[Rick Mullin]

Correcting the Portrait

Extinguishing Lawton’s divine tongue of light
with a hammer and chisel. It still isn't right.

Suzanna-Lee’s aura, in need of repair,
comes down to the question of halo or hair.

Salina was happy with sitting for hours.
We’ll add bitter rue to her tin can of flowers.

I managed to pen-in a session with Rose
whose spirit evades me. That’s life, I suppose.~

One sitter objected to what Matisse drew.
Matisse said, "It isn’t a picture of you."

Picasso delivered a similar line
when met with demurrals from one Gertrude Stein.

That's after he’d scraped off a third of her face,
brought it home and re-scumbled his own in its place.

___


Title was: Correcting Portraits

Tweeks:

"bizarre" was "divine" in line one. Then a reversion.

Matisse de-italicized in line 9, halo and hair de-capitalized in line 4


Line 4 was: comes down to the question of halo or hair. It is that again after "leans into the gray space of halo and hair"

.

[Susan McLean]

I like it, Rick. But why did you italicize Matisse in S5? The name didn't seem to need special emphasis. Anyone who recognizes it will understand its significance.

Susan

[Matt Q]

Hi Rick,

I enjoyed this sonnet in couplets. The first stanza initially sent my reading off in the wrong direction (see below), but I ended up reading this as four stanzas about the N correcting his own portraits, or deciding how to, and in most cases not being able to get his portraits right. The remaining three stanzas, the turn, give what, by extension, reads to me as an excuse used by Matisse and Picasso for not getting their own portraits right -- in the sense of not capturing their subjects -- and that, by further extension, the N is also claiming this. I could also take it to be saying something about portraits more generally, that the portrait painter is, in some sense, always painting himself (or something other than the sitter).

It that reading is correct, I wonder a bit about S2, and how well it fits. In S1 and S4 it's seems clear that he fails to correct the portrait, or will fail to. In S1, the tongue "still isn't right" and in S4 failure seems inevitable -- since Rose's spirit evades him he won't be able to capture it. S3 doesn't seem to imply anything is wrong with the painting currently, just that it could be improved, but given the wordplay on "rue" and the description of Salina sitting happily, I guess he's getting it wrong here, too. Unless I'm missing something, in S2, while the aura is wrong, needs correction, the S only shows the N deciding how to proceed, he seems to know, more or less, what the portrait needs (halo or hair). Failure doesn't seem to be implied.

S1 had me thinking of Leonard Cohen -- "divine tongue of light" resonates with some of his lyrics and his style. And that maybe that the painting was a portrait of Cohen, or maybe someone else's portrait of Cohen (or even a portrait that Cohen had painted) that I perhaps should know, but didn't. So I started out thinking that maybe the subsequent portraits might be of/by people I should recognise, and that, given the title, the N is correcting other people's paintings -- an idea I liked, incidentally. Obviously, my ignorance of portrait art was likely a contributing factor in this. By S3 it started to seem more likely that N was talking about his own paintings and sitters, whose names weren't significant. Though in S3 was quite sure who "we" were. Perhaps the "royal we" and not the plural. And S4 confirmed that reading. Anyway, that's a very long way of saying that if Cohen wasn't your intention in S1, maybe a name change might help --at least for Leonard Cohen fans, anyway!

In S4, I like the double word play on "that's life" with "life" suggesting "life-drawing" and working with "spirit", to suggest life can't be captured. But there's something about ending on "I suppose" that felt maybe a little unsatisfying. Too easy maybe? But it's a very minor nit. I guess you might look for a way to end the line on "that's life" and have Rose be "Theodore's wife", say.

Like Susan, I wondered at the italicisation of Matisse.

best,

Matt

[David Callin]

Hi Rick. I like all the examples, although I wonder about the relevance of hammer and chisel to a portrait. (Am I being unnecessarily narrow in my understanding of "portrait"?)

I also wonder about the final couplet (they all work well, metrically - except maybe the last line of the closing couplet). Rather than, somehow, summing up or rounding off the poem, it just refines the previous example. I'd prefer some sort of grander or more formal conclusion, but that's probably just me not understanding your intention here.

A pleasure to read, anyway.

Cheers

David

[Nick McRae]

Originally Posted by Rick Mullin

Matisse said, "It isn’t a picture of you."

Matisse reads as one stress to me here. I wonder if the line would read better as:

Matisse replied, "It isn't a picture of you"

[James Brancheau]

I liked this immediately, Rick, even though I don’t know at least half of the people mentioned here. And I had to look up the Picasso-Stein situation—which was interesting and glad I did. Apparently she did sit for him for quite some time and then refused to do so later. So he had to finish her portrait from memory. Or at least that’s what I read. And the finished painting does resemble him. That in itself is a poem. And it makes for a great close here. The portrait of someone else is in some (significant) way a portrait of the artist. Or at least that’s something that comes to mind. (And that general idea does seem to come up in other couplets.)

If I’m on to something, I do wonder if that’s the best title. And even if I’m completely missing the boat, “Correcting” somehow seems a bit flat, especially as this is about art. That may well be intentional, but I’m not quite seeing it yet. That’s my only nit, partly because I really like the poem and partly because I’m probably unqualified to get down and dirty with it.

I love “aura” with “Halo or Hair” (though I don’t know why they’re in caps) and “That’s life, I suppose.” Which I thought could perhaps end the poem before I looked up the Picasso bit. Anyway, I like the poem a good deal, even if I’m painfully ignorant regarding at least some of the situations.

[Rick Mullin]

Thanks Susan. I suppose it isn’t necessary to italicize Matisse. I did it partly to emphasize the stress on tisse, but also to convey the thought than even Matisse was challenged about the “likenesses” in his portraits. I’m considering normalizing it, but I still kind of like it as a direction to the reader for reading the name (…something I usually don’t like in poems).




Thanks Matt.


I’m aware that it will take some consideration on the reader’s part to get at what I’m trying to get at here. But your reading gets it. Behind it all is the question: What is a portrait?




In stanzas two and three I’m raising considerations. In stanza two, halo vs hair (I should lower case these) gets at the balancing of physical and spiritual in an effort to arrive at something more essential that a superficial likeness. Stanza three might show N making some headway here—despite the seemingly happy aspect of the sitter, something darker or unhappy enters the picture. Yes, stanza one is about frustration, clearly. Stanza four is about futility. So much for my intention in the four stanza, which I hope set the stage for a realization and a dispensation in the sestet. 




Ha! about Leonard ~,:^) I chose the name randomly to replace the name of the actual sitter (yes, I have taken a hammer and chisel to paintings with the objecti of improving them). I came back to the poem later and thought of Leonard Cohen. I should not have dismissed this concern, apparently. I will come up with a new name or go with the “real” name, Lawton. 




The "we" is a kind of flip deployment of the royal, which I like. N taking himself so seriously and all.




Glad my use of “that’s life” comes across as a reference to several things—the meaning of the common expression and the reference to life drawing. Also, perhaps, the notion that a portrait is more than a static likeness. It is a soft line, but I like it as a setup for a new look at things in the lines to come. A good pre-volta, in other words.




Thanks as always for the close reading and detailed response.





Thanks David,


Indeed, as I told Matt, I have removed dried oils paint on a picture supported by a board (as opposed to cavas) with a hammer and small chisel. Not often, but recently, thus this recent poem.




I think the closing couplet keeps up the trimeter beat well enough:




That's AF ter he’d SCRAPED off a THIRD of her FACE,
brought it HOME and re-SCUMbled his OWN in its PLACE.

Perhaps I am treading too lightly on “brought”, but with the rhythm established at that point, I'm hoping it swings the reader around. Let me know how you are reading it if this seems wrong.




I like the statement at the end bringing in the realization, thanks to Picasso’s shenanigans, that there is something of the self portrait to any portrait, which I think resolves the poem satisfactorily.


Thanks Nick,




I’m pretty sure that line works:

 MaTISSE said it ISn’t a PICture of YOU. 




I don’t see how your suggestion scans in trimeter.

 Let me know how you are counting my line and yours.





Thanks James,



Yes, the title. Tremendously unpoetic, which I kind of like as the poem launches from the standpoint of craft and tactics in the studio after the poetic fact. I also need a title that immediately establishes context. Perhaps “Correcting My Portraits” would be better. Or maybe something completely else. Under consideration.

Glad you like “halo/hair” and “that’s life I suppose.”


Picasso’s response to Stein’s “It doesn’t look like me” wittily brought the sitter up short, as did Matisse’s response to the exact same reaction from a sitter. But with a twist. Picasso said, “It will.” And he was right! When I visualize Gertrude Stein, I don’t see the few photographs of her that I'm familiar with. I see the painting, which is at the Metropolitan Museum of art. She is less posed or possessed in the painting and less aware of having her "picture taken", which has a lot to do with it, I suppose.


Thanks folks.

[Nick McRae]

Originally Posted by Rick Mullin

Thanks Nick,



I’m pretty sure that line works:

 MaTISSE said it ISn’t a PICture of YOU. 


I don’t see how your suggestion scans in trimeter.

 Let me know how you are counting my line and yours.

I'm trying to give myself a lesson in meter but coming up short.

'Ma' is so soft that I'm omitting it, then I get 'TISSE said' which sounds a syllable short to me, and also semantically off (one would usually reply to the prior line, not state).

Everything else reads smoothly to me although I don't pick up much of a discernible pattern with a quick read (I'm not trying to). But in this line I'm getting a bit of tension. Whether 'replied' fits the pattern of the other lines, it's hard to say, but it fixes the problem for me.

[Rick Mullin]

Hi Nick,

Yes, the Ma is kind of a jumping off point. Most lines have this. The dactyl starts with tisse and goes on to said it. Isn't begins the next dactyl. The lines end in stressed syllables, which introduces the notion of anapest. Hair and halo, I guess, but trimeter.

I've changed the title to "Correcting the Portraits", adding "the", which softens it a bit. Also begins the trimeter beat. An improvement?

Also, line four has changed to "leans into the grey space of halo and hair."

[Jim Moonan]

.
My immediate association when I read "Leonardo" was DaVinci. (It was Leonardo, wasn't it? Maybe not.) Fwiw, I don't see L. Cohen either. So I'm glad you changed it to Lawton. But why Lawton? What made you give him a "divine tongue of light" in the first place?

The hammer and chisel threw me too. Can something like putty knife or pallet knife be worked in to fit the meter? It is impossible to know that this is paint being chipped from a board and definitely leads me to think of sculpture vs. painting. Not that there's anything wrong with that : )

I absolutely love the idea that every portrait is something of a self portrait. If your title was what you considered but haven't used (“Correcting My Portraits”) it would allude to that truth.

I like your small changes i.e. lower case "h" for halo and hair (and love the distinction between the two).

I also smiled when I read your explanation of how you pronounce Matisse. I've said it aloud ten times since reading your note and you're absolutely right about the brevity/softness of Ma. It's more of a M'tisse. It's barely uttered. It's muttered : ) I don't spend enough time reading poetry aloud and am always enlightened when I do.

The first four couplets are referring to you and your subjects and getting it right. You then shift gears and move to icons Matisse and Picasso. Although I don't mind the leap, I wondered why others haven't mentioned the suddenness of it. It's definitely relatable but it makes me think how the poem might have ended if you did not bring Matisse and Picasso into it. One reason for keeping them: the final couplet is sensational.

One more thing. I love the first name identification of the sitters. In the end, they own the poem. Especially Rose and her evasive spirit.


.