Sunday, June 27, 2010 | 2:01 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
Despite our state’s economy, we are going to spend $20,000 for a portrait of outgoing Gov. Jim Gibbons. We have always done that for our past governors. So, if we include the previous four governors, then we’ll have spent $100,000 for five paintings on canvas.
These portraits are designed to flatter the subject. Do they require flattering? Why flatter them? Shouldn’t a portrait be a true portrayal of the subject?
Does the artist include his or her personal feelings about the subject in the portrayal? If the artist happens not to like the subject ex-governor, would that be reflected in the portrait?
If the goal is to have a likeness of the person, for the sake of history it seems that only a photographic portrait would be the intelligent solution. Why bother using intelligence?
I happen to be an artist and pretty handy with a camera, too. This letter will not cost the state anything. And I hope that the portrait painters out there will understand where I’m coming from.
Join the Discussion:
Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.
Full comments policy