The voice of treason
 

Jim,

I fully agree with that Forum member who questioned the usefulness of reading the musings of an artist whose work one finds fault with. If he practiced what he preached his rhetoric is suspect at best. If he didn

Other one
 

Marvin,

It was the other one. To the credit of American Artist, they have done recent redeeming articles like the one featuring that wonderful human being and artist Morgan Weistling!

My bad
 

Tim- OOPS!

Or dudess. A number of members have spoken well of Harold Speed's books. The painting volume was revised to include an anti-modernism chapter. I should think that alone would elevate it above suspicion here, Dover publication or not. Even if not, reading outside one's specialty or ideological tracts is thought by some to be one of the hallmarks of the university education. More should try it. It's fun -- and bad for wars, international, internecine, and interpersonal. But "treasonous"? What an odious epithet and how unworthy.

My kids have been in a variety of public and private schools, in the U.S. and abroad. The amount of classical art they've been exposed to, and the kinds of art technique they've been taught, amazes me, because I'd always heard that no such things happened in traditional educational venues. I've learned firsthand the untruth of those claims. With no input from me, my 14-year-old son will often select a realistic exhibition catalog from one of my shelves and spend an hour or two working through it. He's a little more reluctant to wander with me through galleries and exhibitions, but only because I've dragged him through so many, and his young teen mind is on skateboarding and guitar riffs.

My daughter's at university, and upon first arriving at campus, I was hoping that a tour through the art building would be enligtening. It was, but disappointingly so. Apparently the resurgence of interest in realism hasn't successfully assaulted the citadels of academia. Were she an art student, we'd have had a pretty serious discussion about whether a degree in that program would be worthwhile. Certainly we wouldn't have decided that, well, it's awful stuff and you're not going to like the curriculum and it's four long years, but at least you'll have a degree -- and then professed outrage at its being worthless. Last I heard, no one in this country is compelled to stick with a course of study they consider worthless. Choices have been made. (Though, from another perspective, if the "worthless" degree makes one angry and frustated enough to take responsibility for finding the education and training he or she now wants, the degree isn't in fact worthless. It's a motivator, no accident. It was exactly what the student needed to develop maturity, make more discriminating choices next time, progress to the next level.)

Even with my children's good experience with art instruction in their schools, I don't abdicate my responsibility or privilege to try to enhance that classroom experience. If I want my kids to have an appreciation for the arts (visual, musical, literary), I don't say, Gee I hope they learn it in school, and unless I've been on the school board or an activist for changes in curriculum, I don't hold schools accountable for not teaching higher levels of art technique and appreciation that most adults have trouble with, if not disinterest in.

My instructors found artists to teach them, and those artists sought out their own instructors, all in an era in which such instruction has supposedly been unavailable. The people who were not to be turned away from their passions found their teachers, they didn't find excuses. In that respect, this vocation isn't any different from any other.

There's perhaps too much whining and scapegoating and mongering in all manner of prejudices and bogeymen, and not enough individual initiative and hard work.

Later . . .

There's a New Yorker cartoon in which two dogs are sitting in a bar and one says, "It's not enough that dogs win. Cats have to lose."

The lines here are sharply drawn, sometimes with unbridled vehemence, usually with strong feeling. I'm not sure how this cat and dog thread will play out, but I'm content that enough's been said to permit thinking and tolerant members to make up their own minds. I've had my say, thank you, and will now unsubscribe to this thread.

I've got a painting to work on.

Marv, I believe you have it bass ackwards. The gist of my post was to suggest a larger and inclusive view of art. Your suggestion is very singular and narrow. Your post does NOT offer an alternative view. It insists on one view/opinion only. If we were arguing religion you would suggest the exclusive teaching of one true religion where I would favor courses in comparative religion. I refuse to believe that you have to belong to my faith to be saved.

You seem to suggest specialization in education before the general where you might otherwise be better armed to know where your goals and training fit in the larger scheme of things. If one has lofty expectations and high hopes of making significant contributions to the visual arts, I would hope they might be willing to take on an ambitious course of study and risk being "dazed and confused". It's called education.

I am truly disappointed and amazed at the behavior of an irresponsible art teacher. My friends from the same school were quite surprised to hear the story and suggest that it was atypical. I am no less amazed to hear of 25 years of delay in getting the art training you sought. How is it possible?

My attempts on this thread have not been to sell a point of view but to give consideration to all points of view. I do not wish to draw a line or have a loser. I simply see no merit in characterizing those who conceive and paint differently than I as "snots", "snobs", and so on. I don't think the heathens eat babies and bark at the moon and simply do not think demonizing all else enhances our genre of painting. If inclusiveness and consideration of art as an experience larger than my own preferences and skills is in error, I plead guilty.

P.S. I have only heard the best things about Harold Speed's drawing book and I plan to add it to my next Amazon order. It will then pass it on to my young neighbor who now has all my other drawing books and thinks he may do someday what you and I enjoy doing as artists. My recommendation for Henri's The Art Spirit has little to do with his style of painting and is not a how-to book (although it contains quotes from critiques of student work) as much as it shares technical advice as well as those other intangibles that make paintings special. I promise you he does not sell a particular style of painting and you will find no threat.

This thread is a wealth of information! I love to see all the strong personalities jumping off my screen!

My brother in-law was the head judge for the Winter Park Art Show in Florida (I believe it has a lovely reputation) for many years. I can't comment on how the judging was done, but I am guessing by slides, even though he was fun to walk around with. We would just look together at a lot of beautiful artwork and played a game of finding litho prints - which were not supposed to be there. I wasn't there for final judging so I am not sure how it was received.

Marvin, in the same light he was also the Governor of the Advertising Federation and won their top national award. He did not judge Illustrator Arts but I am sure he did a CA Annual - most top agency owners seem to be called to judge - but I know that is some steep competition - kudos to you.

Side note - same brother-in-law was sick the day he was supposed to judge the "Chili Fest" so I got to fill in. You haven't lived until you have judge 50 variations of chili.

Or better yet, your 1st grade daughter wins the best-in-show for a paper bag fish she made in elementary school! So Mike I know how you feel. It is displayed proudly by my picture of Nancy Lopez and baseball signed by Barry Larkin.

P.S. I am surprised that you guys speak nicely of Thomas Kincade, because that whole art form makes me ill. I wonder if he studied under the guy who started velvet paintings. Or if his first retail spot was at the corner of a busy intersection with Elvis carpet and gym shoes. I think it is a shame too, how some really nice art shows have become craft fairs!

and...
 

Just once, I'd like to hear the winner of best of show say, "I'm glad one person liked one of my paintings." That's what most contests really mean.

Marv-in speaks
 

Jimbo,

My name is MARVIN. Marv is my evil twin and we never are allowed to mention him. Mommy cries if we do. BTW I really don

Amen Brother Marvin, Amen.

I am happy to contribute to the religious references. Of course, Jesus said He was the Way, the Truth and the Life, and yes, the gospel He preached was a very narrow way. But His message was one of love and redemption for those who believe, and I have experienced the reality of that love since I chose to believe the gospel many years ago, and that has been the guiding factor all my life. You might say that I am a Jesus freak. I am not ashamed of my faith. I do not demand that you believe the gospel, even if you ARE condemned if you don't! :) It is your choice! You of course have heard it all, so no need to elaborate. I reserve that for those who believe.

Art is nothing like faith. There are many ways to be an artist. I am happy that I learned some of the fundamentals of art as a child in private art school where the fundamentals were taught plain and simple. If I had waited until I got to college, I would likely not have learned them at all amongst all the liberal clutter of higher "education."

Art and Faith
 

Lon, I beg to differ. Religon is faith based, which means people feel or think (believe) they are right. The truth is people not of your faith feel the same way. Buddists feel their way is right.

Get a FUD from a university in art and you WILL feel and think that abstract art is the only and BEST way wise and learned people paint.

During the civil war someone asked Lincoln, "Do you think God is on our side?" Lincoln said,"In every great conflict of humanity both sides always say God is on their side. Both sides may be, and one side must be, wrong! I only hope we are on his side."

Free Choice, the great gift of life, religion and art. Great discussion guys!

We are given the gift of choice which gives us a ticket to get on the great bus of truth, and we can continue on the bus until we have all truth; or we can get off and explore that with which we feel comfortable, or all the truth we can bear and understand. Or we can get back on and continue from one truth to another.

We can persuade others to come with us, etc., but just as science at one point or another thinks it has encompassed all truth, only to be dashed when they realize that what they thought was true wasn't, they have to get back on the bus again and reevaluate the past. Just some thoughts of mine.

Tammy

This thread is getting off the original topic.

Ahaaaa, my intention to lighten this up did not work, nor did it bring it back to the topic of judging at art shows.

But I must say two things here...

I believe this could be said about any type of education received, bad teacher or students not absorbing the whole. There are those who excelled and those who got by. There is the casual weekend artist and the serious professional. I am sure the portrait painter is frowned upon by the "abstract" painter, as the acrylic, pastel portrait artist is likely frowned upon by the "oil" painter. Is this solely a matter of education?

Who are we to decide and judge? Some choose personal perfection as their highest of goals - not the "best in show" awards.

When one receives this "ribbon" one should be proud, because as, I think it was Tim said, it is recognition from your peers. There is nothing the matter with recognition. If you become too lofty, I think your art will be come a reflection of that! Humbleness is a virtue and to want to do your best is I believe a virtue too - but it is what you do with it.

Which brings me to my second thought. Some can view "religion" as an expression of "faith". Art is most definitely an expression of creativity. Art and religion are like bread and butter because our history would not exist without either.

Art was the camera that took the pictures of all religions. The artists' creativity expressed their faith.

We go from the Sistine Chapel to a painting of Mary with cow dung flung at it. Is it art? Is it creative expression? Is it religious expression? Does it deserve "best in show"? Who the heck was this artist's teacher? Who is best suited to judge this piece of "art"?

That's all I have to say onthe subject. Y'all have the last word. Thanks for your contributions.

I apologize, Marvin, for my slipup. No slight was intended. I will use Marvin from now on.

I couldn't help but think how appropriate your quote (below) would be if you simply substituted the word religion with art.

We have drifted, Cynthia, from the original question in part, I believe, because of suggestions implying control of the art shows by those otherwise described as "evil". I thought the gospels (whoever's) taught love and redemption for all (including sinners). But finding truth in art or religion apparently can result in condemnation if it does not match individual beliefs. It seems that you are free to believe in Eastern religion or Jackson Pollack but you will/should be ****ed if you practice it. I believe the discussion digresses but think it's in keeping with the definition of the Caf

I agree with Jim Riley, that this discussion is in keeping with the definition of the Caf

I think Andy Warhol gave the best definition I have ever heard about what is and isn't "art".

He said, "Art is whatever you can get away with."

One thing's for sure: he himself was the living embodiment of that idea.

I can't resist a further comment. Mary, you are right, I agree in that context.

Michelle, your point is well taken, too. That is why art is so different than faith, in my view. Faith is not "whatever you can get away with." My faith has some very very specific definitions, unlike art. My faith is totally defined and expressed in the person of Jesus, made real in our lives and revealed by the Holy Spirit.

However, I am tolerant of other people's faith, and art. That is what I love about America. All faiths can thrive here, and are protected. All Christians are not part of the KKK, as you insinuated by your burning cross comment, Jim.

And speaking of judges, I don't condemn as "evil" other art forms. I don't condemn people who are not believers, either. It is not my Gospel, and I am not the Judge.

If anyone wants to continue this discussion in some other venue, you are welcome to private message me. I am happy to discuss my faith or yours on-line, or off-line if the moderator prefers.

I'll follow your lead, Lon, revisiting at the end of this long dark night.

Warhol is long, long gone. Let him go, and release too all the teachers who supposedly kept us from enjoying classical art. They're dead, and of no further use to the anti-modernist cause. Going after Warhol is like refusing to visit Germany next year because that's where Nazis were a long time ago.

There's a breathtakingly inspiring outdoor sculptural museum not far away, here in Taiwan, which happens to feature an indoor gallery that includes Warhol's Mao-tse-Tung works (not unlike his Marilyn Monroe polytych). It's brilliant, and entertaining, and even funny. I so much enjoyed seeing it in person. When's the last time you toured an exhibition and walked out and said "That was fun!"?

I also saw, three weeks ago, a very accurate, representational depiction of Mao at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China, where the government killed its own citizens for having beliefs and sensibilities other than those authorized by the central committee. It was a perfect likeness, but there was nothing brilliant or enjoyable about it.

I hope we have different sensibilities here about permissible expressions of the creative impulse.

Let me now say, Cynthia, after pleading the continuation of this thread, that any discussion and attempts at defining "Art" should be another thread and I would hope that it would start with something more considerate than a definition from Andy Warhol. (said in what context?) (Where would this forum be without dragging up nonsense?) I am not recommending we do launch a new one, by the way, for many reasons. I fear a functional bias as evidenced on this thread and don't think it necessary in the discussion of art shows and judging. As Tammie suggested, even science can't be pinned down and is subjected to periodic review of "truths". How many "Salons" over the years have tried to nail down art definitions and proceeded to stifle the inevitable changes so characteristic of our trade?

I did not say or insinuate, Lon, that all Christians are part of the KKK. There was a little tongue in cheek in my comment intended as another dig on my part to those who are so quick to characterize a large part of the art world as having less virtue than the rest of us. I really did not intend to get down to the "snot", "evil" and "crap" level.

And, at the risk of being tiresome and seizing any opportunity to question input, here are recent quotes that seem argue your own point:

10/28/02 "I do not demand that you believe the gospel, even if you ARE condemned if you don't"!

10/29/02 "I don't condemn people who are not believers, either. It is not my Gospel, and I am not the Judge".
(?)

Robert Henri and John Dewey among other artists/teachers/art philosophers point out that the act of creating a work of art (among others things and activities) involves a connection of the artist with the past, the here and now, and a connection with the future. (Maybe that's why I feel that I know those artists that I admire most and feel a connection) They also note that the artist and his product require a respondent. Someone to communicate with and understand his intention.

Assuming artists regularly attempt to do this (as opposed to or for their own amusement) and an equally dedicated public is open and responsive, why would we assume the public (non-artist) less capable of good judgement regarding effectiveness of the messenger? Why are the customers less able to judge degree of success than the artist/manufacturer?

I believe it somewhat arrogant that we think we can better discern our ability to move or inspire our fellow citizen.

In short, I would argue the need or merit of having trained artists as judges (nor would I rule them out). It could be argued that any given artist would be biased regarding style, subject matter, media, technique, degree of difficulty, etc., and give these more consideration than effectiveness of effort. In fact, I have heard artists say that it might work against them, if, as a for instance, a portrait painter judged an open show and favored portraits and/or on the other hand, be more critical of that which he has greater knowledge.

I think it not fair to assume good judgement and evaluation art skill/abilty related. A flawed analogy perhaps would say that the diner without cooking skills should not judge the food.

Otherwise shows would be faced with finding the very best artist to judge shows. And can you imagine the difficulty finding one equally skilled at all subjects, media, and styles?

Yes!
 

Back party to the point!

I used to think non-artists were capable and good judges. Then over the years I've walked through museums, art shows, and chatted with more than a few of these non-creating art folks. All wisely defer to actual practicing painters.

Furthermore, everyone has prejudices...some folks are in denial and some are not. Better the art judges have informed and learned bias.

Picking up where Tim has left off