Head Fake
The focus of my art studio work at this time is on homeless faces. When I was still narrowing the scope of the subject of my homeless paintings I arbitrarily excluded faces. My best reason for this was respect for the privacy of homeless people as subjects. That was frankly an excuse to cover my misunderstanding of the results I was getting painting faces of homeless men.
They were too expressive. Painting the homeless is moderately engaging as a concept, before ever putting brush to canvas. The reality is surprising. Disagreement turns mostly on the objectionable subject matter, as art. That only obscures the power of the representation, in art, of the subject of the homeless.
I just couldn't handle it. It was too "gross" (even for me). I write "gross" in quotes because it's a conditioned response picked-up as a juvenile in elementary schools, along with other juveniles like myself, for whom "gross" was a summary condemnation. It was final. End of discussion. Move on. Much to my surprise, it remains in effect as an adult.
A few of the face paintings were so shocking as to be painted-over immediately, in the style of figures laying on the ground, which had been my concentration from the beginning. At the same time, I had the common sense to recognize that something was going on that I just didn't understand, and I kept a few for later. Later has arrived. The painted faces of homeless men may be more important than the figures.
The face painting titled "Diogenes" was decisive, however, it still misses the point. That it looks like Diogenes is irrelevant. More to the point, if it looks like Diogenes, then what the painter is saying is that Diogenes looks like a homeless person. This quibble goes to the point of what a homeless person looks like. What makes a portrait titled homeless person a portrait of a homeless person?
The inverse definition is what prompted this comment. When is a portrait titled "homeless person" not (accurately speaking) a depiction of a homeless person, in other words, not a homeless person? I just completed a portrait of a man's face and I have to admit it doesn't look like a homeless person. I had my doubts before I commenced work on the subject (but did it anyway).
As I hope to make clear, it is the final work of art that is decisive, not the reference subject. A homeless portrait subject may look homeless in reference, even as the end product painting, does not. I had my doubts about this before now. All I know is, "the proof is in the pudding." That, and, "the exception proves the rule." The piece will be included with the rest of the homeless faces set. Its title shall be: "'Homeless' Person." Note the double quotation marks, quotation marks-within-quotation marks.
Nevertheless, it is an anomaly in the set, given the description of the series as a whole. The interesting part about it, from the viewer's point of view, is what makes a believable painting of a homeless person's face? The subject example in question is too clean, for one thing. We take our personal conveniences for granted, conveniences the homeless don't have. I won't go into detail because that's what painting is for, storytelling without words. That's artistic realism, even if it is impolite to talk about.
The subject looks healthy. The homeless are invariably suffering from any number of physical complaints, all of which is revealed in the face's complexion. It is the power of expressionistic painting to bring out these effects. This refers to internal conditions, not simply dirty skin. A physician would ask this individual, "What can I do for you?" A doctor wouldn't even ask the typical homeless subject. His medical history is written all over his face, to the trained observer.