#Instastatus #Selfie. A Historical Perspective on The Mutative Linkage between Portraiture and Status

(1)

#Instastatus

#Selfie

A Historical

Perspective on The

Mutative Linkage

between Portraiture

and Status

26-06-2015

Research Master Media Studies University of

(2)

Abstract

In this study I create a genealogy of the relation between status and portraiture, in which I aim to emphasize certain pivotal moments, which had an effect on this linkage. Starting in the Renaissance, and moving on to the period of early photography, I point out that the process of hierarchization of the field of art, due to the institutionalization of art academies, and the democratisation of the technology of portraiture, are developments that instigated the changing of the linkage between portraiture and distinction. Selfies can be seen as a variant to these developments, as these contemporary portraits are endowed with distinctive force. By analysing a data set of aggregated selfies I point out these specific distinctive elements that are related to the phenomenon of the selfie.

(3)

From Kim Kardashian’s belfie and Barack Obama’s selfie at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service, to Ellen Degeneres’ famous sponsored Oscar selfie, including quite a few a-‐list actors. It seems that everybody is taking them: selfies. In 2013, Oxford Dictionaries even dubbed the term “the international Word of the Year” (Tifentale 5). Social media spaces cannot be imagined without this particular genre of photography. At this moment more than 260 million photos exist on Instagram that are tagged with #selfie. Selfies cannot be

considered as just a fad, but are a vast cultural phenomenon. The reason why people take selfies is often attributed to a sense of narcissism, as various studies in the field of

psychology pointing to a correlation with the practice of taking selfies and mental health issues (Milivojević 296). It has even been said that apparent heightened self-‐awareness, induced by the practice of frequently taking selfies, has lead to an increase in cosmetic surgery (Milivojević 295). While these relations between self-‐representations and narcissism are relevant, in terms of the phenomenon of the selfie, it also seems a too limited and pathologizing perspective. In this study I focus on the linkage between distinction and the phenomenon of the selfie. I wish to show that social status and the portrait have been linked in varying degrees throughout history. This study will show that since the Renaissance there have been various forms of linkages between status and portraiture, which mutated

throughout history, in which I historicize Bourdieu's theories on distinction and the habitus. In order to do this I aim to create a genealogy of the selfie and establish which pivotal moments in history can shed a light on the notion of the selfie as a current phenomenon of self-‐presentation. This specific type of describing of a history of an object means that one is not looking for the origin of something, but at how a contemporary phenomenon is an assemblage of heterogeneous elements formed through a historical process. Foucault critiques historical texts that are founded on certain a priori concepts, through which it is impossible to ultimately fail to see the true construction of something. It is thus a critical outlook on the history of ideas. So, the origin of something is not of interest for the genealogist, since the idea of an origin presupposes the element of an a priori essence. Instead, the genealogist is on the lookout for the Herkunft, the descent, of something: “the traits it attempts to identify are not the exclusive generic characteristics of an individual, a sentiment, or an idea […]; rather, it seeks the subtle, singular, and subindividual marks that might possibly interest in them to form a network that is difficult to unravel” (Foucault 145).

(6)

By looking into specific moments in history that have had a clear impact on the phenomenon of the presentation of the self, may it be portraiture or self-‐portraiture, I wish to highlight how various linkages between status and the genres of portraiture came together and changed. For example, whilst in the Renaissance portraits were an ultimate display of one’s status, there were obviously not accessible for everybody due to their towering costs. This situation changed as the technology of portraiture became evermore accessible due to the ongoing invention in photography in the 18th century. It is in moments like these that one can pinpoint the shifting of the relation between the notion of status and portraiture. Selfies are, in this respect, highly relevant since the genre itself is a mutated form of the linkage that descends back to the Renaissance. By looking into a dataset of selfies, I inductively point out important patterns that uncover how status and self-‐presentation are linked today. It is then my aim to show how the linkage between status and self-‐presentation has mutated throughout the last 400 years, taking the Renaissance as a starting point.

1.1 The Renaissance: individualism as a start

The genealogy of the linkage between portraiture and distinction starts in the period Renaissance, as from this moment on, the phenomenon of portraiture has been linked to the notion of status in different forms. The question is then why the Renaissance serves as a starting point. This is because several pivotal developments occurred in that period, which are of importance for the phenomenon of self-‐presentation through the medium of portraiture and self-‐portraiture, of which the upcoming can be attributed to the rise of modern individualism in the Renaissance. By first focusing on this broader societal development, then zooming in on the field of painting specifically, I will reveal how these moments have been materialized in actual paintings. Particularly focussing on the moments when portraiture became related to distinction, I will argue that due to a specific process of stratification of the field of art, and thus creating a hierarchization of the social space of the visionary artist, a certain individualising tendency can be indicated. This is exactly when portraiture, and art in general, becomes an instrument for distinction. The portrait and the self-‐portrait are in this respect aesthetic crystallization of these developments, which are related to the rise of individualism.

(7)

In order to contextualize the phenomenon of portraiture in the Renaissance, it is important to give thought to the concept of the periodization itself, which is difficult to define. Often the Renaissance is linked to a specific period in art history. Stephen Campbell claims it refers to the period of ca. 1400 -‐ ca. 1600, a chronological period in which a ‘range of crafted objects’ that were made in this period show similarities, and can thus be seen as a

homogeneous unity (Campbell 47). He states that in the Renaissance there was an “’image explosion’ or […] a ‘revolution in consumer culture’, founded on a demonstrable increase in demand for painting, sculpture and other visual media alongside other luxury craft objects across a wider spectrum of society, and a greater ubiquity of images in social life” (Campbell 47). Another interesting perspective is a political one, which focuses on the broader societal tendencies of that time. Brandist states, as he refers to Bakhtin’s notion of the Renaissance:

His account of how the rigidly bifurcated world of the Middle Aged yielded to a modern perspective in which experience and reason supplanted religious dogma, the individual emerged from predefined social estates, popular festivity banished fearsome official prohibitions and the vernacular burst through the hegemony of ossified, dead languages presents a compelling and in many respects convincing portrait of a momentous period in European development (Brandist 12).

Clearly, one is talking about a period in which the rigidity of the church loosened, leading to all sorts of developments in society. Before, society was organized through a feudalistic system and the dogmatic centralized church, which meant that one did not get the chance to express oneself as an individual, i.e. the system of feudalism and the institution of the church “had worked together to debase the spirit and destroy freedom” (Brandist 18). This situation changed in the Renaissance as feudalism vanished next to certain function of the church. It is considered that this specific political relation has led to man’s turn to “external nature and man’s inner self”, instead of religion (Brandist 18). Because of this situation, in which man started to become more focused on oneself, Burckhardt saw the Renaissance individualism as a “certain arrogant confidence or self-‐assertiveness, which […] underlies Machiavelli’s theory of the state” (Nelson 327). The Renaissance is thus a term that describes changes that have had a profound impact on society, where certain social structures were challenged.

It is often claimed that these societal developments can be attributed to the rise of modern individualism, although much debated by various scholars. As Norman Nelson

(8)

elaborates on claims of various theorists, it becomes clear that the subject is highly contested (Nelson 316-‐34). To put it very broadly, multiple perspectives can be seen in relation to the cause of the rise of modern individualism in the period of the Renaissance. According to Woods-‐Marsden there has been a “general tendency beginning in the fifteenth, but accelerating in the sixteenth century, to view the internal self as an agent or subject”, which can be attributed to the rise of humanism (Woods-‐Marsden 13). She claims that during the Renaissance, humanists started to focus more on questions related to being human. Problems and experiences of being your own person were now discussed (Woods-‐ Marsden 13). Humanism should be seen as a revolutionarily reaction against the “other-‐ worldliness of medieval Christianity, a turning away from preoccupation with personal immortality to making the best of life in this world” (Lamont 21). It can be stated that the humanist belief tried to get away from a certain religious control over knowledge, where it appeared as a reaction to the specific tradition that was rooted in the Middle Ages, being scholasticism, where the focus was heavily put on theology (Kallendorf vii; Lamont 21-‐22). Humanists have, in this respect, stimulated self-‐expression through the encouraging human agency and allowing subjectivity of individuals (Woods-‐Marsden 14). One might even state, that the ‘self’, or at least the awareness of it, was brought into being by humanism (Woods-‐ Marsden 14).

In sum, what all of these studies argue is that the rise of individuality can be attributed to certain political tendencies that agitated against the social relations in the Middle Ages. This breaking down of the rigid relations was essential for the emergence of individuality, which refers to the claim that people started to become aware of themselves in the Renaissance as autonomous subjects.

1.2 The Start of Art as Distinction

The societal tendencies described in the section above had far-‐reaching effect, which could also be noticed in relation to the production of painting, in particular the genres of

portraiture and self-‐portraiture. As both genres can be seen as products of their time it is tempting to state that the increase in people’s sense of subjectivity was the cause for the rise of portraiture and self-‐portraiture. Surely, the new sense of self would have contributed to people wanting to own their own portrait, as individualism was in vogue, so to say. To

(9)

claim this in relation to self-‐portraiture is more complex, however, since the situation has more layers to it. Whilst a self-‐portrait would undoubtedly point to self-‐reflexiveness, subjectivity and a humanistic mind-‐set on behalf of the painter, these elements do not explain the rise of this genre per se. To be able to dive deeper in these genres of painting and their linkage to the notion of status, and to elaborate on this sudden newfound individuality of the artist, of which the self-‐portrait is a direct effect, it is important to first focus on another essential moment in the Renaissance, which meant the start of art as a means of distinction.

What needs to be highlighted in this respect is the changing status of the artist, a process that was clearly instigated in the Renaissance. Until this time, painters were

craftsmen, who were linked to a guild. They were considered to be of a lower status, as they worked for the upper-‐class patrons, producing works that were considered to have a specific social function. These art works were created “for specific purpose prescribed by society”, as Tanner points out that this could entail, for example, “a public festivity or a private

ritual”(Tanner 108).1_{Because
these
works
were
ordered,
and
had
to
follow
certain} “communal traditions of design” conform a “social canon of art-‐making sanctified by

tradition and secured by the power of the art recipient”, the craftsman could not pursue his own personal fantasies in relation to the actual painting (Elias 134; Tanner 108). In this period, painters did not work alone, but collectively, which lasted until the fifteenth century, which meant that their artworks were nowhere near of being individual expressions of their personalities, as they were produced on the basis of a command (Hauser 114). Michelangelo is often seen as a breaking point in this development, being the first modern artist who worked on his works of art solely, without the involvement of any pupils or assistants. Moreover, a specific event involving Michelangelo had taken place in Rome in 1540, which led to the breaking down of the dependency of artists on guilds, which meant that the art works no longer had to be produced according to guild regulations.2 Artists were now

1_{Tanner
states
that
before
artworks
had
a
specific
function
to
display
society
itself,
where
art
would
contribute
to
the} 2_{This
particular
event
is
described
as
follows:
“when
the
consuls
of
the
Roman
guild
for
sculptors
[…]
objected
that} Michelangelo and other sculptors were allowed to exercise their occupation without being inscribed in the guild” (Woods-‐ Marsden 22). The pope eventually decided that Michelangelo was excused from membership of the guild, leading to the new status of the painter, who became an independent artist, “freed from all guild ties, an unthinkable outcome in earlier centuries” (Woods-‐Marsden 22). Other thoughts about the dissolving dependency of artists are expressed by Hauser: “The outcome of the proceedings of the Genoese painters’ guild against the painter Giovanni Battista Poggi, who was to be prevented from practising his art in Genoa, because he had not undergone the prescribed seven-‐years course of instruction there, is of symptomatic importance. The year 1590, in which this case took place and which brought the fundamental

(10)

increasingly granted the opportunity to display their talent and individuality, producing artworks entirely to their own personal liking (Hauser 113).

It is in this moment, when the ‘genius artist’ was born, that the social status of the artist started to change. One way of noticing this changing status was the increase in fees artists were receiving (Hauser 117). As the painter as a craftsman underwent a social ascent, becoming an individual artist endowed with geniality, the base was laid for the foundation of a particular class fraction in relation to the field of art. In this way, it seems that the social ascent of the artist can be ascribed to a heightened sense of self-‐respect, an increase in inwardness and a discovery of the self. This newfound focus on the self, and with it the breaking free from the guilds and the social rise of the painter as craftsman to the artist as intellect, has often been attributed to the fact that artists would associate with

humanistically-‐minded people. The rise of the specific genres of portraiture and self-‐ portraiture are often attributed to this development, which can be considered as manifestations of these societal tendencies.

The situation, however, was somewhat more complex. The social ascent of the artist should in fact not be attributed to a general claim like the rise of individualism. According to Hauser, the social climb was actually a result of an increase in the demand for art. It was here that the association with humanists had a positive effect, as they “confirmed them in the position they had won for themselves thanks to the favourable market, and they gave them the weapons with which to assert their claims against the guilds, and partly also against the resistance of the conservative, artistically inferior and therefore, vulnerable elements in their own ranks” (Hauser 117-‐8). Hauser describes that the situation became favourable for artists because of a renewed balance between supply and demand for art “as a consequence of the rise of new seigniories and principalities, on the one hand, and the growth and enriching of the towns, on the other” (Hauser 118). The services of artist thus became something to be competed for, indicating that the heightening of “their self-‐respect is merely the expression of their market-‐value” (Hauser 117). Hauser states he states in relation to this:

The fact that the Italian artists were less dependent on the guilds, which was the basis of their favoured position, is above all the result of their being frequently employed at the courts. In

decision that the guild statutes were not binding on artists who did not keep an open shop, brings to a close a development of nearly two hundred years” (Hauser 116).

(11)

the North the master is tied to one city, but in Italy the artist often moves from court to court, from city to city, and this nomadic life already leads to a certain relaxation of guild

regulations, which are based on local conditions and are only workable within local limits. As the princes attached importance to attracting to their courts not only highly skilled masters in general, but also particular artists who were often foreign to the locality, the latter had to be freed from the restrictions of guild statutes. […] These travelling court painters were beyond the reach of the guilds from the very outset. But the privileges which artists enjoyed at the courts could not remain without effect on the way they were treated in the towns,

particularly as the same masters were often employed in both places and the towns had to keep pace with the competition of the courts if they wanted to attract the best artists. The emancipation of the artists from the guilds is, therefore, not the result of their own

heightened self-‐respect and the acknowledgement of their claim to be considered on an equal footing with the poets and scholars, but results from the fact that their services are needed and have to be competed for (Hauser 117).

Vera Zolberg, in this respect states about the French situation:

Whereas under church-‐imposed artistic canons, aesthetic considerations had been

subordinated to religious dogma, the nation state system elevated secular power over the religious, permitting artists to gain support in the service of the state. Impressed by the chance of benefiting from this new source of sustenance and esteem, writers, musicians and painters sought the patronage of absolutist monarchs or royal courts (Zolberg 117).

What becomes clear is that around the time of the Renaissance, the increase in demand for art put artists in a favourable position. Although the situation in Italy was unique around that time, as artists were enjoying relatively more freedom compared to other countries, it seems that the (royal) courts were the common denominator as they were also of a high importance in relation to the increasing demand for art in France.3 There, artists actively sought out the support of royal courts since the caste of the religious dogma was finally loosening, due to the downfall of a rigid Christian social order, which was starting to make way for the nation state. Again, it becomes clear that the demand for art was growing. Basically, there is a clear tendency to be spotted here, i.e. that the balance between supply and demand shifted favourably in terms of the artist. Moreover, when taking this societal development a step further, it also had a direct effect on the level of art itself. Due to the

3_{In
Italy
artists
had
a
better
position,
as
Italian
artists
were
less
dependent
on
guilds
from
the
outset.
There
favorable} position was primarily a result of their frequent employment at the courts, as Hauser states: “In the North the master is tied to one city, but in Italy the artist often moves from court to court, from city to city, and this nomadic life already leads to a certain relaxation of guild regulations, which are based on local conditions and are only workable within local limits. As the princes attached importance to attracting to their courts not only highly skilled masters in general, but also particular artists who were often foreign to the locality, the latter had to be freed from the restrictions of guild statutes. They could not be forced to take local craft regulations into consideration in the execution of their commissions, to apply for a labour permit from the local guild authority and to ask how many assistants and apprentices they were allowed to employ. After they had finished their work for one employer, they went with their assistants into the employment and protection of another and again enjoyed the same exceptional rights. These travelling court painters were beyond the reach of the guilds from the very outset” (Hauser 117).

(12)

developments on broader societal level, there was a vanishing “church-‐imposed artistic canons” and the “aesthetic considerations”, which meant that also the structures of

patronage were also changing (Zolberg 116). In this respect, the artist’s freedom in relation to the production of art and the content of it was also increasing.

So, next to the breaking free from guild regulations there was also a process of individualisation happening on the level of content. In this context, artists were also instigating a process of professionalization. Zolberg explains:

Where possible, they [writers, musicians and painters] engaged in the founding of the new academic institution, helping to construct its hierarchy of value that privileged certain art genres above others […]. It was in the context of these institutions that the modern system of the arts crystallized. New themes, formal arrangements, colors, tonalities in emulation of classical works that during the Renaissance had been reinterpreted as masterpieces rather than as offshoots of Paganism became the basis of the new canon. […] Royal academies derived their legitimacy from the prestigious bases of humanistic classical scholarship. In contrast to the prevailing guild system that trained craftsmen, it followed, instead, Renaissance ideas and selected aspirants whom they would educate to channel their creativity via erudition and skill to make works that strove for loftiness. […] By elevating certain art forms and genres over others, they established the ‘‘great culture’’ that redefined art, and institutionalized the hierarchy of high art over low and within each art, the standard of merit (Zolberg 117).

New academic institutions were set up through which one could be educated in the field of arts. According to Tanner the constitution of the Florentine Academy, where Vasari was the leader, is one of the clearest examples in this respect. The institutionalization of knowledge concerning art entailed that artists were stimulated to not only produce artworks, but also reflect on these, in terms of problems of a pictorial nature. The artist would analyse the problem at hand and theorize upon a solution. This means that the skills of an artist were not just bound to practicalities, but were also of an intellectual level. This is actually what distinguished the ‘fine artist’ from the craftsman and promoted the artist to an academic level, linked to a certain level of respect towards intellectuals such as the humanists (Tanner 109). It is in this moment of professionalizing and institutionalizing the cultural production of art that the habitus of the visionary artist was constructed, and where Bourdieu’s theory of distinction can be historicized. What is essential to note here is that Bourdieu developed his theory on the basis a highly particularized situation, being the French society in the

twentieth century. Due to this highly contextualized aspect of the theory, it is important to stress that I only want to focus specifically on the claim that the Renaissance was the moment when one particular form of habitus came into being, that of the artist, where I

(13)

thus historicize Bourdieu. What is relevant to highlight in relation to this historization is that the central Bourdieusian concept of habitus as a concept refers to a system of dispositions, or habits one has in terms of practices and mentalities, constructed through specific

properties and practices that can be considered as distinctive in relation to other

homologous groups. In this respect, social classes are formed according to the “principle of the objective divisions, i.e., divisions internalized or objectified in distinctive properties, on the basis of which the agents are most likely to divide and come together in reality in their ordinary practices” (Bourdieu 106). In relation to the Renaissance, this is precisely what happens in the field of art. In this period the foundation is laid for the distinction between high from low art, next to the craftsman and the artist. These distinctions were internalized and objectified through the institutionalization of the knowledge about art.

What this means is that the field of art became stratified, i.e. it became structured according to different social classes and that (Tanner 110). Moreover, art became a means of distinction in two ways. On the one hand, the distinction between high and low art was constituted (Zolberg 117). On the other, the distinction between the different ‘classes’ of artist was created, where the genius artist was on top. In this process of institutionalization one can thus see that different classes of artists start to arise, creating a clear hierarchy where the individual, intellectual artist is on top. The Renaissance is therefore highly

important when it comes to the linkage between the notion of distinction and art. It acted as the moment when the art canon became defined and delimitated, and a particular habitus was created in which the hierarchization of the field of art is embedded.

It can thus be said that the link between distinction and art started in the Renaissance, due to the process of stratification of the artist and the art itself. In this moment of the creation of the habitus, art became a marker of class and an instrument to convey status. About this moment in the Bourdieu himself states:

(14)

As soon as art becomes self-‐conscious, in the work of Alberti, for example, as Gombrich

demonstrates, it is defined by a negation, a refusal, a renunciation, which is the very basis of the refinement in which a distance is marked from the simple pleasure of the senses and the

superficial seductions of gold and ornaments that ensnare the vulgar taste of the Philistines: 'In the strict hierarchic society of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the contrast between the "vulgar" and the "noble" becomes one of the principal preoccupations of the critics. . . . Their belief was that certain forms or modes are "really" vulgar, because they please the low, while others are inherently noble, because only a developed taste can appreciate them' (Bourdieu 227).

What Bourdieu claims here is that starting from the Renaissance art was an instrument for distinction. Here, Bourdieu himself historicizes the notion of habitus and distinction,

indicating that artworks can signal different classes through different “modes” of art. There were art forms that would “please the low”, because of vulgar aesthetics, which would indicate a lower regiment in the social hierarchy. These forms of art would differ from the art works that were “inherently noble”, which were likely to be more modest in terms of their aesthetics. As Bourdieu indicates, only someone with a developed taste for higher art forms would be able to appreciate these forms of art. Art ownership thus points to the distinctive force of taste. It falls under the “appropriation of symbolic objects with a material existence” (Bourdieu 280). Bourdieu claims that appropriating an artwork is asserting

“oneself as the exclusive possessor of the object and of the authentic taste for that object” (Bourdieu 280). By obtaining a work of art it seems that one’s personality is actualized through the affirmation of “the capacity to appropriate an object of quality” (Bourdieu 281). Art in this respect is a very explicit instance of taste, or as Bourdieu calls it “objectified evidence of 'personal taste'” (Bourdieu 282). Art is thus related to symbolic capital, which refers to the notion that a certain good can have a commercial value, but can also enjoy a certain symbolic status with a particular cultural value (Bourdieu 3). Symbolic goods thus have distinctive force. It is precisely in the period of the Renaissance, that one sees that this force is first related to the notion of art, where different forms of art became material manifestations of different social classes, through which one would signal a certain social status, due to the stratification of the field of art.

1.3 Crystallization of Individualism: Looking at Variants of Portraiture

It has thus been made clear up until now that one can point out a pivotal moment in time when art started to become an instrument for distinction, as a habitus was created in

(15)

relation to the cultural field of art, ultimately leading to two important differentiations; on the one hand between the painter as craftsman and the artist and intellect; and on the other hand between high and low art. Art thus entered the stage of a distinctive practice, as it became a social marker of class in the Renaissance. Bourdieu himself makes this very statement:

The aim of distinction, expressing the specific interest of the artists, who are increasingly inclined to claim exclusive control over form at the risk of disappointing their clients' 'bad taste', is far from incompatible with the functions really conferred on works of art by those who commission them or conserve them in their collections: these 'cultural creations which we usually regard purely aesthetically, as variants of a particular style, were perceived by their contemporaries', as Norbert Elias reminds us, referring to the society of the Grand Siècle, as 'the highly differentiated expression of certain social qualities’ (Bourdieu 227).

The essential insight this quote is not so much that it refers to art as distinctive force, expressing certain social qualities, but more that the commissioning of an artwork can also be classified as distinction. Art was, in this respect, not only a distinctive practice for artists, but also for people that would order it.

1.3.1 The Portrait

In this respect, the portrait becomes important. In light of the above section portraits can be seen as an illustration of a direct variant of the precise process described there, as these objects were explicitly used to convey a certain status position in relation to the portrayed, and could thus be considered as visual manifestations of distinction. This worked on multiple levels. The commissioning of a portrait was in itself already a sign of wealth, which means that the ‘technology’ of the genre itself becomes a means of distinction. In this way, one can state that the portrait is an aesthetic crystallization of process of hierarchization, since this process led to art becoming a social marker of class.

Next to this, the commissioning of an object as such marked some sort of sense of individuality, through which one would associate oneself with the wider Zeitgeist of that time, where being your own individual was ‘in vogue’. Woods-‐Marsden claims that the heightened sense of individualism “would seem to offer justification for the emergence, in this period, of the phenomena of biography and portraiture […] as corresponding to the new sense of inwardness” (Woods-‐Marsden 15). Interestingly though, portraits would not

(16)

social status, making it a representation of a particular social role (Burke 395). What this means is that people that would have their portrait painted, would do this in relation to a specific social role. This, in turn, means that the portrait would serve as an instrument of distinction, not only because of the technology, but because of the visual content of the actual portrait. Through it, one could signal a particular social status, which would be visually constructed through various forms of attribution. Visual representations of social roles would be constructed through attribution of accessories, which would range from “robes, crowns, sceptres, swords, columns, curtains, and so on” (Burke 395). The works would often be hung in groups, in the “halls of illustrious men”, where one could admire people one did not know personally, “members of a particular family or holders of particular offices”, making the presenting of portraits an institutional and collective practice, rather than an individual one (Burke 395). These portraits were historical, often concentrating on popes, emperors, and other rulers, which related Renaissance portraits to “the modern sense of fame” (Burckhardt in: Burke 395; Burke 396). In the collection of portraits one would thus not find family and friends quickly. The combination of other portraits, of illustrious men and women, would add to the overall picture. It could be stated that by positioning oneself in the midst of important people, someone’s status would be enhanced, or at least lead to the pretension of a high status. In this respect Lippincott claims: “a roomful of family portraits, by evoking the assemblages of likeness accumulated by families in ancient Rome, could allude to traditions of public service and historic distinction”

(Lippincott 82). Clearly, portraits were objects that enabled owners to distinguishing themselves through the commissioning of portraits and the content of it. This was

particularly focused in the display of wealth, and the representation of a specific social role. The specific distinctive symbolic signs would visually manifest one’s position in social space. One could speculate that the assemblage with other portraits would then add to the social positioning. It might be that by visually relating oneself to other important people, a

particular kind of social space was re-‐enacted and social capital was visualised. In sum, when looking at the link between portraiture and distinction it becomes clear that symbolic goods were used in relation to exteriorities in terms of economic and social capital in order to convey a certain status.

(17)

1.3.2 The Self-‐Portrait

The situation changes when looking into the link between the genre of self-‐portraiture and distinction. As already explained thoroughly, the increase in the demand for art due to various societal tendencies, led to the stratification of the cultural production of art. In this context, it seems that the field of art underwent a very one-‐sided process of

individualisation, which does not refer to the overall heightened awareness of the self and one’s subjectivity, or the process of individualisation of artists, but to the hierarchization of the artist’s social field. Only a limited group of artists underwent a social ascent, leading to a situation where some artists enjoyed more individual freedom, whilst other painters resided in the lower ranks of the hierarchy. As was also the case with portraiture, the technology itself then pointed already to a certain social position, but now on behalf of the artist. The fact that a painter would be able to paint a self-‐portrait indicated that he or she was independent enough to do so, in terms of available resources. The very practice of self-‐ portraiture would in this respect already be instrumental in relation to positioning the artist socially. So, self-‐portraits can be seen as a direct manifestation of this politically charged development.

Thus, the object in itself already distinguished an artist. On the level of content one can also spot some patterns that can be seen as strategies of distinction. It is important to highlight that I do not claim to be exhaustive in this respect, as there are more broad trends to be spotted in relation to self-‐portraiture. However, in this study I will only focus on the essential patterns that have a clear relation to the notion of distinction. _{One
of
these
started} around 1490, when artists started to make portraits for the purpose of heroism and

panache. The “myth of the child prodigy, with artists aggrandizing their youthful achievements” was also part of this trend (Hall 75). An interesting example of this development of the artist portraying himself as a hero is Albrecht Dürer, who in 1500 created a self-‐portrait that supposedly resembles the image of Christ (figure 1). Hall states, that by “making the visual analogy […], Dürer implies he is a Christ-‐like figure, with divine powers of creation. In his later treatise on proportion, Dürer would claim that God ‘grants great power unto artistic men’” (Hall 84). As far as the child prodigy myth concerns, Hall explains that around 1500 a lot of artists depicted themselves as a boy or a young man (Hall 89). These types of portraits would then visually symbolize how skillful an artist was. Again, the artist would try to position himself socially. The instruments used to do so would thus

(18)

act on the level of visual symbolism, and not so much on the level of symbolic goods. What I mean by this is that, for example, the image of Christ would be used as a visual analogy to convey the height of the level of painting skills. In this respect, portraits like these would indicate a certain level of artistic talent. In some self-‐portraits, the artist would paint himself in the very particular context of his own studio. The portrait would then often entail a visualization of the artist whilst in the act of painting in his own workspace. This should be seen as a part of the heroization of the artist. After around 1490, studios became a

destination in itself for tourists and art collectors (Hall 129). In relation to this, I want to refer to Vermeer’s The Art of Painting (c. 1666-‐8), in which Vermeer idealized his studio and his own existence: “The set-‐up is clearly not realistic. Studios were workshops and did not look like this” (Hall 143). Hall points out that Vermeer was trying to convey a certain message about his life as a painter. This painting should be seen as the idealization of the painter’s life, since the studio setting has been supposedly exaggerated quite a bit. Next to that the elements of the painting point to a sense of ‘artistic education and aspiration’ (Hall 142-‐43). What becomes clear from this example is that in self-‐portraits, the artist would construct a certain image of himself as a painter, which would inevitably be subject to a high degree of manipulation. In this way, the painter could convey a great deal about his status. Through the use of props he could make explicit statement about his own level of intellect, visualizing his education. In this way, the painter would distinguish himself and specifically place

himself in the social space of the artist.

Fig. 1 Albrecht Dürer, Self-‐portrait,

(19)

The Mirror

One pivotal aspect in the history of self-‐portraiture that needs emphasizing is the role of the mirror, which can be explained in different ways. As I explained before, the practice of self-‐ portraiture already in itself was a means of distinction. This could also be related to the fact that in the Renaissance mirrors were frequently used in relation to this genre, noticeable through high visual presence of mirrors in Renaissance portraits. Importantly, the mirror served as a symbolic good on various levels around that time, of which wealth was one of them. The expensive item was sometimes even worn around the waist, like jewellery (Kalas 520).4 This is important, since a lot of artists would construct their own image by

representing their reflection in a mirror. This object would then often be included in the portrait itself, and in this respect can be seen as a marker of class. The fact that an artist would paint his image with the use of a mirror, next to the fact that the artist would also visually validate this practice by including the object in the painting can be seen as a socially marking of the status of the artist. Here, distinction then happened on multiple levels. The portrait itself was a symbolic good, since it was on the one hand evidence of the

independence of the artist; and on the other hand a sign that the artist would have had a mirror to construct the actual portrait. In other words, the artist would convey a message about his social status by emphasizing his freedom in terms of production and by suggesting that he owned a luxury item in the form of the mirror.

The mirror would also play a symbolic role in another way. In this way self-‐portraiture is also related to visual content playing a role in terms of distinction, although in a different way than portraiture. The linkage with distinction mutates as one moves to the content of self-‐portraiture, which was very much linked to interiorities as opposed to portraiture, where portraits would primarily revolve around the display of exteriorities. Self-‐portraits on the other hand were an ultimate sign of self-‐reflexivity and subjectivity, which can in turn be interpreted as a purposeful association in the form of a visual attribution of the artist as an intellect. The object of the mirror contributed to this, as the possession of the object was of great importance in relation to the credibility of an artist: “It demonstrates their virtue and intellect, and ensures their fame” (Hall 36). The mirror was an attribute for positive virtues, “symbolizing the truthfulness and verisimilitude that Renaissance painters claimed as their

4_{Haley
states
that
in
the
seventeenth
century,
displaying
a
mirror,
which
was
a
costly
rarity
and
had
the
status
of
a
luxury,} in domestic environment would indicate “that its occupant worked in commerce or as a representative, in contact with the court” (Haley 29).