autobiography and portraiture

How did the artist represent himself?

Compare to this self-portrait when he was younger, and explain what they reveal about their author.

Joshua Reynolds, self-portrait (detail) aged around 24, National Portrait Gallery, London 

Proposal of an answer: Describe them and explain what they reveal about their author. 

These two self-portraits represent the painter at two different ages. 

Young portrait: the artist is young and represented as a painter holding a brush, maulstick and a palette, caught in the act of painting what probably is his self-portrait, since he seems to be shading his eyes to observe something (a mirror?), possibly looking at his reflection, but it could also be construed that he is looking at the horizon, symbolizing his future and what it holds in store or him. Another interpretation could be that he is looking at the viewer and he seems to be wondering / puzzled / anxious - about the reception of his art?

"As has always been recognised, it responds to the work of Rembrandt with sensitivity and intelligence, in its immediacy, its carefully controlled tonalities and the striking pattern of light and dark on the face, a favourite device of the Dutch master in his self-portrait etchings. This is the only certain self-portrait by Reynolds to show the artist at work." (source)

Older portrait: the atmosphere is completely different. Here the artist is posing for his portrait in a traditional way, faithful to Dutch portraitists Van Dyck or Rembrandt (he is wearing a black velvet beret, typical of artists), next to a bust (of Michelangelo). He is once again looking directly at the viewer, yet, this time, he seems much more self-assured / confident, even proud of himself. 

These two self-portraits reveal a lot about the painter, not only his physical appearance (as seen through his eyes) but also his rank in the society (through his clothes and pose) as well as his inner feelings. The eyes are central in both paintings since they create a link with the viewer. 

2. From self-portrait to autobiography: what do these two styles have in common? In what way do they differ? 

In both self-portrait and autobiography, the author / narrator gives the viewer / reader their point of view on their physical appearance, their feelings and even their nature and in both, the question of truth is at the core (is the author telling us the truth about himself / herself? / could we be manipulated? Is it even possible to be really truthful?). Yet they also differ. In an autobiography, the author can tell the readers about his / her whole life, can give much more details, on purpose or innocently. Most of the time, a self-portrait represents the artist at one point in his / her life, in one given context. 

3. In your opinion, why does someone write his or her autobiography? 

Because they think people might be interested in their life

because they want to testify about something (a personal experience / a special time in history…)

because they need to confess something

because they want to be famous

because they want people to remember them after they die… 

--> The Autobiographical Pact: "Philippe Lejeune’s definition of autobiography as a pact between reader and writer, confirmed by the use of the author’s name for both protagonist and narrator, is useful in that it gives a straightforward technical means of defining the genre, distinguishing it from the novel and allowing the critic to bypass endless discussions about truth, sincerity and intention (Lejeune, 1989: 3–30)" (source)

The characteristics of autobiography is the use of the first person, in a reflective/retrospective narrative written in prose, where the focus is the life of the author/narrator.

The implicit pact between the author of an autobiography and the reader is the truth of the events described