The Presidents are grouped somewhat chronologically. One is greeted by George (Washington), asked to sit down and watch a few inaugural addresses and presidential speeches, and then shown to the door by George (Bush, Jr.). Yes, that is correct: a “complete collection” of presidential portraits does not even include the current president! I was baffled by not being able to find the portrait of “my man Barry-O” (as my dad fondly refers to him) and I asked the guard, “So, where’s Obama?” Funnily enough, a president is only afforded a place in the hall of remembrance after his term has been completed. I am still trying to figure out that logic, especially since I am sure the NPG owns a portrait of Obama by Shepard Fairey.
Lack of an Obama portrait aside, the exhibition was quite nicely laid out. Large dividing walls had been built in various portions of the room and were used to showcase larger portraits; such as a full sized portrait of Jimmy Carter standing by his desk in the oval office. As I vaguely mentioned earlier, the curator has even created a den-like area for people to sit on couches and watch a selection of presidential speeches on an old television. There is also an interactive radio where one can push a button and listen to certain presidents.
On our visit to the NPG last week, we were informed that in its artwork labels, the museum always introduces the sitter(s) first. One must almost search for the name of the artist; always nestled away at the bottom of the label. Still fixated on our classes talk about labels, I noticed that every presidential portrait had its own wall text and was interested to see what information they provided – Would it all be historical? Would it provide any information about the actual painting or artist? Unsurprisingly, the labels all introduced the president first, next described the president and his achievements or reputation, and then addressed the picture and artist. The labels ask no questions of the viewer; they simply make their statements (good or bad; flattering or scathing) and move on.
These labels are not necessarily the educational, discussion promoting labels we have been discussing in class. Perhaps, with portraits of such famous and historical men, a label can only be informative and not wildly thought provoking.
An interesting idea that perhaps labels sometimes are not supposed to provoke thought but just tell the viewer a few salient facts about the painting. It is the Smithsonian after all and one imagines that certain systems are in place to keep a uniform voice. It does seem like a missed opportunity, and even a bit misleading, that portraiture is about the subject and not the artist's interpretation of the subject. This isn't documentary after all but an artist's interpretation of the subject, meant to shed light on subtleties such as personality, creativity, and how the sitter positioned him or herself in relation to society. The presidential labels as you describe are mundane, flat, and unfortunately do not behoove the art itself.
ReplyDelete