Art, portraits and meaning
An experiment in perception.
I would like to ask you to participate in a very personal experiment.
Have a look at this portrait I created. I will explain my intentions, inspiration and thought process at the end of this post. But first, I’d like you to view it on its own terms. My hope as an artist is that the picture speaks for itself.
If you want to participate in my experiment, please pause here, take a minute and consider what you see. Take a piece of paper (or your notes app of preference) and make note of the following:
Do you recognize the man?
What is your immediate reaction?
How do you interpret its meaning? What does it mean to you, personally?
What do you think was my intention in creating this?
Do you know me, either personally or as a professional?
If you don’t know who Jordan Peterson is, he’s a controversial and divisive public figure. His videos on YouTube have hundreds of thousands to millions of views.
If you haven’t heard of him before, and you would like to educate yourself before continuing with this experiment, I’ve put a summary and a few links below.
“He is in an exclusive club globally, an individual who can fill [an] 8,000-capacity venue for what [is] essentially a lecture. Some consider him to be the most influential public intellectual at work today. For others, he is a dangerous enabler of far-right philosophy and hatred. His polarising persona is largely down to the positions he has taken in the so-called culture wars.” (From a review in The Irish Examiner)
The New Yorker: Peterson “is now one of the most influential—and polarizing—public intellectuals in the English-speaking world.”
The Atlantic: Why the Left Is So Afraid of Jordan Peterson and a rebuttal (from NY Magazine): The Left’s Contempt for Jordan Peterson Is Perfectly Rational
Vox: Jordan Peterson, the obscure Canadian psychologist turned right-wing celebrity, explained
His personal religious beliefs are unclear. When asked if he himself is a believer, Peterson responds, “I try to live as if God exists, and I fear that hi might.” However religion figures prominently in his lectures as a moral compass.
He’s been described as “The most influential biblical interpreter in the world today” and“Obsessed with religious matters”
His views on religion have been criticized by the left (The religious hunger that drives Jordan Peterson’s fandom) as well as the right (Jordan Peterson’s Christian problem) and the religious right (Jordan Peterson—A Closer Look at a Culture Warrior).
There’s even been an entire book written (by Christians) about his relationship with, and commentary on, Christianity: Jordan Peterson, God, and Christianity: The Search for a Meaningful Life.
Here’s one of his videos:
Message to the Christian churches
If you do know who he is (or have reviewed the above), please make a note of the following:
How do you see the man himself? Are you a fan, follower, neutral, a critic? Is he a fearless culture warrior, a defender of the faith, a troll, or a dangerous enemy of society? Or maybe just a boring old professor?
How does this influence the way you see the portrait?
… and here ends our experiment. Thank you for your participation.
In this next section, I’d like to share some of my “whys and wherefores” as well as comments received so far. If you like, you can skip all this (it’s pretty long) and hop down to read my reflections. I hope you will leave a comment with your thoughts before you go.
First, I’ll discuss my thoughts about portraiture. What is a portrait, and what makes a good one?
Second, I’ll share some of the comments I have already received from the social web.
Third, I’ll share my personal thoughts and perceptions about Jordan Peterson, as well as my intentions, inspiration, and creative process in making the portrait.
Lastly, I’ll share my reflections on this experiment, what I have learned, and what I’d like to ask from you in the comments.
What is a portrait?
What makes a picture a portrait? And what makes a portrait a good portrait? As an artist, I’ve always been interested in portraiture. To me a good portrait is, above all, interesting. It is (if you know the person) recognizable; it captures the essence of a personality or presence. It is unmistakably them. It provokes thought and questions.
My favorite portraits have another quality: they look back.
When I look at Rembrandt’s portraits, for example — especially his self-portraits — I see a man struggling with his own mortality. As if he’s keenly aware that he will die, with the knowledge that people will be looking at the painting long after he’s gone. I may be imagining this, of course, but that’s part of what makes it great — a good portrait inspires the imagination.
Self-portrait by Rembrandt.
How has it been received?
So far I have posted the portrait in three places: in a Facebook group devoted to Jordan Peterson, where people are sure to know who he is but unlikely to know anything about me personally, and on Twitter and on my Facebook timeline, where people are likely to know me.
So I’ll divide the reactions into two groups:
Friends, fans and followers of Jordan Peterson.
My friends, fans and followers, likely to have more context about my intentions.
Comments from Peterson’s followers.
These are comments from people likely to have strong positive feelings for Peterson.
Technical: This post generated a lot of comments. 21 “laughs,” 11 “likes,” one “wow face,” and one “sad face;” 70 comments.
“Cardinal of the church of traditionalism and self-improvement. Fitting.”
“Well, I think it's very well done. And it captures the man in a certain sardonic mood. It also makes us think: what if a person we admire, an advocate of free speech, were - instead - in a position in which he had the power to imprison or burn heretics? It's a disquieting thought. You've really made me think, David W Gray!”
“Probably true in the spiritual sense. I'm in awe you picked up on this.”
“I love it! A fat vampire at the centre of a bloody web. That's what both this and the original say to me, I doubt that's the intention of either, so no offence.”
“One aspect of his archetype and all Of us - the preacher, religious element.”
“… somewhat intriguing… But also, to me it's perhaps not how Peterson actually is, but how his most devoted fans think of him.”
“Sitting on the throne looking like he might pontificate.”
“Symbolism.....Jordan Peterson has done more to spread the Christian message, than the Pope himself 😳”
“For me, it means a misinterpretation of Peterson's character or message. He neither represent a religious institution nor a religion, not even is in favor of a particular approach to religion other than the psychological structures that work better on human's lives as per the whole evolutionary accumulative 'solutions' for their problems…”
“Someone’s obviously biased interpretation?”
“I see a double blasphemy here. It looks like a Catholic interpretation which in itself is blasphemy to true Christianity. And Jordan Peterson is more of an atheist than anything else. He respects Christianity and wishes he could connect to it but he can't. Other than that the work itself is pretty good.”
“It doesn’t sit comfortably with me- but that may be a strength.. It references two ideas to me. 1/ JBP espouses unfashionably traditional values that were central to church teaching. 2/ conservative Christians are quick to claim him as one of their own and if he isn’t careful he could find himself swept up and enthroned by the crowd who want a new messiah/ figurehead for their faith. (At least you didn’t hang him on a cross!)”
“It says more about the attitudes and mental state of the person who created the image than it does about Dr. Peterson. What I have heard Peterson say is the opposite of a Cult of State, politically correct, ideological Inquisitor. Peterson is more a target of the tyrannical impulses of the cancel culture ideologues, playing the “still it moves” Galileo-victim role in this tragedy.”
“Cringe. Well painted or not, it reads as caricature and insult. JP would never put himself in any sort of holy position, nor would he appreciate being portrayed as such. And since he is already vilified by the left, who also see the papacy et al as decadent, it just gives them ammunition.”
“Does injustice to both Peterson and Velazquez.”
“the painting itself... not so bad. but my first thought when i saw the picture. oh fuck off”
“A very cheap, probably computerised, re-doing of the very painterly Titian [sic]. That's the first and most essential mistake ! You don't get away with a bad medium !... not if you want any respectable message. Secondly the message, on the face of it, is ambiguous in a silly way, not a complex way or an interesting way, certainly not any adult way. If Peterson is to be compared to any formal authority type then it is to an anti authority type, not to a Pope but to a Socrates. So, that's my imput. Certainly Peterson, I believe, is a vitally important ethical voice, and God directing voice : well, if that's you're message in this image, then fine, but we don't need this image for that message, in my opinion. But it encouraged some thought, so thank you.”
“It repulses me to see him in this garb; the clothing of a man-made, ritual-based religion which deliberately strays far from the true teachings of Christ.”
“My first gut reaction was ‘Eww Gross, please don’t do that.’”
A number of posts echoed similar, critical sentiments: unkind, not accurate, out of touch with the times, lacks warmth, inspiration, and connection, ridiculous, best ignored, degrading, offensive, a cheap and cowardly ridicule, etc.
Comments from people who know me.
Comments from people more likely to be informed (or polluted!) with context, because they know the artist.
Technical: I should note that “engagement” was much lower here. Facebook: 3 “likes,” four comments. Twitter: no likes, nine comments.
“Someone who is a figurehead, adorned in an armor of pomp and circumstance, the chosen champion of a particular tradition. Bound by dogma. Defensiveness. A traumatized spirit that has become a new villain. The hope and comfort that an authority exists. A placeholder.”
““I think it’s funny and interesting and nuanced. I suspect most people will see in it whatever their tribal affiliations bias them to see.”
“Kind of seen it before, but don’t know him.”
“Jordan Peterson dressed as Cardinal Richelieu? Opinion as religion these days?”
“Cardinal Sin.”
“I didn't recognize it as Jordan Peterson, but I think I found your source image, which is Pope Innocent X. I found it in a search for the "Grand Inquisitor" because the image made me think a bit of the red worn in the Monty Python sketch. The idea of Jordan Peterson as a Grand Inquisitor seemed funny (and unexpected, naturally). But I don't think Pope Innocent X had much of a role in the actual inquisition.”
(He’s right. The original source image is below. More on that later.)
Portrait of Pope Innocent X, by Diego Velasquez, circa 1650.
“Is this Jordan Peterson? as Pope or as some sort of a king or maybe a dictator? Feels kinda gross… Disquieting... I’m done with narcissists. As a woman imagining him having more of a voice (via being Pope or being a dictator) is scary. He’s a silver-tongued Trump. I’ve dealt with these types of men my whole life. It’s been limiting & even terrifying at times.”
“Jordan Peterson as Pope Innocent? I threw up a little in my mouth… I know very little about Pope Innocent X. Just that he destroyed some corrupt systems from within. As far as Mr. Peterson goes, his words have harmed many people in my friends and family group. Screw that guy… I avoid him completely.”
Why did I create this?
When I decided to do a portrait, I wanted to test my ability to create a recognizable likeness, so it had to be a public figure of some sort. And I wanted a subject that was complex. A notable public figure like Jordan Peterson was an easy choice.
One question that ran throughout the comments, sometimes explicit but often implied: “Why did you do this?”
The burning question for many: What was my motivation? How is it meant to be perceived? Am I an admirer or a critic? For example:
“… who asked you to do that kind of painting? Maybe you shoood ask the good doctor if he wants that floating around the web to possibly be used against him. Wait a second… it already is. Very poor taste in my opinion.”
“I wonder what drove you to do this. Why do something you could do to anybody? What is it about JP that motivated you to do this? Everybody is diverse as are their characteristics. Is it a painting or a manipulated picture? Is not that illegal these days?”
“I find it very ambiguous. Is it meant to insult him as a “pontificator“? Is it meant to glorify him as the pope of reason? Is it meant to make him look medieval?”
I happen to love this last question. It’s honest. The truth is I’m not sure myself. Jordan Peterson is complex. Intellectual. Powerful. Controversial. Divisive. Influential.
I wanted to present him as a complex man. A man of power, influence and authority. I wanted to somehow refer to his preoccupation with religious matters and air of moral authority. I wanted to capture what I think of as a brooding, somewhat humorless intellectual with a challenging, confrontational stance. I also felt it was important to refer to him as not just a man but a social and political phenomena: his position as a divisive and controversial figure, adored by a devoted following and vilified by his enemies. And because of this, a pivotal cultural lightning-rod-type figure.
His rise to prominence says as much about us, about this moment in cultural history, as it says about him.
More than anything I wanted to take him seriously and convey his “interestingness.”
My intention was less about making a portrait of the man, and more about making a portrait of him as a phenomenon, a symbol
I see him as an icon of a cultural moment, in the vein of Time’s “Person of the Year” category, which is described as a person that “for better or for worse ... has done the most to influence the events of the year.”
So with those ideas in mind I set out to develop a creative piece. After many explorations and sketches, I connected him in my mind with a very specific image that you’ve seen above.
Portrait of Pope Innocent X, by Diego Velasquez, circa 1650.
The art is based on, and refers to, a portrait of Pope Innocent X, by Diego Velasquez. Painted around 1650, is in the public domain. It is considered by many art critics to be one of the greatest portraits of all time.
From the Wikipedia entry: “The painting is noted for its realism as an unflinching portrait of a highly intelligent, shrewd, and aging man.”
The story behind the painting is an interesting one. The pope was reluctant to be painted by Velasquez, but agreed after he had painted several people the pope knew. An apocryphal story claims that upon seeing the painting he exclaimed “Too true, too true!”
He chose not to display the painting publicly but kept it private, to be viewed by family only, and it remained unknown to the public for many years. It remains in a family gallery to this day.
The reference is intended as an homage, not a rip-off (although some apparently see it otherwise). Velasquez is well-known in art circles at least, and I’m not the first artist to “sample” his work.
Notably, he was also “referenced” by Pablo Picasso and Francis Bacon.
“An audience with this painting is a tense, claustrophobic experience. It is not so much a depiction of power as its embodiment in painting: this portrait creates a presence so fierce that the authority of the Papacy is distilled, preserved and with you as you consider your sins. It is the most acute study of personal power in the history of art.” The Guardian.
To my delight, of the commenters in the Jordan Peterson Facebook group picked up on my intentions:
“Pamphilj’s initial trepidation to let the artist portray him, and then later doing it reminds me of Peterson’s early reluctance to make his video critique of bill c16. (Although in my experience, most don’t really know about this, although it is not difficult to presume). Aside from the religious component - which I think some of us critics here are emphasizing to a degree beyond reasoning - the Portrait of Innocent the X is described on Wikipedia as “the portrait of an intelligent, shrewd, and aging man.” Spot on, in my admittedly biased opinion.”
Reflections.
My favorite comment of all is this one, from a commercial photographer in the Jordan Peterson Facebook group:
“David W Gray Your picture has triggered lots of negative responses, but I hope you able to respond- either in the comments or in an edit. Editorial portraits don’t always represent facts or even the author’s own opinions. They can also describe the public mis-perceptions of a person, and we surely know JBP is demonised wildly be people who haven’t read a word he’s said. So, the responses show it’s a powerfully affective work, and I’d really like to hear the context.”
There’s a saying (of disputed provenance), “We see things not as they are, but as we are.”
Which is perhaps another sign of a good portrait. It teaches you something about yourself. You can see yourself in it. It provokes reflection. It makes you see yourself, or your life, in a different way.
I’m pleased that my portrait reveals so many facets of this phenomenon, provokes such a diversity of responses, and even generates some thoughtful reflection and discussion. I have no idea how Jordan Peterson himself would react to this image, but I am pretty sure he would defend my right to create it.
Update: As I’ve had the opportunity to have deeper discussions with people who’ve seen and reacted to this, I discovered that Peterson “fans and followers” tend to see this as a ridicule/mockery of him, while the other side (critics? anti-fans?) see it as admiring/laudatory. Just about everyone who has strong feelings about him (both positive and negative) see this art as a weapon of the other side. What does that say about it?
What does it mean to you? Please share your thoughts in the comments.
My first take on this, in a word: provocative. More words: Intentional, enigmatic.
I am not familiar with Jordan Peterson, but this is something that I will fix soon.
I have met Dave Gray, and I'm a fan, but I cannot claim to know him (well, you, Dave) though I'd like to!
Congrats on the new venture. I hope this marks the start of a fulfilling journey.
Jordan Peterson + A catholic symbol of power = Pain and Suffering? (you asked for an immediate reaction)
Jordan Peterson – Is seeking truth painful or joyous? For Peterson, it seems knowing is more important than happiness. I am in no position to judge.
Dave Gray and Jordan Peterson = provocative, inquisitive, unique
Spirituality? Essential. Do I act as if it is?
“know?”
Do I know Dave Gray? We have had great conversations and shared interesting experiences in the past. I have been an admirer of his for years and I enjoy his inquiring mind. There is much I do not know about him, his personal challenges and deeper intentions. This particular provocation has made me, and others reflect, respond, and yield something. This is Dave's calling.
Do I know Jordan Peterson? No. I have listened to his lectures and followed his more recent conversations. I think he is misunderstood by many, not because he fails to explain but because others fail to hear. I find his emotional moments of sincerity on YouTube deeply powerful – often it is compassion, sometimes personal suffering. I feel he has grown recently in humility and gratitude.
Myself? Do I know me? No. I do like some of what I know of me.
I noticed I have a lot of questions? Typical.