Geertgen tot St. Jans
 

hmm... After reading all this...

When I see this painting done by Geertgen tot St. Jans in the 1480s. What a pity then that the art of painting ever 'matured', huh ?

Here is more information about this piece:
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/g/geertgen/virgin_c.html

I agree, Peter, with your comments regarding the painting by Geertgen tot St. Jans. The need to define "maturity" in technical terms may be a disservice to the study and appreciation of art.

There seems to be a strong desire to dismiss the early history of art which includes primitive work and that, of course, is nothing compared to the judgement of 20th century painting which at best is given a token nod that it might hold some small amount of value in the study of art.

I do not intend to rehash arguments about "modern art" but think it fair to note that any effort to take painting to some new level of "maturity" will require more than a return to and concentration of past "masters".

First of all I would argue that realism is not dead. It is, however, now part of a larger artistic pie following all that has happened over the last hundred years. I will avoid a discussion that would argue the idea that a grand and ongoing conspiracy of incompetent artist, dealers, galleries and the press have conspired and in turn have duped the art buying public. But, in fact, what has happened in the last hundred years has changed things forever.

Instead I would like to share some thoughts about the market (sales or effectiveness of our product). Firstly I have to say that any long-term success of a product does not depend on a salesman. Salesmen do not determine the market. The notion that the public buys a lot of work other than realism has little to do with a salesman "leading" a customer away from realism. Marketing groups usually want the artist/designer to produce more of what has been selling or something similar to the competition's latest hit. In the commercial world it becomes the role of artist/designer to study the history of a product, the current conditions, and to find among the vast array of influences what will generate/communicate to his customer. He attempts to meet and exceed the needs of that customer.

What has this to do with maturity of painting? A lot, I believe. Any hope that the school of painting that most of us practice will "mature", in my opinion, will depend on those painters who allow the input and influence of all that preceded them and find inspiration and enthusiasm for their own distinct style. To censor or invalidate efforts we do not agree with puts the student at a disadvantage. The general public does not do this and it is reflected in the diversity and enthusiasm they demonstrate in appreciation across all schools of painting. It can be maddening to know that a blob of paint can evoke aesthetic/emotional response from a viewer but to resent or deny it serves no constructive purpose.

In my opinion you are ignoring certain past market forces, trying to oversimplify them into the word "salesman" (among other things, including the job of critic, to explain in intellectual language, the obscure and so, esoteric) so I agree to disagree on this one.

and I sure enough agree to agree on this one whole heartedly.

Hardly maddening or even irritating. Any realist that doesn't understand the workings of blobs can't put together an effective mood and composition. It's basic.

However there is also no real need to stop at the well placed, sized, shaped, valued, intensitied, modulated blob either. The blob can certainly work well as part of a representational element still carrying its emotional content if used correctly. Blobs etc. are building blocks.

Of course there is no need to go further than just a blob either, especially when it requires more work, skill, time, learning, practice, and effort to go further. Perhaps we should all stop banging our head against the ceiling in an effort to raise it and just paint emotional little blobs laughing all the way to the bank? Perhaps not, but there was a time when many felt pressure to do so (for whatever reasons). They may have been serious about their work and their exploration, but the pressure on them still existed in areas of the Art world and Artist's training.

Regardless of which came first, the chicken or the egg, there was too wide a swing of non-inclusiveness that happened not all that many decades ago. Instead of the twin track of realism and abstraction etc. there existed a certain mindset/prejudice that sought to close out realistic works to a degree that went too far ("oh THAT! THAT is JUST illustration").

That particular mind-set turned out, I think, to be destructive to a certain body of knowledge, in certain halls of learning,. It did sway some minds, which is neither here nor there, but it also left many short on skills and knowledge they wanted at the outset. That

Carl, this is a great quote!

All areas of human interest perfect themselves over time. That persons involved in the craft of making art should be exempt from such normal growth is absurd. Don't you agree? So, if this growth and thus maturity, happened, then it happened at a certain time.

Tim--

Again, I see your point, but that growth and maturity in my opinion is cumulative OVER time and not occurring at any CERTAIN time. Both in art and in life.

It's as if I say that my maturity happened at age 21 and has been fixed ever since. God, I hope not.

I still believe to take a point of specific stylistic development in painting history and saying that it was the ultimate point in achievement is to narrow the focus (and perhaps the attention) too rigidly. Why not take nourishment from the whole smorgasbord?

But hey, debating this stuff is fun, and may be beneficial in the end.

Best regards as always--TE

(Also, let me add my congrats on your being designated a Living Master at ARC.)

My reference to "Salesmen" recently was not intended to be restrictive. I used the term intending to point out that the entire body of the art world, in it's broadest sense, has not forced fed nor has that community affected in any material way the popularity and eventual purchase of any school of painting. Who reads what critics have to say? I never run across anyone, artist or pedestrian, who has formed an opinion or preference for one type of art over another based on the offerings of a critic, dealer, gallery, etc. I don't think my world is so limited that I would have missed any ongoing efforts to dismiss realism and/or any other of graphic arts, illustration, and commercial endeavors.

I agree that art does not escape the need for time and growth but the question of what will advance that historical "maturity" and what form will it take are the difficult questions. And, in the meantime, I don't understand the need to fault the rest of the world for not falling over themselves to pay homage to realism. And why is it necessary to characterize those artists doing work other than realism as less than sincere and not skilled?

Where the kind of painting that we love to do will go and how it "matures" is anyone's guess but I think we must get over the idea, real or perceived, that some kind of barriers, ceilings, or stone walls must be overcome to do our best and to be appreciated in any significant way. Never has more information, professional groups, Societys, videos, seminars,workshops, forums, Internet accessibility, etc., been available and there remains little excuse for anyone to not be his/her very best.

The other kind of maturity that has to take place is to gain the understanding that as hard as we work and with the noblest intentions, only a very few will ever be remarkable enough to be remembered. As difficult as that might be to deal with, finding specious reasons outside our own ability will not provide much comfort. There is no conspiracy.

I have made my living in the applied and fine arts and have never experienced anything other than high regard for my profession and have been able to enjoy what I do with nothing more to overcome than my own ability and my focus continues toward improvement.

As Tom has noted maturity is not fixed.

Jim--

Amen, and amen.

While I tend to agree with others that 20th Century non-realism and abstraction was an aberration, not the main trunk of the developmental tree as we were taught, it's really an attitude born of my current bias toward realism and my irritation that the artists that I now admire weren't mentioned in my art history training. In the mid-70's, I thought all of those guys in MOMA were gods, too. Debating whether they should have gotten any attention, or that they only did so because they were the darlings of a critical elite is pointless, because that horse is already out of the barn. Trying to rewrite history is a futile pastime.

As for the present marketplace, I agree that there's no conspiracy. People buy dogs playing poker, kids with big eyes, big ol'abstracts, gas grills, and red towels for a variety of reasons, most entirely personal. Nobody's putting a gun to their heads about any of it. The quality work is available for those that recognize it and want it.

I'm not mad at anyone. Most of the time I just feel very fortunate to be able to have any income at all from painting. History has not always been so kind, even to realists.

Cheers--TE

What was actually said

Please, Carl

You have taken my comments far more personally than was intended. My post was not addressed to you because it was in response to some of the comments made by you and others on this thread and it also reflects oft stated beliefs and assumptions that disparage artists and work not of our school of preference as well as questionable damage done by non-realists.

I also didn't feel compelled to limit my comments to previous posts knowing these discussions might be read or considered beyond the recent contributors to this thread.

If banging your head against a ceiling are your words for self improvement then why is it necessary to suggest in the same statement that it would be easier and more profitable to paint and sell "emotional blobs"?

You may have sucked me into a debate of words but I must say that whatever my abilities they were developed over many years. When my mother allowed me to take street cars to the Cleveland Museum of Art for Saturday morning children's art classes I started a long road of study through high school, The Cleveland Institute of Art, portrait workshops, life drawing study groups in every city where I lived or worked and never thought for one moment that I was "banging my head against a ceiling".

Every moment has been fun. I/we are the envy of every person in the world who appreciates that we are committed and/or employed in what we like to do most.

You noted the omission of Universities on my list of resources and wondered if that might have been an agreement with your thoughts that these schools negatively changed their programs at the expense of realism and while they may have recovered a little are still not adequate.

While there may be some agreement I want you to know that these schools are missing from the list for other reasons. In 1956 as I was looking for an art education I made a critical decision. I did not care as much about getting a degree as I did about getting the best possible training as an artist and I quickly ruled out Universities.

While it was possible that one of those many schools might have had a "good program" the advice of the art educators in my community led me to schools like the major "Art" schools and I reduced it down to Pratt and the Cleveland Institute of Art in my home town.

A university education provides many areas of study and designed to help the student better know who they are and how they fit in this world but I was more selfishly focused on learning to be the best that I could be at the thing I liked most. In other words why should we expect or seek the specialized training we need at a university?

Successful artists like Daniel Greene and Ray Kinstler tell wonderful stories about their hustle as commercial artists and boardwalk pastelists as their routes to success. Ray also found his way into the studio of some fine painters which was invaluable but I make the point that in many ways more is available today than fifty years ago. Nothing is more valuable than practice and I fail to see why anyone with skill and talent can't become the best that they are able with the resources of today.

Thanks for the last few paragraphs of your recent post. These are the important questions facing the fine artist. Whatever the new form(s) it will likely have to overcome ongoing mindsets and if it were predictable we might all be working on it. It would not surprise me if some of the classic painting skills are part of new directions.

It is also my guess that were there to be a similar thread on maturity of Modern Art we might find that it "matured" a long time ago. The excitement of Modern Art that existed fifty some years ago does not evidence the same level of work and does not evoke the same response today except for the most peculiar attention getting examples that make the news in a critical light.

Ok Jim, you certainly have my apology for misunderstanding you.

I was not going to discuss any of this further, however this is a reasonable question from someone who

Maybe this a as good a thread as to bring up a name - Rubens. We all know he did not make all those paintings and that it was closer to Disney than to one painter. But these works of Rubens are more widely varied than Disney's for quality at least. Some of those babies are hard to look at. Babies are cute normally. Look at "Leda and the Swan" - really bad drawing. I know, the works he did mostly himself are good and some are spectacular. (Stay cool Peter). I think "A Lion Hunt" is about as good as composition ever got.

But it's kind of part of the question as this business fleshed itself out. When did artists start painting their own paintings and worry that years later people would look at the corporate productions and have to try to sort through the work to identify the actual painter?

As I wade into this subject.....

I have just returned from a semi-intensive Russian art trip. I visited the Hermitage, (my fifth trip), the Russian Museum, Tretyakov, and Pushkin, as well as the Institute of Art in St. Petersburg,

I think it is of no question that there was a tremendous leap to those of us who revere realism, in the 15th Century portraits over the (mostly) religious images that we saw previously.

I asked a cleric at Segeiv Posad (Russian Orthodox Vatican) about this, and he stated that the paintings (icons, etc.) we saw were as God saw man, not as man saw man. The small adult shaped babies, funny proportions, stilted perspectives, were not because the artists were untrained in how to perceive perception, value, or line, but because those were the parameters of their art form.

In actuality, much of the work painted has more in common with the image on the Shroud of Turin than with the human body.

One needs only to see the portraits painted on the mummy cases from 100 BC to see that artists were capable even at that early date to paint a portrait that shows a likeness, was structurally correct, very realistic, and even moving. (I have seen many of these mummy portraits in various museums so I am assuming that those reading this have as well.)

In the 15th and 16th Century, the robust shipping industry created a super rich upper class and a very comfortable middle class in Amsterdam, making it possible for portraits to be commissioned for private parties, not just for the church. There was an astonishing outpouring of tremendously accomplished artwork.

I would challenge any of those stating that the epitome of Western Art is found in the 19th Century to spend a few days at the galleries, large and minuscule, in Amsterdam. Without doubt, the work done by even the most plebeian artist stands the test of time...And what they were able to do with such rudimentary colors and tools boggles the mind.

Why no reference to Van Dyck? My particular favorite Flemish artist. I know I am treading on some very deeply held beliefs here, but what I find missing in the Bouguereau and the Paxton portraits is soulfulness. A connection with the subject. An empathy. I know Van Dyck's subjects, I know Rembrandt, I could go on and on....this is why I study the Russians, I know Kramskoi and Repin's subjects. I know their pain, and loss, and joy. I know nothing of Paxton's subjects or Bouguereau except that they are masterfully painted. Not enough for me.

BTW, I've read that the most beloved and revered and famous (at the time) teacher/artist of the Bostonian period, late 19th Century, was Joseph DeCamp.

Well said!

On the Goodart forum there is currently a discussion going on about the fact that clients don't want deep characterizations or genuine emotion depicted in the portraits they will hang over their sofa. Is this lack of emotion, this surface prettiness that we see so much of in current realism, a function of what clients are asking for, do you think?

Kramskoi's and Rembrandt's breathtaking and riveting portraits would haunt me if they were hanging in my house. I would feel as if a disturbing presence was watching me.

Interesting question.

I would say, no. I would say that the clients are not giving any thought to the ... intensity, let's say....of the work, and asking for something "pretty". I think they hire an artist, and the artist gives them pretty.

I have never had a client ask me for something less strong, or emotional in my portraits. They hire me because they like my work, and my work is strong and emotional.

In referring to the Kramskoi portraits, there are some (woodsman series, mermaids, "Irreconcilable Grief") which would be difficult to hang over ones mantle, but they were painted for museums, not for a private home. Kramskoi's commissioned portrait work was much less invasive, but nonetheless engaging.

As time goes on, and I have less of it, I am much more interested in painting for a future generation than to match the living room wall.

A little aside comes to mind. When I worked for the agencies, the client was buying a painting. When I commission work for myself, the client is buying an artist. I have much more room to create a work of art to my specifications in the latter scenario.

I think it's interesting what artists and others say of an artist's work. They said of Sargent," oh he's all flash and brushwork" And WB.-"he's all finish" yet both of these guys drew really well, composed really well and even made a few statements. But the glaring excellence and beauty of their work overwhelms the other qualities. Sargent would not have gotten to paint 600 portraits had one not been able to recognize the sitters.

When artists have produced crude surfaces- like Cezanne, then people rave about his compositions.

just a thought...Tim

I think painting will mature in 2022. Let's all get back to work and wait to see if we're part of it. If not, keep painting, and don't worry about anyone's assessment of maturity. Entire websites are active now, assessing assessing assessing.

Let's be painting, drawing, painting.

Exactly what I've been thinking, Steven. I love to read about art and write about art but recently I've realized that what I need to be doing FAR more of is making art.

Back to the easel....

I had to think about why some people consider 'Revolver' by The Beatles a better album than 'Sgt. Pepper'. In Revolver there is a promise, there are new sounds, developments, it is headed towards something.

When an artist works from the idea that his art has 'matured', which direction does it go? He thinks it has matured, it has grown-up. Rembrandt's work has an early phase, a later phase. There is movement, a change in style, a before and after. I want to see an artist fail every now and then! Maybe 'maturity' in art is the acceptance of ones own ability to fail and try new things. Perfection is boring.

Tim - Go to Antwerp when you have the chance - Paleis Museum voor Schone Kunsten, When I saw the great Van Dyck-exhibition I accidentally walked into the galleries at the first floor. Rubens paintings , meters and meters... I think they were about 5 or more meters high (I do not exxagerate) It's like a breath of fresh air- so dynamic.

Peter, those two artists were very good, very early in their lives. Thanks for the museum tip.

Welcome home Peggy!

Your experience in Russia is a good reminder of the need to look beyond our own style of painting and understand the many factors that contribute to the manner and style of painting that develops over time depending on many factors that somehow drive the form and style of art.

It's a reminder that painting styles other than classic realism does not equal incompetence. It also makes the understanding and appreciation of art more enjoyable. Your comments about knowing the subjects/artists hits home. I don't know whether non artists are capable of the same reactions but I often experience a strong kinship with artists of the past and I too have a feeling that I am somehow connecting and know what they were attempting to pass on to me.

We are all part of a past, influenced by the present, and hopefully creating things that will touch our descendents. It's also a reminder that I should strive to make a good painting aside from the attempt to get a good likeness.

Twice while doing business in that part of the world I had to abort plans to take a side visit to Amsterdam. Your visit is a sad reminder.

I also share your enthusiasm for the Russian painters and include Nikolai Fechin among my favorite. There is a book titled Socialist Realist Painting by Matthew Cullerne Bown that you may wish to study.

...
 

...

... forget it...

Please remove this

"Come Together"
 

Ok, I'll bite. Could it be because collectively we tend to sever the past? To see it as a separate thing instead of acknowledging continuity? Our culture rejects age, maturity, tears town old buildings, old trees, old cultures. By rejecting the past, we reject knowledge.

Here's what we CAN do:

• Approach everything with a heightened sense of significance
• Keep this question at the back of your mind: what have we become satisfied with?

(This last paragraph was pulled out of my sketchbook notes from a Jeffrey Mims anatomy lecture.)

Huh!?...we know NOTHING about painting compared to the artists living in the 16th, 17th or even the 19th century.

We are living in the middle ages of the art of painting.

If knowledge is cumulative and we aren

All things perfect themselves.

Once, having heart surgery was very dangerous. Now most people agree it's more dangerous NOT to have it.

Once Og did "good deer" with fire stick. Now it better. At some point all areas hit a mark when refinement is obvious. Secretariat set a record for the Kentucky derby that still stands. He won the Belmont by 33 lengths. This is maturity. Will horses get better? Maybe a few, but we are there as far as vast leaps of excellence.

Most paintings done before 1450 look very crude to me.

Arnolfini wedding
 

Tim,

The art of oil-painting began in its most perfect, most refined form with the work of one of the greatest artists ever.

No painter living today could create something that even comes close to this - but I think you already knew.

This piece of painting-jewellery was created in the year 1434.

Sorry, couldn't resist. ;)

The Ghent Altarpiece
 

This painting is the most perfect work of art (apart from the Vermeer's work) that I have ever seen. This was completed in 1432 by Jan van Eyck, his brother Hubert couldn't finish it.

It's in Ghent, Belgium. When visiting Antwerp to see Rubens, take the train to Ghent to go see this (and eat some of those 'Luikse wafels' on your way, in the meantime).

I've always thought the Arnolfini painting is ghastly. The weird perspectives, the distorted bodies, yuck. I look at it as a harbinger of good things to come, in about 20 years from that date. At that point, it's still as charming as, and no better than, Breughel.

Well... That's a colourful way to describe it...

Another great artist! - thanks for bringing him up.

This painting 'The peasant dance' was created in 1568 by Pieter Breughel, The elder.

I hope my work will be as charming as Breughel's, it doesn't have to be better. That's hardly possible! - No painter living today can equal Breughel.

You should all visit the European museums, when you have the chance

Breughel and Renoir
 

I really like both these paintings, by these great and wonderful artists of the past.

Both of these paintings are dynamic, and the people are sitting, chatting and dancing.

The Breughel reminded me of the Renoir.

Oh, Let's talk about the Beatles!
 

Yes,


Mike McCarty reminds me of other times...

My Dad is a (now retired) DJ and I'll never forget the day he came home with the Promotional Copy of the album, Meet The Beatles. Wow, I was in the fourth grade and their HAIR!

Needless to say I was soon hooked into massive Beatlemania. No one can understand that unless they were "there". Nothing even comes close - no Britney or N Synch fan could scream and faint like we did. It consumed us.

As for the albums -- who else on this list actually wore out ABBEY ROAD twice. My favorite Beatle album is this one. Yes, I wore out the grooves (all you younger than the 60's kids - that's where the statement "groovy" came from, ehhe).

Best song by the Beatles? I have tried to get it down to two. A Day In The Life and Eleanor Rigby.

Beatles Forever,
Denise

Sargent Pepper times
 

I hope this photo of The Fab Four is here. If not, I'm sure its too large a file.

I wonder if the "Master's" referenced above, used to sit around and discuss the merits of the artist shown below. Unfortunately there was not a credit, just some laborer who lived in Pompeii, first century AD.

Like all, I adored the Beatles, but I think their music changing was very parallel with the amount of drugs they consumed and the environment of the world. They adapted and they too were inspired by the music of others.

I doubt we ever have a William Shakespeare, but A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving, although not really a great comparison, is a classic to me.

Peggy, I guess it is different to view actual pieces in Russia, but I can

Oh Peter, the window is nice but aren't the hands awfully small? I do like much of this but I don't think it is great. I like the ghostly look of the figure on the left, small hands and all.

Tim,

When you have the chance, go see the Ghent Alterpiece. Albrecht Durer did, sat silent for an hour in front of it, kissed it and left.

I'm sure you will too.