Let Me Paint You a Picture...

Those of you who don't have the dubious pleasure of living in the "National Capital Region" (what we sometimes call Washington, DC, and its environs) probably either never see or don't care about some of the news stories that become major issues here. The most recent such story deals with portraits.

It began, as near as I can tell, with this important story in The Washington Post: Official Portraits Draw Skeptical Gaze. The story described one of the key preparations in some government agencies for the coming change of administration - "As the Bush presidency draws to a close, portrait artists can expect a surge in business from Cabinet secretaries and other elite political appointees who want to preserve their legacies -- and their images -- for posterity." CNN later picked up the story as a commentary by Campbell Brown, and I'm sure it made the late-night talk show monologues as well, not to mention page-twelve-below-the-fold of many other newspapers.

The point of the articles was not that we shouldn't honor outgoing officials (at least some of them), but that formal portraits are an unnecessary expense at a time of economic travail. According to the original Post story, a formal portrait can cost anywhere from $7500 to $50,000 or more. A Commerce Department official quoted in the story said that the $35,000 cost of the portrait of outgoing Commerce Secretary Carlos Guiterrez is actually a bargain, given that most artists charge "anywhere from $50,000 to $75,000."

And that probably doesn't include the cost of the obligatory garish, gilt-encrusted rococo frame.

Another issue is that of who rates a portrait. The President and the Cabinet Secretaries? Probably. But how far down the organizational chart does it go? Does the First Principal Deputy Assistant Under Secretary of State for Putting Up with the French deserve a portrait? How about the Environmental Protection Agency's Assistant Director for Disposal of Reeking Solid Waste?

I don't know for sure, but I'll bet there's some obscure law somewhere that actually spells it out.

So...if we cut back on portraits, how do we honor outgoing officials? The traditional gold watch and Certificate of Appreciation don't seem appropriate to honor someone whose government service can, say, contribute to worldwide economic collapse or the tanking of America's image.

Some have suggested that we can reduce the cost simply by resorting to high-quality, high-definition color photographs. The problem there, of course, is that even high-quality color photographs will fade in a few years without special care, while portraits painted in the 1500s are still with us. We could cut down on expenses by hiring the right artist...Capt Picard's story of having his portrait painted demonstrates one approach. Sculpture is pretty expensive, too, and statuary tends to be fairly large and heavy (can you imagine the weight of a bust of Dolly Parton?).

So what's the answer? What level of government official deserves to be memorialized, and what's the best way to do it? One of my co-workers suggested a contest in which the government distributes paint-by-numbers pictures of worthy officials to grade-school children, then selects the best for display. We could also establish a sliding scale of memorialization:

President - oil painting.
Vice President - watercolor painting.
Cabinet Secretary - pencil sketch.
All Others - appropriate caricature selected from doodles done at boring meetings.

What do you think? I'm looking forward to your ideas.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo