Collected Collector II (Portrait of Dorothy) c. 1983

Curator: This painting is titled "Collected Collector II (Portrait of Dorothy)", by Michael Clark, likely completed around 1983 using acrylic paint. The composition feels almost like a flattened Byzantine icon... Editor: It strikes me as surprisingly serene, considering it’s a portrait rendered with a sort of muted intensity. The way the grayscale figure pops against that almost cotton-candy pink background gives it this strange, dreamlike quality. Curator: The limited palette focuses our attention on form and the subject's expression. The light and shadow aren’t hyperrealistic, creating this sense of an internal reality projected outward. The slightly upward gaze—the viewer is almost at her sternum—is interesting too. What symbolic resonances do you find in it? Editor: Pink itself is fascinating; often linked with innocence, femininity—sometimes even naiveté—it’s like he’s subtly layering meaning onto her persona. But she seems to defy those expectations; the almost architectural cut of her bob suggests something practical and thoughtful. And it contrasts strikingly against her soft, slightly quizzical smile. The way the colour blocks and lines separate suggests fragmentation. Curator: And the title invites layers of interpretation as well. "Collected Collector" suggests someone defined by what she gathers, but there is something of value to unpack from her gaze as well. There's almost a sly, insider’s amusement. Editor: Right. It reminds me that collecting itself is a form of portraiture—of creating an externalized representation of our inner selves, or the person we wish to present to the world. But this portrait also has its own quiet way of presenting this subject with curiosity and dignity, I feel. There is grace and strength to what's not told to us here, it remains hidden, un-narrated, a mystery. Curator: A reflective, almost minimalist approach to portraiture then—quite arresting in its subtlety. Editor: Yes. It resonates long after you look away, wouldn't you agree?