Sir Arthur Bryan 1980

Editor: This is "Sir Arthur Bryan," painted in 1980 by John Bratby, using oil paint. The heavy impasto really gives it a sense of immediacy and almost raw emotion. What strikes me most is the vibrant use of colour—it’s almost Fauvist in its intensity, despite being a portrait. What's your take on this? Curator: It's interesting you mention Fauvism. Bratby, working in the late 20th century, engaged with art history, but he also challenged the very idea of portraiture's public function. In postwar Britain, there was a drive to democratize art, and Bratby's seemingly unflattering, intensely personal style moved away from traditional commissioned portraits that glorified the sitter. He portrays Bryan as a flawed individual rather than an idealized figure, don't you think? It becomes a commentary on power and representation. Editor: I see what you mean. So, rather than presenting an image of authority and respectability, he's showing us a more human, perhaps even vulnerable side. It almost feels like a critique of the establishment. But, if portraiture is traditionally about elevating someone, does Bratby succeed in doing the opposite? Is it intentionally subversive? Curator: I wouldn't say simply 'the opposite'. Instead, it redefines what elevation means. In this post-war era, the "hero" archetype was questioned. Showing humanity, flaws and all, becomes its own form of honoring the sitter, particularly if we think of Bratby operating within the social climate that favoured sincerity. How does the brushwork contribute to this interpretation, do you think? Editor: I think the thick impasto makes it feel almost sculptural and emphasizes the raw, unfiltered emotion. Seeing this has really challenged my initial understanding of portraiture! It's not just about capturing a likeness; it's about making a statement. Curator: Exactly! The context in which this work was created fundamentally shapes how we perceive its visual choices. Understanding that shifts the meaning of portraiture itself.