Popes and Presidents - A How To On Big Name Portraiture

While these two power figures are different, the way they are depicted has seen a slow process of emotional value over the years. The early portraits of the Pope's in the severe and stoic expression wouldn't really swing in today's world. The portraits of the most recent Pope's are so positive they are almost disturbing, especially in the case of the portraits of Pope Benedict. Francis Bacon's play and experimentation on the archaic solemnity produces truly disturbing results with Pope's who seem to be either in peril or insane or they are placed with strange and controversial objects, such as chimpanzees, or seem to in cages, their faces melting or segmenting. What is the right way to do it? Perhaps all of them work for their purpose but either one type makes me laugh (the Bacon popes) or makes me uneasy (the recent portraits. The one's I am most comfortable with are the Renaissance  portraits. I can look at them and analyze the technique, the scene, and appreciate as art but not enjoy it. Maybe this is my personal aesthetics at work, but maybe the only way I would be awed by or admire a papal portrait is if the Pope were riding a dinosaur, sporting some armor, or doing something else "awesome." Perhaps I wouldn't be so unsettled by Pope Benedict's portraits if he were dressed as the Emperor from Star Wars. 

In the case of Presidential portraiture, things are quite varied. George Washington's portrait was the first and that set the standard, sort of, for portraits up to those in the past 30 to 50 years, meaning from the chest up. It was clean and stoic. But John Adams' portrait showed a humorous hint of a smile and sporadically since then few others before the mid 20th century showed such emotional value. Often, if they did, the smile seemed to be almost hiding or ashamed of itself. Up until recently, papal portraits were almost always seated portraits of the popes and have only moved into the territory of various posters and located. But Presidential portraits have never been uniformly just chest up portraits but often depicted them standing, sitting in a thoughtful posture, holding something awfully presidential like a pen or some sort of symbol of power, or in the case of FDR's portrait it was basically a glorified sketch, mostly interested in his various hand positions. The materials used and color palette only began being experimented with in the early and mid 20th century. JFK's portrait is especially intriguing in its very colorful, energetic, and almost fauvist representation. Old traditions are being left behind in both cases for a more "modern" take, perhaps as to not alienate the viewer with its cold emotion or structured pose. 

I do still wish there were more portraits of Presidents and Popes riding lions or even doing something heroic and epic. 

This reminds me of the many depictions of our soon to be inaugurated President Barack Obama. I remember a very funny pop type poster of him posing like Superman mid costume change, with a giant O on his chest. Even the Change posters had a pretty impressive quality to him. Its not like people are deifying him but perhaps making him larger than life. I appreciate those examples more than the cold representations of the past. Perhaps his portrait may show him as a defender of peace... complete with spandex.