Juan

Your recent post on Picasso has left me wondering just who it is that "wants it both ways". You admit to "downplaying" Picasso's drawing abilities, have recently seen evidence of his early skill, have disputed the authenticity of same, and finally imply that those who appreciate modern art are the ones who insist on citing early drawing skills to justify the value of their "mature work". Perhaps I was not clear in my earlier post when I tried to point out that defending modern art by noting evidence of drawing skills of artist such as Picasso is usually PROVOKED and I used the example of Tom Wolfe (again) who has said "Picasso could not draw". Why would that be neccessary if we measure the artist by their work which, in my mind, has enlarged the range of things to be made, created, and expressed and should not, does not, need to be exclusive or threatening to classic/realistic painters.

It seems that the only thing worse then believing that modern artist cannot draw is learning that they could/can.

The examples that I posted are dated in the 1920's and therefore long after Pablo was a teeny bopper and less likey to be bogus. Given that fact that his mode of expression departed from the illustrative/narrative purvasive mostly associated with classic realism and would not have given him much incentive to develope conventional drawing skills, they ain't too shabby.

I don't think those who practice or enjoy "modern" art find much reason to dwell on this question nor be as inclined (or bother) to diss our art form. It would seem that a lot more might be accomplished by focusing on those things that can make us better painters rather than beating up Freud, Picasso et al.

Jim and Juan:

It's all question begging, in the end, wouldn't you say?

What IS "good drawing" or "good art"?

Is traditional African or South Pacific art "bad" because it didn't/doesn't rely on "western" or "representational" tenets?

They used to be labelled "primitive": just who is being primitive here?

Heh heh....

Cheerfully,
Peter G

Peter,

I don't know what "question begging" means and have no idea what the question: ("who is being primitive?") asks.

Otherwise I think I agree. The discussion has been more focused on Freud and Picasso but there are many other categories of art that should not be critcized because they fail to meet the standards of conventional portraiture. My failure, I guess, has been my attempt to say that we, as artists, should be more inclusive. I would not have participated in this thread except to answer the suggestion that the above artists (among others I would guess) are incompetent, mean spirited, and will otherwise reside in a portrait artist hades sniffing toxic solvents and forever cut off from north light.

As Micheal Killelman said in the New York Times recently fidelity in art is about integrity and that were he an artist he might also do anything to narrow the unbridgable gulf between greatness and he. Unfortunately there are no shortcuts to genius. Lets get back to work.

...Well, since I am living in a free country I have the right to like or dislike anything I want. No-one can be forced to like the work of Picasso or Freud or whatever kind of art. No-one is obliged to like anything, and no-one should feel guilty for not liking something.

Apart from all these discussions or exchange of information about these artists (which is useful and educational), I just wanted to make that clear.

Peter

Jim, and Peter J:

"(to) beg the question" (Oxford English Dictionary)-"assume truth of the matter in dispute".

In this case, to assume, perhaps, that figurative, traditional "realist" Western approaches to art are "good" and that "good drawing" is part of that...

I would argue that "good drawing' is also about the quality of marks, the way the picture is put together (internal consistency, visual logic etc)

Is a native American totem pole "good art". Depends on the totem pole, maybe, that we happen to look at- but you get the drift...

Peter J: absolutely! Like whatever you like!

This has been a worthwhile thread, I think. For instance, I never would have seen those early Picassos if I hadn't been challenged by all this argument about Freud.

The "primitive" question, Jim: just questioning our assumptions about the sophistication of our own art traditions.

Maybe we need a new thread- ?? Gotta go. Thanks for the stimulus, everyone!

Jim, Peter(s), et al.;

Hmmm. This seems to be the longest post I have ever seen on this forum. Sorry about that. Do I get a prize? (I know, I'll get the "blowhard" award.) Anyway, if no-one responds for a week, or a month, or ever, I will understand. In order to respond you will have had to read the darned thing and digest it. Perhaps I'm just getting things off my chest. But, for those who are interested, or who are like me and have no life . . . enjoy:
------------------

This line of discussion invariably leads to no clear resolution, but I find it interesting and challenging nevertheless. With that in mind, I shall press on with my lengthy essay.

First, I agree that all are free to like what they like and I'm not about to suggest that that shouldn't be so, or that certain types of art should be disallowed. My difficulities with Modern art and with Picasso--as one of its chief architects--are based on my admitted bias toward representational art as found in the Western tradition. Also, they are based on my perceptions as a practitioner of this art among my peers rather than as someone saying simply what he likes or doesn't like. I am very much of the "live and let live" school of thought, and I don't challenge every single person every single time they say they like some picture that I don't like. But here, I am among artists.

There are a couple of things to get out of the way before expanding on the issue of Picasso and Modernism, though. When we speak of Western art and are deciding whether it is "good", "bad" or otherwise, it is irrelevant to compare it to, say, African, Native American, or Polynesian traditional arts. These are all completely different things. You might call them folk arts, or traditional, spiritual iconography, what have you. They have their own set of rules and systems without which they would not be what they are. They are also, for the most part, culture-dependant. On the other hand, Western (European) art has its set of systems and traditions, so it should be judged within those. But, unlike traditional systems, it is open to all because it no longer depends upon having grown up in any one specific culture or being a part of any specfic spiritual practice. So, anyone around the world can practice Western-style art without being questioned for it. And they do.

If Picasso, or anyone else, made pictures based in part on the folk traditions of other cultures, does that then mean these works should be compared to those traditions or to other work held within Western art galleries and museums, for instance? I think the artists themselves would choose the latter, wouldn't they? By-and-large, if you're not an aboriginal American and don't adhere to their spiritual practices, you have no business doing art that you expect people to call aboriginal American art. You may, however, do art that is inspired by, or based upon those traditions, as l'm sure a number of artists have done over the years. Similarly, if we today see the work of Chinese artists that is done in the Western representational vein, do we only compare these works to traditional Chinese paintings? No. We compare them to what they are. Anyway, the point is, I'm not saying Western art is better or worse than anything in particular, although it is what I prefer.

Now, that being said, what do I look for in art? (I'll refrain from using "Western" every time I use the word "art" from now on. I wish the adjective to be implied). As someone who is proud of my hard-won drawing and painting skills, as I'm sure the rest of you are and rightly should be, what I look for and admire in art is demonstrably good drawing and/or painting skills. If the work doesn't have much evidence of that, why should I admire it? To me, good drawing, at the least, is the fundament of good art. Once I say that, of course, there are those who will say (and have said), "Oh, you want everything to be the same." Or, "You just like "pretty" pictures." Or, worst of all, "You should be more open-minded." I see, so unless and until I like everything equally well, then I am closed-minded? More accurately, until I like what they like, I am closed-minded. Hmmm?

Here is a small sampling of some artists--much of whose work I do admire (in no particular order): Maxfield Parrish, Hokusai, Rosa Bonheur, Gustav Klimdt, Alphonse Mucha, Uderzo, Bruno Liljefors, Pietro Annigoni. I have left out hundreds, obviously, as well as the Old Masters, whom everyone seems to like. However, if you are familiar with the works of the artists I listed, you will note there is no sameness about them at all and they represent a huge range of styles, subjects, and expression--ranging from Naturalism to animals to comic art. I submit, though, that they could all draw pretty well. I also try not to like artists as such, but rather, I like (or dislike, as the case may be) pictures. I don't like every picture that Annigoni, Bouguereau, or Rembrandt ever did, but I like a lot of them.

All of which--believe it or not--brings us to Picasso. So here's a guy who, apparently, could draw well but chose not to. What am I to admire in that? According to Jim, Picasso (and others) gave us new ways to see and to express ourselves. I agree that a great change was brought about by them and it is, after all, history. Nothing we can do about that. But, does that mean that it is somehow "good"? Is a new and different way to keep someone conscious while they are being tortured, a "good" thing? Right, so newness and different-ness do not necessarily represent goodness or progress in the positive sense.

Once Picasso and others started drawing and painting crudely and being lauded for it, a lot changed. For one thing, people stopped knowing how to look at well-drawn and well-painted work (I can expand on this if anyone wishes it). It also made art more accessible, but not how the hype would have had it. Modernism was, in part, a backlash to "bourgeois" preferences and the result of a generally anti-establishmentarian rebelliousness of the turn-of-the-century. It was meant to be "the art of the people". But, the rank-and-file still couldn't afford to buy this artwork any more than they could the previous era's academic and other representational work. But, what the heck, since it obviously did not require especially adapted skills any longer, the "people" could now make their own art. Thanks to Picasso and his ilk, it was shown that art need not be made by skilled artisans who devote their lives to perfecting and advancing their discipline. Any idiot could do it so long as they were sincere and wanted to "express" themselves (Jackson Pollack instantly springs to mind). That continues to be all it takes--have a look inside any mainstream public art gallery.

Which brings me to the end of my polemic. Jim suggested that it was only the realist painters who make a big deal out of this and that it is really not an issue that is shared by the Modernist realm. I disagree. Although representational painting has survived in the 20th century, it has been despite a systematic attempt to undermine it. I'm not talking about some conscious conspiracy here, just something that has happened over time. Think about the following points: how many living representational artists were displayed in major public art galleries throughout the twentieth century? Not many. (Pennsylvania may be an anomoly because of its history with the Brandywine School and the Wyeths. I don't know). If they were, though, they did either grotesqueries (Lucien Freud) or cartoon-y work (David Hockney). Anyone who did or does representational work that has elegance or beauty or atmospheric illusion in it is dismissed, ridiculed, or called a "mere craftsman" or a "mere illustrator". Sadly, the people who say this do not have a clue how to make a picture. Further, have a look at any art history book or art encyclopedia written in the mid- to late-20th century and look up the names of representational painters. If they are even in there, read the kinds of adjectives used in the text. It will use words such as "conservative", "safe", "officially-sanctioned", "illustrative", "bougeois", etc. as modifiers. It will never be positive wording. (Recently, I had a look at a 700-page encylopedia of 20th century Italian artists; Pietro Annigoni does not even have a listing in it. And you wonder what I have to be upset about?). Representational artists are left out of modern art history books--except to be dismissed--out of art school curricula, and out of public galleries. Is this not systematic, or at least, systemic?

So, as representational artists who are steeped in a grand tradition and proud of our skills and accomplishments, just what is wrong with our using those enviable talents as a basis for exercising discernment and discretion? It is this very discernment why so often an artist (or Tom Wolfe) will say about Picasso, or whomever else, "Yeah, but he couldn't draw." Whether he could or couldn't draw, if it's not in the picture it's not in the picture. Do I then have to like it or else be labelled as some kind of narrow-minded reactionary? So it seems. Frankly, I'm surprised that there aren't more representational artists who are resentful of the damage wrought to our craft by the vagaries of the 20th century's art movements. I know that there is nothing we can do about history and that we are the sum total of it, which is why in my earlier post I said I wouldn't change it for a minute. But, do I then have to like and admire art that takes little skill, lore, and artistical intelligence to do? I admire a child-like drawing when a child makes it, not when an adult does. Do we admire adults who talk baby-talk, or who pound their fists on a piano or on a computer's keyboard? Do we then call them orators, musicians, or writers? No. But in art, it's exactly what we do and I, for one, don't like it.

Best to all and thanks especially to those who stayed with me and, after their nap and a light meal at base camp, finished reading.

Juan

Juan!

Wow! What can anyone say?

I haven't had time to consider this, and anything I might write at this point runs the risk of sounding glib.....

I salute the passionate honesty and integrity of your remarkable post.Thank you.

Peter G. :thumbsup:

Watch Ruby paint!!! - Maybe it's time to smile :-)
 

Here's my two cents worth
 

Picasso was the greatest artist of the twentieth century. This fact is undeniable. He revolutionized the art world by changing the artist's emphasis from creating art to promoting oneself. I think the evolution of this shift is twofold.

First, in my observation, it is a function of human nature to denigrate and invalidate that which intimidates. I believe the early modern artists were so intimidated by the perfection of the great nineteenth century masters, all they could do was invalidate it. Rather than undergo the vigorous training and effort necessary to surpass these masters, they took the easy way out and promoted their meager efforts as being more valid. After first brainwashing themselves, they set out to convince all others of the validity of their axioms and, as a result, elevated the zen of hype to an art form.

Secondly, the art establishment at the time realized they could sell far more bad paintings (good ones are much rarer) and enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon. After all, it is money and not aesthetics that runs the art world.

As a result of this modus operandi, the majority of contemporary artists first look for a hook and then convince themselves that their justification has validity. The result is a coining of jargon, such as

Peter J!

Actually, I kind of like Ruby's work. Fresh and unpretentious. Does she have a web site?

;) Peter G