I understand that some believe there's no better and no worse it's "just a matter of taste" (though this clearly doesn't apply in most other areas of art) but I think that one has to recognize that it appears better artists, or more care or more time, was taken with certain players and not others. That's why, in general, most of the Hall of Fame portraits are clearly finer art than most of the commons (although exceptions abound), and also true for most of the HOF poses. You can see it in details and facial features, which can get pretty ragged in a lot of commons but not many HOFers. That's why some of us are down on, say, the Speaker, which may be an unusual batting shot but poorly executed.
The artist who executed, say, the Johnny Evers portrait was probably not the same one who did, say, Miller Huggins. And so on. Someone made Marquard too tubby in that hands-at-side shot, but as usual with the HOF art a lot of care was taken with the background color. And so on.
|