We are likely all in agreement on that point (which isn't a bad place to be).

Apologies in advance if I've mischaracterized anyone's position.

Still waiting for that train . . .

Guys--

Thanks for a great discussion, as it's what I need to hear at this time in my development.

I've been on the accuracy search for a number of years now, wanting to be looser with technique, but feeling that correct observation and rendering was the string I've needed to play to its end. But now that I feel comfortable with the skills, I'm at the crossing and sometimes the train comes, and sometimes not. (Jim, thanks for a vivid and valuable metaphor that I'll cherish.) And now I'm trying to identify the factors that determine when it does.

I do now, and always will, believe that portraiture is the least forgiving genre for bad draftmanship--it's the arena where it's impossible to hide behind flashy technique alone. But without the spirit, as John notes, it's an empty exercise--what Burt Silverman calls "the verisimilitude trap." A pitfall I'd like to avoid.

Again, thanks--TE

Jim, I was just reading how Sargent absolutedly hated Alma Tadema's work even though the men were friends. He thought Tadema's work was too much focused on detail and not faithful to life (form, light and color) and was without personal style.

Tom, I have always thought going for verisimilitude was a good thing. It's quite different from going after a photo and being a slave to the line. I'm sure I don't understand what Uncle Burt meant precisely. I see so little awesome paintings with great depth - like a big Sargent, as seen from 35 feet. Now, when you get up close it's smears, but from 35' it looks real-similiar to veri. This I think is good. I'll bet Burt agrees huh?

I think it's worth remembering that the "train" of emotional communication with the viewer will happen for some viewers and not for others, with the very same painting.

I was recently stopped in my tracks (pun intended?) in front of a painting of a guy playing the trumpet. This same canvas had no effect whatsoever on any of the other artists/gallery hoppers who were with me that night. For me, though, that painting was an epiphany. Go figure.

Sounds like just another artist trying to horn in on the market.

I wanted to jump in with 2 comments. First of all, a kudos to Mr. de la Vega for the clarity and truth he so eloquently expressed in his posts here. I can quote just about all of them, but suffice is to say his words moved me to tears . His thoughts about the 'many floors of reality- with no fast elevators around', needs to be posted in our studios! There are no shortcuts, there are no set of directions used as a guide to achieve that elusive, abstract reason for the "aahhh" when we look at work that moves us. It just is.

Thank you Mr. de la Vega for validating what I personally believe in, and only hope to achieve with each new work I produce.

I just finished a commission that went over pretty well. They "oohhed and aahhed" for days, and of course, I was happy with that. 3 days later they pulled out their 'magnifying glass' and decided to make a few nit pik-ey comments. (such as, can you raise her cheekbones just a hair?). Well, my thinking and answer to them was, " if your first reaction was good and positive, why question it? why separate the whole? "

I did not agree with 2 of their 3 changes, and left it as is.

This has been an interesting thread.

Tim--

("Horn in"...ooooooh.)

I think what Mr. Silverman means, as much as I understand it from various conversations, is that for him, qualities that remind the viewer that it is a painting, not a copy of a photo--a painterly technique--are essential, else for him, why do it? Thus, if faced with a choice in a particular passage, he would sacrifice slavish "verisimilitude" (not accuracy) for a broader technique if it satisfied his need to feel the formal "stuff" of the painting, the paint itself, but more essentially and importantly, if it supported and reinforced the emotional content of the work. He loves the paint itself, and expects (and nearly always achieves) an emotional truth and power, and opts for that over a superficial illusion of actual reality on a 2-D surface that so many of us are fighting for. But he is also a consummate draftsman and the entry point to his art is in drawing.

So at the heart of it, I think he would agree with John's (and others) comments.

At least I would hope that he wouldn't disagree with my weak attempts to communicate what I've learned from him.

Love to all--TE

Maybe
 

We all may agree. This is what I like. It really sounds like what most everyone is saying.

JSS in the Art Institute, Chicago. Hannah and Dad

detail
 

Now for the kicker...here's a detail!


huh HUH! dig that! whew weeeeeeee.......

Tom,

Thank you for a very relevant post. I've had the pleasure of spending a lot of time with Burt Silverman - I wrote two articles on him, one for the ASOPA magazine and one for American Artist, and have drawn and painted in his classes at his invitation many a time when I lived in New York. I completely agree with your evaluation of his work and his thought.

Do you see his paintings at ARC? Maybe his brand of realism, truth and expression is considered too quirky, not 'safe' enough. I believe that certain forms of painting power can be threatening to individuals bent on espousing a certain party line based on 'good art' and 'bad art' - again, this idiocy against modernism proclaimed by people who ought to know better. God deliver us from such myopic culture philistines.

I will also be taking Burt's workshop organized by the Atlanta Portrait Society in November. Burt Silverman is, in my opinion, besides a great artist, the most intelligent, articulate, and inspiring teacher of drawing and painting I have ever been exposed to.