Thread split from "Jack"
 

.Admin note from Chris Saper: This thread was split off from Linda Brandon's Oil Critique, "Jack", since it delves more into philosophy better suited for discussion in the Cafe.

In response to Jim Riley's comment:

Quote:

John, I agree with your comments and attempted (without luck) to find Robert Henri's book "The Art Spirit" where he provides helpful comments on the role of backgrounds in a portrait. I do recall that he believed the background recedes and exists only as a compliment to the figure. I also like Chase's quote regarding overt quests for every detail. "Don't hesitate to exaggerate color and light. Don't worry about telling lies. Most tiresome people - and pictures are the stupidly truthful ones. I really think I prefer a little deviltry."

Jim,

I couldn't agree more with you and Chase about the artists who equate pursuing slavish detail with art or truth. A case in point is the work of several (not all) of the so-called classical realists, who unquestionably possess uncanny 'reality'-rendering skills but whose paintings are, yes, boring. Not quite the same can be said of our friend (no names mentioned here) whom I referred to in Reston as practicing 'portraiture as high technology', remember? At least his work ocasionally exhibits some depth, some 'gravitas'. The bland/ prettyfied classical realists can be found, for those who are reading this but are not familiar with their work, in a site called artrenewal.org, in its "Living Masters" gallery. The artrenewal gallery as a whole contains a wonderful array of past and present painters besides the bland classical realists, bless their heart. Unfortunately it also contains high-horse editorializing against 'modernism' which reflects an overt bias if not outright ignorance of art and culture history and painting.

From my own high horse I'd like to emphasize that, in my own experience, artistic truth does not lie in 'copying' or 'duplicating' visual reality, no matter how 'selectively' and 'artistically' the task is approached, as most of us portrait painters soon find out: the edifice of reality alone is composed of many floors, some decidedly closer to heaven, with no fast elevator anywhere around

But this, as so often, leaves us wondering where the truth does lie (and why there?). I confess to some confusion here

Nelson Shanks, Bill Whitaker and Morgan Weistling's work is on ARC and it's hardly tight and boring, nor does it lack expressiveness. The dead painters represent several countries and 7 centuries.

Steven,

Thank you for your perceptive reply to my post, perhaps a bit too sweeping in my (apparent) injunction of classical realism and reality-rendering skills. I say apparent because, firstly, I do specify 'some' -and not all- classical realists. It would be foolish of me to disparage realistic craftmanship and painting technique, which I greatly admire and try to emulate even in those whom I consider boring, or bland. I constantly work to improve my own technical skills and do my best to instill them as an ongoing discipline in my students. As the recently maligned Duchess of Windsor said, appropriately: "You can never be too thin or have too much technique".

Unfortunately sometimes too much technique DOES stand in the way of the truth, becoming an end in itself, instead of the GATE it really ought to be. The problem, and it is a critical one, lies in equating technical 'academic' skills with artistic achievement (a problem as old -well, almost as old - as drawing and painting themselves). The history of art is decidedly NOT the history of the ability to draw and paint.

Take musical skills, for example: there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of 10 or 12-year olds all over the world who possess, say, a flawless or nearly flawless piano technique, who not only can play all the notes and dynamics in a complicated score, but can also impart feeling and expressiveness in a performance. Amazing, and glorious, what we humans can do, isn't it?

Does that make them exceptional musicians, great artists, true messengers of the truth (pardon my flowery rethoric)? I'm sure in more than a few cases the answer would be yes, they are indeed great artists, even though at 10 or 12 we would -apparently - lack the experience, maturity and depth required. This is of course a judgement, and a narrow one whether we respond in the positive or in the negative.

Ultimately the 'truth' (in the sense of our recognition of full validity of an artistic message besides a subjective 'resonance' with it is, well, subjective, individual. Even when we can also say there are standards to assist our judgement, in music or in painting.

As far as ArtRenewal's attack on modernism and contemporary art in general I agree with you that, even when deliberate, it hurts them more than helps them. But of course the attacks on modernism are nothing new: they have existed in more or less virulent forms since Impressionism, and today quite a few individuals, critics, and art groups make a living from such posturing, always finding a constituency, even among people who should know better. That's their choice.

I will name one attacker because I happen to have had an ongoing discussion with him: Brian K Yoder, owner of the Brian Yoder Gallery and Critic's Corner. Mr Yoder has a section in his internet gallery called something like 'rogue bad art' in which artists such as Picasso, Kandinsky, Klee, Rothko, Mondrian, etc, are 'exposed' as public cultural offenders. Sad, isn't it?

In my exchange of ideas with Mr. Yoder he never produced critical proof of his assertions, or even acknowledged that his tirades against these modern masters are the result of a definite bias on his part, a matter of personal taste. I have nothing against somebody saying "Picasso stinks, I hate his work", or "my kid can do what Kandinsky did on the canvas", but I have a real problem with somebody who displays wonderful art in a public gallery and has a section reserved for 'bad art' in which great masters are thrashed.

In my view, and again this is entirely personal, there is more truth in one square inch of one of Kandinsky's paintings than in a whole show of some, and I emphasize some, 'classical realists' works. There are classical realists in Art Renewal -and other galleries- whose work I find exquisite and highly artistic and expressive. I have nothing but admiration for people who pursue technical perfection, and spread the need and validity of it. It's wonderful to find when it's coupled with insight, feeling, beauty, and harmony.

Timothy,

I am actually quite fond of Whitaker's and Weistling's work, and I admire yours. I am also extremely fond of Nelson Shanks' work, but, try as I may, I cannot find his paintings in Art Renewal. Perhaps you can tell me how to access them, and, if they are not there, in some way help to correct that oversight.

Thank you,
John

John
 

John, I think we agree on several things. (I think I can understand your implied stuff too.) Thanks for the compliment, by the way. Shanks' work is on the Atelier page now. I assume the other part is to come?

Many folks slip through the cracks on such a huge site and with so many artists. For example, I still don't think this guy is on the site yet. He's one of my favorite artists: Nicolai Fechin.

PS. I disagree with Brian Yoder often. However, Fred Ross really can read a painting like few people I've seen that don't paint every day. John Gerherty of the Autry Museum is another that comes to mind and maybe Jack Morris of Morris Whiteside gallery.

PS
 

John, I visit your site every so often to see what's new. Your "Rebecca..." is a fine example of the use of transparent/opaque colors. Too seldom is this device utilized fully....it sure brings a work to life.

Timothy,
Thank you for the info on Shanks' work on ARC. Shouldn't he be in the Living Masters Section? Nothing comes up entering his name for a search on the site (yes, large and somewhat convoluted), which is really an oversight, woudn't you think?

I do think we agree on quite a few issues, besides inclusion in ARC. I will look up the names you gave me.

By the way, I wasn't refering to tightness or looseness in my comments on the classical realists. Tightness is perceptually unpleasant, whether boring, masterly, or not. Looseness can be boring also, I'm sorry to say, as your guy here, Fechin, could be in some of his paintings (I very much like this particular drawing and a LOT of his other work).

The great Lawrence Olivier was asked by a critic what lied at the heart of his acting, to which (who many consider) the greatest actor of the twentieth century quickly replied, "Well, it's all in the EYES, isn't it?" For us people painters particualarly, and I believe for painters in general, we could say something like,
"Well, it's all in the FORM, isn't it?"

I'm not talkin' psychological insight into human expression or any such esoteric or obtuse malarkey here: an ARM can be rendered to perfection in 'shape' and modeling nuances of lighting on the form, beautiful and accurate color (what I was referring to when I talked about 'copying' and 'duplicating') and still be totally devoid of 'the soul of the form' as Henry Hentsche, quoting Hawthorne, mentioned in a workshop I took with him many years ago.

Perhaps 'higher' truth and expressiveness, whatever these may mean to each and every one of us, are elusive things. Believing they will be arrived at through exhaustive execution of detail and 'duplication' totally misses the point, precisely because academic technique - whether in Parisian, Florentine ateliers or those on our own blessed land - often obscures and blocks the more direct path to essence, to a Zen transmition of a higher order of seeing and awareness.

By the same token, exhaustive copying and rendering, used as a gate to discovery, control and eventual mastery, alla Geoffrey Mims, can indeed function as the right gate, but just that, a gate, an important checkpoint on the road to artistic integration and self-realization. Surely one of many, but not necessarily the most important.

Sadly, in the case of many realists - not just some of the classical realists, but realists of all stripes - technique becomes, in my own subjective or objective evaluation of what they do - an obstacle to higher consciousness. The result is often contrived, shallow, sterile, albeit it very 'correct' work, which pulls the wool over many people's eyes.

I never had the pleasure of actually studying at Provincetown with Hensche, nor certainly with Hawthorne, though I

I reread John's comments and do not get the impression that drawing skill/accuracy are not of considerable importance. I think the suggestion that an exclusive commitment to accuracy and detail might work against other aspects of painting that would help touch ones' soul and spirit. Sometimes the whole of the painting is better than the accuracy of the parts. Sargent, no less, said something to the effect "paint the apple and not the spots" and as the student (aren't we all?) develops it is helpful that they understand this as much as the importance of angle of the mouth. Otherwise everything can be in perfect place just like the railroad crossing where the gates are down, the bells are ringing, the lights are flashing......but no train is coming.

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.

I wish I'd said that.

... I wish I had painted that...

Me too, Peter, it's one of my favorite Sargents.

Great object lesson, Tim.

Stanka--way to go! It was the perfect position to take. I'll remember it.

John, I remember the ASOPA article: I've kept it and nearly worn out the issue. It was one of the most well-articulated and meaty of those they've published. I already envy you the November workshop--I'm too jammed up to make it. I have nothing to add to your high praise of Mr. Silverman except that if not for him and his teaching, I likely wouldn't be painting today.

Best--TE

A lot of what we

It might be well for anyone reading this thread to pay attention to that "certain kind of discomfort" feeling that its underlying message brings. It appears to me, like it reads with personal preferences stated as global fact.

They are preferences that do fit some, and definitely (and just as legitimately) do not fit others.

That's all I'll say on the subject.

I really thought I would hold my tongue at least until the end of the day, but alas it has become unleashed and I cannot tame it.

To paraphrase a really great master, the truth behind classical realism is the deception. In addition to the skills of a draftsman and the ability to observe, there is the talent of an artist who takes an image and through the subjective nature of their developed thought - they see everything as a symbol.

The technical skill applied to all art no matter what the

I can not resist offering one of my favorite painters and one who comfortably fits the description of "Realist" as well, Andrew Wyeth. He has combined accuracy, detail and narrative with design and abstract qualities that allow his paintings to hang among large/dramatic "modern" work that would easily overpower lesser efforts. I think it was Robert Bateman who discovered and was influenced by Wyeth's work in the sixties and went on to use his training as modern artist with "traditional" training to become the popular wildlife artist he is today.

It should be understood that these are all hearfelt OPINIONS, and not necessarily common facts.

Happy painting everyone. :D

Michele asked that I clarify my post so that it is easier to understand. The shortest way I can think of to do that, is in the following sentence. Not everyone has to

This thread has Jonathan Swift written all over it. Remember his

You all are waxing poetic.

This is good, warm writing.

I never found I had to dismiss the old for the sake of the new. I think the two can be blended just as you blend the influences of several painters from several times and countries into your own style.

I admire perfection over invention. I think the new ground Bouguereau broke was high ground. One could say Michael Jordon and Tiger Woods break no new ground, but boy they surely do what has been done before in an impressive way. So well, as to have gained international lasting fame. Someone once said about such excellence, "they may not be in a class by themselves, but it doesn't take long to call role."

Carl, this is the crux of it for me. If I'm force-fed an Old Master whose work I just don't like, I'm comfortable now saying so. If a local high-schooler's work knocks my socks off, I'll clap loudly. And I don't have an art degree to my name. I just know what I like, when I see it. I couldn't care less whether it's Flemish or Jersey or Guernsey.

(Well . . . I do think the Guernseys are a bit bovine and rural and earthbound in their aesthetic, not that there's anything wrong with that, at least nothing that can't be cured by indoctrination or intimidation.)

We may all need to get back to work and let the eyes of those who see our work help us find our own truths. Or perhaps just trust our own artistic instincts and do what we love, and let those who are taken with our perceptions enjoy writing the checks and sharing the celebratory cabernet.

(Note: if you're drinking the wine alone, however, there could be worse things than a close re-reading of this thread.)

Steven--

I understand your unease with some of this as you also ably hold the post as a moderator, and obviously hold a loyalty to the forum and what it's trying to achieve for struggling artists.

However, there are over 22,000 posts herein that seek to school beginning artists that all of the good intentions and heart in the world will not rescue a painting that is drowning in bad technique, or no technique at all. This is a valuable message. However, I don't feel threatened or uneasy when someone also reminds us that a boatload of stupefying technique will not make a painting when there is an absence of heart and soul to go with it. I think also that this is a valuable message, and I don't mind the dedication of at least one thread on the forum to discussing it. I don't begin to think this thread will trump all of that previous wise counsel to budding artists.

I've reviewed everyone's comments, and though some are stated more passionately than others, I don't see anywhere here where classical realism or any other style has been trashed wholesale as being cursed with a lack of soul. Rather, I think that we have all agreed here that drawing and rendering are absolutely essential skills in portraiture. It's just that some of us are saying it's important to strive also for another level of transcendence at some point in the journey.

Otherwise, if we're not careful, this discussion will indeed degenerate into another endless debate over personal stylistic preferences. It's the same endless historic spectacle of the dog chasing its tail, when David was debated against Delacroix, Bouguereau against Manet, and Sargent against Alma Tadema. It's a pretty superficial debate, but one that is unlikely to end among us passionate artists for the forseeable future.

As a wise man just told me this morning: "The truth is that stylistic dalliances have nothing to do with good painting. It's a communication between artist and viewer regarding the subject matter." I would add that regardless of the style, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I have to express my distress over the continuance of personal attack here in the forum. Just because someone is passionate in their argument, it doesn't mean they are perceiving themselves as an "art god" or the only bringer of the truth. Sometimes I express myself forcefully also, but I never mistake my own opinion for anything else, and I don't expect anyone else to. But if we can't have a healthy discussion without dismissing or attacking each other personally, the value of this forum will wither on the vine, and what a shame that would be.

Respectfully--TE

Tom,

With respect, my perspective isn

Well, I'm not a painter and you all may throw rocks at me. However, on a personal level, I have one simple criteria when it comes to art and it is totally subjective: Does it move or touch me in some way?

A portrait might move me in terms of the message, the colors, the total scrumptiousness of skin tones (you like that technical term?), the haunting look in a face, the juxtaposition of forms, the interaction between people, the playfulness of highlights on white or sheer clothing, etc, etc. But, it has to move me in some way. Beyond that, on a personal level, nothing else matters.

A recent new member submitted two samples for the approval process. My breath was taken away by one of the samples submitted. I could see the hand wasn't painted perfectly, but that didn't matter to me (please, I'm not saying to those still learning that you should stop perfecting your anatomy abilities) - the way it was painted overall, the look on the subject's face totally moved me.

No doubt, I can be impressed by modern masters of today who have admirable career accomplishments. But, that may only be objective, depending on the artist. And, objective would likely never get me to purchase a painting, unless I just wanted an investment.

Rereading this healthy discussion, I very much appreciate the last few posts, amplifying and clarifying some of my comments. Bravo, Tom, for hitting the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned, on what lies at the core of this whole exchange. Carl, your comment on Zen as a discipline applicable to many approaches is right on the money. I used Zen as a shorthand symbol to make a point. Some posts have read my words somewhat narrowly, and that's okay. Maybe it's my pedantic-sounding tone, but then the burden is on me.

The last thing I mean to do is to set up one style or approach as a paragon and put others down. I equally love too large a range of styles, periods, and personal solutions to our visual and other insights as artists to do that. Also, nothing is farther from my mind than to favor sloppy technique over rigorous pursuit of accuracy.

I personally have grown from many different approaches, often seemingly contradictory. I am always ready, after forty-odd years of experience as a professional artist, to challenge and discard elements of my technique or my thought which I feel might hold me back. This often creates problems, and the 'retooling' I've done in the past three or four years has cost me dearly, but I feel it will all be worth it.

I do encounter a great deal of smugness, even among some I consider very fine artists. I suppose in a way I'm rallying against that, and supporting people whose work -regardless of style and approach- shows- again, to subjective me- a dynamic, ever-growing attitude. Of course we only see snapshots of individual development, including our own. Painters who bore me today might delight me tomorrow, either because they've grown or because I will have grown, hopefully both.

Speaking of Bouguereau, he alternately bores me and delights me, often on the same viewing. So what else is new? I did say we can learn a lot even from people who bore us, right? Heaven knows we can learn transatlanticloads from good old Adolphe William (and please don't forget our own Elizabeth Gardner Bouguereau, his wife, who, wow, REALLY learned from him)!

Steven--

I need to apologize for the miscommunication. I was actually expressing distress over personal attack of another artist by someone other than you--it bloomed up on this thread and has since been deleted. I made the mistake of tacking my objection to it onto a post addressed to you about the main topic.

Again, sorry for the confusion. I've never picked up a trace of personal animosity in any of your posts.

Thanks--TE

I read that the thread has wound its way towards more clarification, which appears to give a fuller, more evenhanded balance in the end. All have certainly added some more thoughtful and valuable points.

Darn John, before you edited this quote, I thought you were telling me my workshops were REALLY paying off for me this summer!

I just wasn't sure how Bill would have felt about the "Adolphe" thing.

:) Elizabeth...Gardner Bouguereau...NOT!

I have been conspicuously absent from the forum lately but this thread drew me in. Then as I read them all I found many intelligent posts with varied opinions.

I could not help but think that I have heard this all before as well as been known for similar statements that come down on both sides of the fence. I love Impressionist work. I also feel that the accomplishments of the academic artists, many featured at ARC, has been dismissed all to often as boring.

The ARC school of thought is a backlash to the modernist movement that grouped all realism as trite or pass