. If it’s good enough for da Vinci, it’s good enough for us! So, members of BAS, why don’t we get out our mirrors and start a self-portrait? How grotesque is that?
* To ensure that I don’t find myself in the next cell to our friend Mr. Tobin I have included a liberal sprinkling of ‘allegedlies’.
Jill Reardon
P.S. On the same subject, the following little gem was found in a Christmas cracker:-
Q. What are measles?
A. What artists paint self-portraits on.