It’s always seemed to me that portraiture is a particularly demanding type of painting, at least the kind of portraiture in which the artist is commissioned to create the portrait, as opposed to an artist who paints someone simply because they find them an interesting subject.

Not only do you have the exacting demands of producing a likeness, which requires very careful observation and, depending on style, faithful reproduction of that likeness with careful draftsmanship and rendering; a commissioned portrait requires that the client, whether the individual themselves or someone related, be pleased with the result, which is an issue faced more often by illustrators than gallery artists.

If someone doesn’t like your landscape, they pass by in the gallery and you can sell it to someone else. A commissioned portrait has a very limited market.

Some artists thrive on the practice, though, and history’s great painters have included numerous portrait painters.

The modern practice doesn’t get as much attention as some other types of painting, but there are portraits artists who are at the top of the game and get a great deal of respect from other artists as well as their from their patrons.

Nelson Shanks is one of the latter. With a background in academic art training that he “pieced together” from various teachers and sources, both here and in Europe, Shanks has established himself not only as one one of the country’s premiere portrait painters, but also as one of the major proponents of classical realism.

Shanks, along with his wife Leona Shanks, is the founder of Studio Incamminati, an atelier style teaching program here in Philadelphia, which focuses on the principles of classical realism.

Shanks’ commissioned portraits include such notable figures as former presidents Bill Clinton and Ronald Regan, Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, Princess Diana, King Gustav and Queen Silvia of Sweden, Queen Julianna of the Netherlands, Luciano Pavarotti and numerous CEOs and chairmen of boards, including those of the Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the New York Times.

His web site has a few of these portraits, as well as figure paintings and a few other subjects, but the images are frustratingly small. There is a selection of larger images on the Art Renewal Center, which also has a separate article on him as a “modern master”, Nelson Shanks, Humanist Realist.

Personally, I’m more interested in his figure painting, which is superb, and his portraits of non-famous individuals, in which you can more clearly see the painter as a painter, rather than as a painter in that particular role of portrait painter of notable figures. It is here, I think, and in those rare excursion into landscape, and particularly interior scenes, where Shanks shines.

About 55km (35 miles) Southeast of Paris is a stretch of forest that could be considered the cradle of the modern practice of painting “en plein air” (“in the plain air” or simply “outdoors”), as well as the approach to painting that came to be called the “Barbizon School” and the style derived from them that would develop into French Impressionism.

Here, artists like Jean-Baptiste Camille Corot, Théodore Rousseau, Jean-Francois Millet, Charles-François Daubigny and others gathered in the unofficial artists colony in the town of Barbizon, from which they could walk into the surrounding forrest, with their newly portable painting equipment in hand, and capture the drama and beauty of the still-wild landscape.

The practice of painting on location, while not entirely new, had not been practiced to such a degree or by such a large group of painters before, and the very choice these painters had made to make nature the center and subject of their paintings, rather than a backdrop for human activity, was radical; carrying forward the emphasis placed on landscape by English artist John Constable.

They were followed by the young Impressionist painters Claude Monet, Alfred Sisley, Frédéric Bazille and Auguste Renoir, who, at the urging of atelier master Charles Gleyre, traveled to the Fontainebleau Forest from nearby Paris to also exercise this new practice of painting directly from nature.

In the Forest of Fontainebleau: Painters and Photographers from Corot to Monet is a newly opened show at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., highlighting many of these painters, as well as artists in the new medium of photography, who found similar inspiration in the dramatic scenery of the forest.

Corot and Monet are the stars here, and Corot is the master; unsurprisingly as we are in his territory. Though most of the works here are large, finished studio works, you can see where they are informed by the open-air painting that they developed from, and many small location sketches are included as well. Here is not only the direct representation of nature and natural light, but the direct, open brushwork on which Impressionism, and many related schools of painting. would be based.

Corot is a favorite of mine, and will the subject of a dedicated future post, and he is at his finest here, with his remarkable presence for the individual “personalities” of trees in the midst of broader scenes.

Monet is presented as you rarely see him, as a mature painter, but prior to the development of the “Impressionist style”. Here is Monet in dark forest glades, painting directly and without the scattering of short brushstrokes, though obviously already fascinated with effect of dappled light and shade (image above, top). Sisley and Bazille are right at home with this style, and Renoir turns in terrific pieces as well. There are some famous works, like one of Monet’s preparatory panels for his abandoned attempt at Déjeunier sur l’Herbe, and Bazille’s Improvised Field Hospital, depicting Monet in bed nursing his banged-up leg.

Richard Parkes Bonington is represented by several pieces and Theodore Rousseau, who I was not that familiar with, impressed me with superb examples.

I was struck in particular by the work of other artists with whom I was only vaguely or not at all familiar, like Théodore d’Aligny, Robert-Leopold Leprince; wonderful work by Alexandre Desgoffe and a stunning landscape painting by Rosa Bonheur (image above, bottom); who I usually associate only with depictions of animals.

The exhibition is wonderful and quite extensive. It runs at the National Gallery in Washington until June 8, 2008. It then moves to the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston for a run from July 13-October 29, 2008. There is a short slide-show of some of the works on the exhibition’s page. There is also a catalog accompanying the exhibit, In the Forest of Fontainebleau: Painters and Photographers from Corot to Monet that has reasonably good reproductions (the Amazon link I give here is to the $60 hardback, there is also a $40 paperback).

If you get to the exhibition, don’t miss the permanent display of Small French Paintings, also in the East wing, which features many of the same painters; as well as more of their work still on display in the main galleries of the permanent collection (not to mention the NGA’s other amazing treasures, like the 3 [or 4, depending on your point of view] exquisite Vermeers…, but I digress).

I’ve come away from In the Forest of Fontainebleau not only renewed in my admiration for Corot, and with a fresh view of early Impressionism, but convinced more than ever that, with all due respect to Constable, the Forest of Fontainebleau is the birthplace of modern landscape painting.

American Art Collector is a national art magazine that you should be able to find at larger magazine shops and bookstores in most parts of the U.S.

Ostensibly for art collectors, it’s of interest to artists as well. Unlike many magazines that cover the “art scene”, American Art Collector, focuses on contemporary representational art.

Each issue features about a dozen articles on individual artists who have gallery shows running concurrently with the release dates of the issue, and another 6 or 8 group shows. (The intention, of course, is to encourage the galleries to advertise in the issue showcasing their artists and shows.)

There are also articles on galleries, usually an in-depth one and several others showcased in an article on a particular geographic region of the U.S. (The current issue, March 2008, focuses on some galleries in Washington, D.C.)

There are also articles on the display of art in galleries, notes on exhibitions and the art market in the U.S. in general (again with a focus on representational art).

There are also lots of ads for artists, galleries and individual and group shows, that are entertaining and instructive in themselves, both in terms of seeing what is selling these days, an in terms of how galleries are representing themselves and their artists in print ads. There are also lots of URLs for galleries in their ads that you can check out, and a list of artists and advertisers in the back of the magazine. (It’s interesting to note an ad for the Daily Paintworks collaborative site, most of whose members I’ve featured on lines and colors.)

One of the things I think is most useful about the magazine is the presence of price guides in the articles on individual artists and the artists participating in group shows. Often these indicate the price for a range of sizes for the artists’ works, and a comparison with the prices they were commanding for similar work a year or several years earlier.

This is very informative in terms of getting a feeling for how particular artists are selling, comparing their styles, regional differences and the change over time as an artist’s reputation and following grows.

There are also interviews with both artists and gallery owners about pricing, selection and presentation of works, and a lot of other topics of concern to artists who are selling through galleries. There is also some discussion of painting techniques and approaches, but this is not at all a “how to” magazine.

The magazine has a web site that gives you some idea of the content, though it’s not as clear as it might be. There is a sort of preview of some of the current issues pages in a little interactive feature on the home page. (Unfortunately, it’s in one of those hideously cutsie “page-turning” Flash dealybobs that people just seem to love, likely for the same reason that they love paintings of dogs playing poker.)

If you go to the page for “Issues“, you’ll see a table of contents of the current issue, from which you could do a little Googling to check out some the artists mentioned; though it would certainly be easier to simply browse the issue at a newsstand if you have that option. You can also order copies of past issues. The newsstand price is $6.95 U.S.

All in all, I think this is worth a look for anyone interested in the realist and representational art market in the U.S., whether you are a patron, gallery owner or artist. (I’m sure there must be comparable publications in Europe and other parts of the world, but we seldom see them here in the U.S.)

American Art Collector magazine often features painters I’ve written about here on lines and colors. This month’s issue, for example, includes mention of Francis Livingston (image above, top) and Thomas Paquette.