Alice Neel: What do you think?
 

The Lucian Freud discussion reminded me of Alice Neel . In her later years she did quite a few commissioned portraits, as well as portraits of major art world players, such as Andy Warhol.

I am including two images that I can attest to personally as amazing likenesses. The first is a self-portrait--I met her at this time, and I can tell you this exactly conveys both her physical and spiritual essence. (she was wearing clothes when I met her, but she still cut an imposing figure.)

The second is of Linda Nochlin and her daughter. Nochlin is an important art historian, specializing in 19th century realism. She wrote, among many other books, "Realism" in 1977, and was a champion of the contemporary realism that emerged in the 70's, as well as of contemporary women artists more generally. I knew Nochlin when I was a graduate student 20 years after this painting was made, but it is absolutely her.

But I'm curious what you all think of her work. Is it at all relevant to the kind of commisioned portrait painting many of us do? Please vote yes, no or maybe, and then say why.

Alice!
 

Alice Neel is definitely one of my favorite painters. Not because I want to paint in her style, but because her work fascinates me.

A few years ago I had only a vague impression of her work. I'm not much of a TV-watcher so it was uncharacteristic of me to actully sit down in front of the TV while a documentary of Alice Neel was on. Before I knew it, I was totally absorbed in the story and the images. Sometimes it takes a little extra something to trigger an interest in something I ordinarily would have passed by without much notice. Around that time there was a show of Neel's work at the Philadelphia Art Museum. I went to the show and saw the work in person. Let me tell you, those portraits had so much presence. I couldn't help but react to the direct and personal presence of these people on canvas.

Earlier this year there was a much smaller show of her work at the Locks Gallery in Philadelphia, and I went with an artist friend. I wasn't expecting to be as knocked out by her work the second time, but I was!

It's hard to put into words what I love about her work. First of all, the people just jump out at you. There's an emotional engagement with not only their faces but their whole body posture and shape. The characterization is so memorable I think I would recognize them if I saw them in person. So this must be realism, right? But certainly not traditional realism. Much more expressionistic and personal, but realism nonetheless.

The other thing that is striking about Neel's work is the vibrant color and the brillliance and inventiveness with which she arranges the compositional elements. It seems intuitive, and probably is, but she is brilliant at these things. I never saw the same pose, or variation of it, used twice. It was obvious that she treated each painting as a new, exciting challenge, using the person and surroundings as her inspiration.

Every time I see an Alice Neel painting I get a visceral urge to create something amazing!

Alex

Personally, I don't like any of Alice Neel's work.

Lacks Taste
 

Maybe I am a bit old fashioned, but I value taste. Personally I don't see good taste in either of these pieces. I must admit that I don't know any of her other work though.
Anthony

I like her because she uses line and exaggeration, the caricaturist's method of accentuating individuality to distinguish each human from the next. To me, line does this better than form, and it has more energy. Neal has her own language and isn't trying to copy a photo so I give her points for that. I'm in favor of as many styles of realism as there are artists out there with a creative vision.

To tell you the truth, this is giving me the urge to paint a big caricature of myself, though a nude would be very unlikely indeed.

Her style reminds me of children books, in being very colorful and quirky. I can't say that I like it, but if she has done a good job capturing the essence of the subject she has portrayed, then good for her.

It is interesting to see that she chooses that raw depiction of "self", almost as if she wants the viewer to wonder "what's up with these people?".

I thought Anthony made such an interesting comment to think about. What is good taste? Is it about what is beautiful?
Certainly an naked lady in her 80's would not generally be considered beautiful. For me, this brings up the relationship of truth to beauty. Like I said, I can personally attest to the fact that there is a great deal of truth in Neel's work. To me, personally, this makes it beautiful. But reasonable people can certainly disagree on whether or not that is so.

I am one of the legion of admirers of Lucian Freud's work, but I find a diffferent, more life-afirming truth in Neel's paintings

I thought Alex put so well what more traditional portrait painters might have to learn from Neel's work. Its not about the style, that was Neel's. But the level of emotional engagement she had with her subjects, that could be something to strive for. As far as I know, she only painted from life, and it could be quite the experience for her sitters (especially the ones who were ordered to strip! She was a force of nature not to be argued with.)

I think Linda's saying something really important here. And there's a lot to learn from artists who are not necessarily to our personal taste. At another extreme of taste might be Bougereau, an artist I might not have learned about without this forum.

So what is the relationship between truth and beauty? (I've found this to be a hot issue when painting commissioned portraits) And how does this affect your response to Neel's work?

On Taste
 

Andrea,

I hope my comment wasn't offensive. It was not meant to be.

It is a good question you ask, and I don't think I have an answer to it. Here's my feeling. Art touches the realm of emotions, and I don' think it is always going to be explainable by words. With that in mind, maybe he word 'taste' wasn't even he right word. I look at John Singer Sargeant's (I know I spelled it wrong) 'Tramp' , and it touches the emotions in a positive way. He wasn't trying to paint the man in a beautiful way. He painted the reality of life of a tramp. MAYBE, but I'm not sure, what hit me wrong was the fact that the three models in these two paintings stare the viewer right in the eye with no fear. It drives something home deeper. In this case something uncomfortable, but in the power of the artist to choose that message.

A thought completely unrelated to these paintings, but on the topic of 'Taste' is this: Have you ever looked at the album covers of today's rock stars? No more gentle Elvis smiles, or fun loving Beatle glances. Today's rock stars look angry. They look as if they want to fight with the viewer. It's not pleasant.

Or maybe it is just me.. ;C

Anthony

I'm not offended in the least, Anthony! I put this out because I was interested reading a variety of opinions about this work, especially after the discussion of Freud. You honestly made me think about what "taste" means. So thanks for taking the time to respond.!

Well, hello Alice Neel, it's nice to meet you.
I've not heard of or seen any of Neel's work until now. Thank you, Andrea for bringing her to our attention (though most others are probably very familiar with her.)
I, as Linda, enjoy seeing fresh interpretations of what portraiture can be. And I appreciate the emotion and in-your-face humanity that these paintings have. There are other things there, too, that I percieve: a kind of struggle against or impatience with "beauty". Is it possible that women grapple with that word or that stigma more than men? By putting beauty in quotes, I am signalling that I'm referring to the social concept of beauty. Not the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" philosophy.
I get the feeling Alice wasn't all that keen on social concepts of beauty. Others may know how correct or incorrect I am.
'Beauty', like 'love' and 'truth' and 'bargain', will always be hard to definitively define.
So, now that I've taken that off the table for myself, :D , I will say that 'taste' is a made-up thing. Like curfew and taxes. It's a construct made by those who want to be in control. And I try not to buy into that. I won't wear black socks with shorts, but that's as far as my taste obedience goes.
I have a feeling Alice may have been bolder than me.
Or maybe not.
I find myself constantly wanting to know the artist that does any certain work. I can't just be content to see the work as something on it's own. It always, for me, is something created. And so I want to know the creator. Is it conceit to think that I can know the creator by just looking at what he/she created? Is it still art if one creates something gloriously beautiful and yet has put none of their soul into it? This could be a whole nother can of beans.

Alice Neel is okay in my book. She was expressing herself in what is obviously (to me) a true and honest way, and she found a language in visual media (not just lines or colors on a flat surface). Portraiture? People have discussed the point and meaning and measure of portraiture on this forum before, but I am beginning to see that "portrait" is a broad term, indeed.

Honest opinion
 

When I saw the self portrait I wanted to laugh, but then I asked myself, "should I be laughing." Then I realized
this is one bold lady, and to me boldness has merit. She reaches out with her work and makes you stop and think. Both of the portrait's draw you in and leave you wondering and contemplating her motive. Then I realized I would of liked to have met this lady, just to have a conversation with her. She's definately an artist who paints as she wishes and obviously she isn't a conventional crowd pleaser. I like that kind of attitude, be who you are is what I think she is saying. I like these two paintings.

We've discussed this before here, but it's still interesting to me.

I honor my clients in my commissioned work. I think that's my job. I'm not ashamed to show them as they appear on a really good day. But I don't portray them in an untruthful way, and I don't accept direction to do so, and I don't accept the commissions in which I'm asked to.

My explanation for this is that I think people are perfect as they are, and don't need me to make them more so. So when I'm working on a commission, I try to be as straightforward in my depiction as I can, but to stay out of the way. When you look at my commissioned work, you should be aware of the subject and not of me.

If I begin to chafe under this, I do a personal work where I can experiment and paint anyway I please.

Some artists might think this is a pact with the devil, but any commission you accept is in some measure a collaboration, and if you don't believe so, you are free not to paint them. I don't worry about it a lot, because if I'm being paid to stand there and practice, it's purely heaven and I don't take this circumstance for granted.

Finally, stylistically speaking, I can see the boldness and force in Alice Neel's work, but it isn't my cup of choice. But ANYONE who picks up a brush and tries to make a picture has more guts than the average bear, and don't forget it.

Love to all--TE

Tom, this is surely one of the most thoughtful and thought provoking posts in recent memory on this Forum. Thanks for posting your perspective on what we do!

Yes, but, yes, but... (always love your comments...)
Tom, I can always tell which are your portraits and which are somebody else's. I don't think it's possible to remove the artist's point of view. Even your decision to be straightforward, an honorable attempt toward honest impartiality, is a point of view.

Finding our own balance
 

It's true, Tom--artists who paint portraits run the gamut between those who think accepting commissioned work is equivalent to making a pact with the devil, and artists who do only commissioned work because it is deeply satisfying practically and artistically.

Don't think I'm wishy-washy, but I think the whole spectrum of viewpoints is valid. No one should feel defensive about the chioces they make. There is a lot to be learned from the cooperation that goes into commissioned work; it can challenge the artist to make things better and solve problems, and it can challenge the client to think in new ways, too. There is also a lot to be learned from having complete freedom to compose a portrait and solve problems without the parameters of the client steering the artist in one way or another. As Tom was saying, he does both at different times. I also do both, and in very much the same spirit that Tom works. Some people only do one or the other, and that's fine.

My impression from watching the documentary on Neel (Andrea, correct me if I am not right) is that she often asked people if they would sit for her. Her portraits were appreciated by some subjects, but not others. She was inspired to paint her version of truth, whether or not it was appreciated. She was okay with living more on the edge financially than some other people. I'm not saying that that is more admirable. What I'm saying is she was living the way she wanted to live. If we express ourselves the way we want to, if we are true to our particular kind of creative spark, then that is what is important in life.

Alex

Alexandra wrote: While I sometimes think I'd like to have complete freedom in what I paint -- and still have a client waiting for it at the end! -- I know I have benefitted from the collaborations I have entered into.

The structure and limitations of commissioned portraiture have made me a much better artist. In the past, with absolutely no limits or direction to my work I often changed my focus and artistic objectives quite dramatically from painting to painting. I had no individual voice, no recognizable style, and not that much in the way of honed skills.

Now I am on a clear path and the discipline is causing me to channel my efforts and skill in one particular direction. This has allowed me to achieve some very productive growth in recent years. Without that externally imposed discipline and structure I think I would still be going off in all directions.

Linda--

I absolutely agree, that it's impossible to remove oneself or one's point of view from the process. I just try to remember where the focus is supposed to be when I'm working for hire.


Alexandra--

I agree wholeheartedly that everyone is on their own path, and that's just fine.

For those of us who do both personal work and commissions, I think that problems arise most often with clients when we forget which hat we're wearing when.

By the way, I've become aware of your work through this forum and I think it's fine stuff indeed. A lot to learn from in it....


Best--TE

I've had the same experience, for me the focus has led to a higher level of skill which has translated into my non-portrait work. Last night I was at a reception for the AAF Contemporary Art Fair in NYC, where some of my work is being exhibited. Another artist asked me where I studied and I told her, but then I realized, and said--I really learned to paint by doing commissioned portraits.

I love this so much, thanks Ted.
I seem to have an unconscious desire to please--so that for me, when the likeness is off, its usually because I've unconsciously strayed toward some false ideal--the eyes aren't small enough, the nose isn't big enough, etc... I only ran into the opposite problem at the beginning. Now it seems if prospective clients see my work, and like it, then they're ok with how I see people. The trick is to find the reference photos that they truly feel happy with.

Alex, she worked in relative obscurity and poverty for a lot of her life, and her main subjects were family, lovers, and neighborhood kids that she asked to sit for her. She only became an art star in the seventies, when she was already in her seventies. (had to do with the decline of formalism, and a more pluralistic art world, including pop art, photo-realism etc...) It then became a great honor to sit for her, and her subjects sometimes purchased the paintings and sometimes others did. So at all times, she pretty much had total artistic control over the project, it was not a collaboration in the way much of our work is.

I voted "no."

Some of Tom's reasons mirror mine exactly, so I won't repeat them.

As regards boldness: If I walk out of my door naked, I get arrested. If I paint a nude self portrait, I am bold. Another take is this: Consider how much more "bold" or "honest" Alice Neel's nude self-portrait at 80 would be if it were totally realistic, and not a caricature...

Anyway, I first saw Neel's work in a book of portrait art that my grandmother gave to me at age 11. I had already decided a few years prior that I was going to be an artist. So when I saw the work, and that it was on a technical level equal to mine at age 11, I dismissed it. Now 24 years later, as an adult artist I understand the rationale behind her style, it still doesn't justify (to me) the lack of (or intentional leaving off of) technical skill.

Rob--

This is a FANTASTIC point to make, for realism's sake. Expressionists often like to think they have a corner on artistic "honesty."

Or even beyond this notion: What if she had given herself over to someone else to portray her in the altogether?

I ask myself, which idea is more fearful, or takes more guts, having Alice Neel depict me nude at age 80, or say, Nelson Shanks?

Fortunately for you all, this will never be anything but a rhetorical question (whew!), but ask yourself this about yourself, and you'll get the point. Which is stylistically more truthful, finally?

--TE

Honesty
 

But don't we realists like to think WE have a corner on artistic honesty? Do we, really?

I know I'm expressing a point of view that may not be so popular here, but I have to say it: I don't think artistic honesty belongs to straight realism more than it does to expressionistic realism. I think it is safe to assume that Neel, when she painted her portraits from life, was responding to the presence and soul and personality of the person she was painting. She was expressing herself, like any artist, and painting reality the way she saw it. She was not thinking self-consciously about her style.

Rob and Tom, I know it is frustrating, as a realist, to be painting along for years in an art world dominated by modernism and people oohing and ahhing over installations. We've worked hard to master all the necessary skills. Believe me, I'm with you on this. It's just that Alice Neel's work speaks to me. Her portraits tell me fasinating things about herself and her subjects. Even though I don't want to paint in that style, I want my paintings to say as much as hers do.

Linda said "I don't think it's possible to remove the artist's point of view." I agree. I want to go even further and say that it is not desirable to remove the artist's point of view. Personally, I aim for an anatomically correct portrait, and I assume you do, too. Obviously that was not important to Neel, but she did nail the idiosynchrosies of her subjects, which many straight realists have trouble doing because it has to do with capturing life and character as well as just anatomy.

By the way, I would be just as reluctant, at 80, to let Neel paint my portrait as I would Nelson Shanks!

The work of an artist is only good if it conveys a message. In today

I can't speak for Rob, but if--in the effort to make a point--I implied that Alice Neel's work has no value or power, that's not what I was after. Again, it's just not my area of interest.

Alexandra, your points are well made. You probably did pick up on a certain residual frustration I have felt when confronted with the conceit on the part of some expressionists that distortion is inherently more psychologically probing or accurate than traditional realism. Ultimately, in either approach, the success of the work depends on the talent and ability--and yes, the unique point of view--of the artist.

Ideally, the last thirty years or so may have made a realist defense unnecessary. I hope so, because I don't want to become the Rodney Dangerfield of art ("We don't get no respect!"). I'd rather just paint.

My final overarching philosophy is that the work--in any style--has to stand on its own, and any particular work that depends for its success on an accompanying verbal manifesto or explanation of some sort has failed on some level. You know instantly if a work takes your breath away, or not.

Best regards--TE

I voted NO.
I agree with Alex that no particular ism should claim to be more truth than others. It would have been much to easy if it was that simple. ;)

Ren

Tom and Allan, these were such good points. I'm glad we went a little further in that discussion!

This is interesting...

As I think of this thread, I perceive a basic misunderstanding in the reactions to my original post. I'm not advocating that the highest an artist can strive for is to divest one's work of any individual stamp, and achieve a totally generic, unrecognizable result. I too doubt that this is even possible. It's merely that, at the point when viewing the work--especially portraits--I become aware of the technique at the expense of an emotional connection to and understanding of the subject, I lose interest.

Case in point: consider Sargent, Richard Schmidt, Burt Silverman, and Mr. Kinstler. All have highly unique and individual styles, with some expressive elements. But when looking at their portraits, I connect with the subject first; THEN I admire the technique and revel in their individual methods. This is not a "viewing choice" on my part, they've created and handled their work so I "enter" the painting that way. Probably because they've had an emotional connection with the subject themselves. My feeling that I "know" the subject of these works is, I realize, an artistic and aesthetic illusion, but it's a pretty convincing one.

As it's a goal for me in my own work, thus it's what I admire most, and what is the mark of a master to me. Sometimes I get there a little bit, sometimes not.

When I encounter Alice Neel's and other such expressionist works, I don't come away feeling that I've had the subjects themselves revealed to me the same way--that, because of what the artist did, I "understand" them. Again, I may revel in the bold way they're painted, but for me, their power comes from the technique first, and sometimes exclusively. So the technique becomes an impediment to understanding the subject, not an aid. It may be painted exuberantly, but for me it still falls short somehow.

Anyone?

I am rather undecided.

I do appreciate her personal departure from the strictures if not to say straight-jacket of classical realism, however I do find her images ugly.

I think Van Gogh was much more successful at it. Some of his portraiture was quite beautiful, but his florals are where he really is transcendent.

Klimt is another example of an artist who threw off the same deadening yoke and acheived figurative works of exceeding beauty and inventiveness.

Simply skill or technique in my opinion, is a crashing bore. The museums of the world are filled to the rafters with acres of these. With the advent of photography it is no longer necessary to paint many pictures which are best left to film.

Well put!

One aspect of Alice Neels self portrait stands clear to me after re-examining her painting, "gravity is not our friend."

Keeping the long term effects in mind about gravity and aging. We all share the same dilemma, maybe thats what she was trying to say, we all grow old, there is no shame to that aspect of our human nature. There is beauty in a message like that. To me that is what she was trying to say, but thats just my opinion.

Just as there are many forms of music to suit different tastes and styles, there should also many forms of painting and self expression through the visual arts. Thank God for diversity.