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.