In the National Portrait Gallery there are two paintings of the poet Robert Browning, one by Rudolph Lehmann and one by Watts.  Now the former portrait is probably much more “like” the poet as the people who met him casually saw him.  But Watts’s portrait is like the man who wrote the poetry, and Lehmann’s is not.  Browning was a particularly difficult subject in this respect, in that to a casual observer there was much more about his external appearance to suggest a prosperous man of business, than the fiery zeal of the poet.

These portraits by Watts will repay the closest study by the student of portraiture.  They are full of that wise selection by a great mind that lifts such work above the triviality of the commonplace to the level of great imaginative painting.

* * * * *

Another point of view is that of treating the sitter as part of a symphony of form and colour, and subordinating everything to this artistic consideration.  This is very fashionable at the present time, and much beautiful work is being done with this motive.  And with many ladies who would not, I hope, object to one’s saying that their principal characteristic was the charm of their appearance, this point of view offers, perhaps, one of the best opportunities of a successful painting.  A pose is selected that makes a good design of line and colour—­a good pattern—­and the character of the sitter is not allowed to obtrude or mar the symmetry of the whole considered as a beautiful panel.  The portraits of J. McNeill Whistler are examples of this treatment, a point of view that has very largely influenced modern portrait painting in England.

* * * * *

Then there is the official portrait in which the dignity of an office held by the sitter, of which occasion the portrait is a memorial, has to be considered.  The more intimate interest in the personal character of the sitter is here subordinated to the interest of his public character and attitude of mind towards his office.  Thus it happens that much more decorative pageantry symbolic of these things is permissible in this kind of portraiture than in that of plain Mr. Smith; a greater stateliness of design as befitting official occasions.

It is not contended that this forms anything like a complete list of the numerous aspects from which a portrait can be considered, but they are some of the more extreme of those prevalent at the present time.  Neither is it contended that they are incompatible with each other:  the qualities of two or more of these points of view are often found in the same work.  And it is not inconceivable that a single portrait might contain all and be a striking lifelike presentment, a faithful catalogue of all the features, a symbol of the person and a symphony of form and colour.  But the chances are against such a composite affair being a success.  One or other quality will dominate in a successful work; and it is not advisable to try and combine too many different points of view as, in the confusion of ideas, directness of expression is lost.  But no good portrait is without some of the qualities of all these points of view, whichever may dominate the artist’s intention.