Picasso & Modern Art
 

This topic is really a continuation of some/many of the latter posts on the following: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=5622#post5622

Pablo Picasso actually said this!

It sounds to me like his arrogance and/or determination (rather than pure talent) may have contributed to so much of his success.

After learning of this new thread I transferred my recent post, below, from the (Beat up Freud 'cause it makes us feel better about what we truly talented artist do) thread. And it kicks off with another convincing self indictment by the artist. God only knows there aren't any oustanding realism painters guilty of arrogance and determination(?). And how does that translate into no talent?

Previous post: (Use Karin's link above to see this in context.)

After reading about Picasso's death bed confession, Mark Rothko's suicide, and Pollock's raging alcoholism I almost gave up my defense of modern artists and their contested contributions to fine art. Who knows what other sins they and their "ilk" may be guilty of. Maybe higher divorce rates and increased teen pregnancy might be traced or linked to the "damage" the Modern Art hoax has maintained for more than 50 years. GOOD GRIEF!!!

And maybe the Harvard Business school should do a study and find out how the likes of Picasso ("who could not draw", "If he could it was nothing more than typical academy level", and "if he can he doesn't show it") "started drawing and painting crudely" and somehow people lauded the work and for more than a half century the art world has been brainwashed into believing and buying the products of the Modern Art movement.

And we should believe that Galleries, Museums and Schools have conspired to systematically undermined representational art? I have little contact with and admittedly am not familiar with the curriculum and spirit of contemporary art schools but it has historically been true that art students have been among the least likely to buy into something that their artistic heart and soul does not believe. It's not a place to easily sell snake oil.

To believe that nonrepresentational art is a hoax and has damaged our ability to "know how to look at well-drawn and well-painted work" is an insult to any of the many millions of people that regularly make an effort to see and appreciate the visual arts. For those who have stood before a Rothko, Picasso, Jackson Pollock or any of major contributors to contemporary art for the last half century and been moved by the experience would find it hard to understand the notion that "any idiot could do it".

To the extent that one would believe denigration and invalidation were used to discredit classic realism it is surprising that that so many posts on this thread are determined to revive realism by this same shallow tactic. And why? To the extent that realism did not go away neither will the effects of "modern art". For a number of years Portrait painting was a part time business for me as I made my principal living in the employ of domestic and international compani]es whose success depended largely on providing good pattern, color and design in commercial and residential products. This activity gave me a chance to appreciate the broad effect that contemporary art has had on our everyday life. It carries over to textiles and architecture as well.

I do not understand all the self pity. Without any evidence to test my thoughts it seems that across the country a great amount representational art is produced, shown, published, taught, and sold. The national Gallery got more than a few visitors to the Sargent exhibition and I almost couldn't get a seat for the Robert Bateman presentation at the same gallery. And it's not likely that several more lifetimes would be enough to allow me buy an Andrew Wyeth.

And who are the masterful realistic painters that are not "successful"? Perhaps we should consider establishment of a Masters Relief Fund?

No less a painter than Nelson Shanks has suggested that the reason realism does not get a large share of notoriety is that it will take someone with a distinctive skill as artist like Vermeer was able to do in his day. It was realism but not as anyone had done before or since and had a profound/lasting effect on the art world.

Once again. The gap between greatness and the rest of us is not reduced by undermining or denigration. I doubt that any conspiracies, if they exist, could thwart, for long, the impact of a modern day Vermeer or Picasso.

Dear Jim, et al.:

As I said in my earlier post; this issue never reaches a resolution. I doubt that there is anything you could say that would make me see my wrongness, or vice versa. However, it is always, for me, a useful excercise in polemics.

Much of what you do say bears closer examination, but I won't attempt to deal with everything in one post in the interest of keeping our readers' collective attention. Unfortunately, it is part of a larger phenomenon that goes like this: if one asserts what is more-or-less the established wisdom, as you are, then no extensive backing or validation is required. One simply needs to make assertions. So, asserting the genius of contemporary masters needs no further comment. In fact, all of what you have said I have heard a million times over. Conversely, I am the one who gets dismissed as a crank, as petulant, or just as someone lacking in true understanding. This is because if one wishes to dissent from the established opinion, as I do, one requires huge amounts of backing, evidence, validation, argumentation, etc.. And this, in turn, requires time and/or print space. So for me to deal with everything you have said would encompass many pages. As such I will deal with only one or two of the things you mentioned. Even with that, it is a longish essay, by cyber standards.

I wish to consider the issue of "insulting someone's intelligence", particularly the "millions of people who make an effort to see and appreciate visual art", by my suggestion that we no longer know how to look at representational pictures. I believe that to be true, for the most part. Of course, I don't mean everyone, but just generally, as a rule. Explaining that would take a rather longer essay, so I'll write more broadly-speaking here. First of all, though, the number of adherants to some belief or cause, or other thing, is quite irrelevant and does not say much one way or the other about that cause, belief, or thing. Do we for a moment think of the hurt feelings of the millions of Nazis, Facsists, Communists, terrorists, and sociopaths there must be out there? Do we agree with them simply because there are or have been so many of them? No. So the numbers are simply a statistical measure that is only the beginning.

In any event, there are also other ways of insulting a person's intelligence. For instance, if one claims to dislike or find little of value in the efforts of Picasso, Matisse, Rothko, Jackson, etc., and says so to someone who has devoted his/her life to loving that art, it would certainly be taken as a personal affront. As such, one must use some tact or diplomacy. I am not setting out to insult or to hurt anyone's feelings.

But, for argument's sake, just whose intelligence is it okay to insult? Mine, I guess--or so it seems--and the millions like me. I am expected to worship at the altar of drip paintings and colour field expressionism just as I would in front of a Titian, eh? And I am to do that unquestioningly. These pictures are, after all, housed in the finest museums and galleries in the world, aren't they? Moreover, I will not truly "understand" art unless and until I do like those pictures and am thereby "moved" by them. But, somehow, throughout that experience, my intelligence is not supposed to be insulted. Curious.

Here's an especially curious example of an assault to our intelligence, courtesy of Canada's National Gallery in Ottawa. Last year, they awarded a $50,000 prize as the Millenium Award in the Visual Arts. Please note that the prize was for "visual" art. It went to a recording of the 20-or-so separate voices of a choir, taped while they were rehearsing. That's right, a recording. In other words, the award for "visual" arts went to a work that could just as easily be enjoyed by the blind as by the sighted. Frankly, that not only insults my intelligence but my pocketbook, because it came from a publicly funded institution. There are thousands of examples like this all over the world. But I can't say "boo" about the Modernist "masters" without being accused of crying over spilt milk or of insulting someone's intelligence. Again, curious.

Finally, speaking of Robert Bateman, our National Gallery is also noteworthy for not having a single work of his in its collection. Bateman is probably the most successful and well-known artist during his lifetime that has ever come out of Canada. Yet, he doesn't merit inclusion in our National Gallery? Is this simply because he is no Vermeer? Must be. (By the way, Mr. Shanks also said that Mark Rothko's pictures are to art what eye charts are to literature.)

It is true, as you say, that representational art didn't really die off in the 20th century. It remained the most popular form of art among the "people". (Any poster shop's sales records will attest to this). My complaint is not with "the people". The problem lies in the realm of the art cognoscenti or, at least, among those who are serious about art, the dealers, curators, and generally those who consider themselves connaisseurs, and the like. In other words, the "establishment". They are the ones who set the tone and get the media's ear, who establish criteria for funding and exhibiting, both private and public, etc.. They are the ones who are supposed to know, yet they largely, do not. Citing a handful of examples of representational painters who are now getting a bit of recognition within some circles of this group, does not really get to the heart of the matter.

I could go on. If this were a discussion in speech--perhaps over a couple of bottles of wine in the real Cafe Guerois--it would not seem to be so long-winded. But, as it is, I'll stop.

Next up: Conspiracy theories.

All the best.

Juan

It's wonderful that recent posts to the forum have been so passionate. However, I've noticed that many of the posts (both here and in the Lucien Freud threads) have lost site of some basics.

First, it doesn't matter whether or not a painter knows how to draw when their work is non-representational.

Museums frequently display work based on how it fits into historical art movements ... and, often, sidestep making judgements on the value of that work.

Criticizing the work of someone who paints with different objectives than you do doesn't necessarily mean you are slamming or don't understand the objectives of that painter's work.

With very few exceptions, even the best painters have greater and lesser works ... as well as a few failures that get away! For one thing, they tend to take chances. No matter who you are, if you take chances you're going to hit and miss at times. On the other hand, if you don't take chances your work will be pretty mundane.

There are many painters who are now considered to be among the greats that weren't given credit during their lifetime. There were also great painters who achieved great success during their lifetime. Extreme examples of these are Vincent VanGogh in the former case and Peter Paul Rubens in the latter. Time is the test of greatness; not contemporary opinion.

Who cares if a painter is an egotist or a madman? The wonderful thing about painting is that the work stands for itself.

While fine art and commercial art have different objectives, in the hands of a great artist, however, commercial art can be great. For instance, Degas created his ballet dancers simply because they sold ... and, who would dismiss Toulouse Lautrec posters as simply being commercial?

By the way, some members of this forum may be able to dismiss what I have to say because I used white lead when I began to paint with oils. In the mid-fifties, they still sold Dutch Boy white lead in cans and painters used it. To this day, I miss the wonderful qualities of working with white lead. Of course it was poisonous ... but so was turpentine (which I also used). Still, neither titanium white, zinc white, nor a combination of the two can replicate the qualities of white lead.

Here is a short response, I will go more in-depth on some of the issues raised later, but first I have to say something to Jim:

Jim, you say: Is it historically been true ? Why did I go to a contemporary art school for 4 years and DIDN'T LEARN A SINGLE THING about representational painting? All I know about that is self-thaught.

Jim, you talk about 'an insult to any of the many millions of people that regularly make an effort to see and appreciate the visual arts. That's not an argument. That's hiding yourself behind statistics. And what about those 'millions of people' who never go to such a museum?

Jim, you say: ... Vermeer had an effect only after 200 years of being almost forgotten. When you look at the work of Frans van Mieris, Pieter de Hoogh you will notice that Vermeer did, in many ways, what others did before him, but more perfect. The way you describe his effect is how art critics want to paint a romantic view about certain aspects of modern art. It's a cliche to describe it like that, and not accurate with how it really went.

Why, do you think aren't there any painters with the skill of someone like Vermeer, or let's say an average 17th century painter? Because the art schools decided not to teach the proper skills since the fifties and the sixties.

Calling myself an artist is making me feel like I am calling myself the village-idiot, because of the current situation in art.

If one had lived in 1702, and one had compiled a list of the greatest painters of 17th-Century Holland, neither Rembrandt, Frans Hals or Vermeer would have been on that list. Just a thought...

Greetings,
Peter

The saga continues!

Just a couple, (well, a few) points:

1) Not all contemporary art schools are a waste of time. I've learnt a great deal at the one I am currently attending. (I acknowledge that others may have a different experience, but that's about the relative quality of schools, not about contemporary art education in general.)

2) My teachers and fellow students still value drawing. We still have life drawing classes. We still learn about anatomy. We still learn about the craft of painting...and so on. We look at Rembrandt, Vermeer, Velasquez and the rest. We also look at Pollock, Picasso, Rothko, Hockney, and anyone else who is exhibiting or has work accessible to us. We try, I hope, to look at all of these with initial respect. We may ultimately rank their work personally in terms of quality, but we begin with the assumption that they are genuine and not frauds.

3) EVERYONE on this forum or anywhere else is free to dislike, or even disrespect, any artist. That's just a human prerogative.

4) Recently I was encouraged to SPEND AN HOUR looking closely at a work I hadn't really considered particularly good. I was surprised how much I found in it. It was a humbling experience. Perhaps part of the trouble is that as inheritors of the TV and computer revolution we have lost, to an extent, the ability to contemplate.

Peter G

Juan,

Wow! The millions among the general public and the art aficionados's in sympathy with Modern art as a legitimate segment of fine arts are given comparison with Nazi supporters and the like? I fail to understand who the victims of modern art might be and would suggest that it was strong world wide opinion that thwarted your list of failed tyranny. You not only discount popular sentiment you insist that somehow people are no longer able to appreciate and judge realism. Of all the schools of painting it would seem that representation art requires the least preparation or training to appreciate and understand. Having said that, I also believe that it is far more difficult to decide the merits of any given piece of nonrepresentational artwork and far easier for the less competent to hide as Modern Artist.

You insist that I or someone has told you what you should like and I would like to make it very clear that I DID NOT, nor did I imply that you should like anything. Having respect for other artists and their mode of expression does not require "liking" their work. And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has called you an "idiot", as has been used in these threads to describe Pollock and his followers. The real start of this thread went from dumping on Freud to the defense of Picasso/Modern Art and not the selling of same. As much as you insist that others should not dictate your likes it would seem that you would like to see modern art undone (it's history and can't be undone someone said) and be more than likely to establish criteria for judging good or bad art then I would suggest. Your list of favorite painters and styles can be as small as you like. Further more I don't represent "established opinion" (if it exists and contains any implications that representation art is not legitimate?).

I must be traveling some special roads. I know modern artist domestic and a few from Austria, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark with studios and galleries in New York and London. Without exception they speak knowingly of past and present painters involved in realism show apparent respect for my efforts. Should I assume that they are clever and careful to not disclose the ongoing efforts to void our efforts.

Peter,

I give!... Why did you go to a contemporary art school for four years and not learn a single thing about representational painting? I worked my way through art school where I attended classes from 9 to 4 and sneaked out 15 minutes early to get to my 4 to 12 job I did this for the last two years and was happy that in doing so I had complete say on where I went to school and that I was able to get schooling at all. Perhaps that is why, in addition to being close to home, I wanted to make sure that the program fit my hopes for the future as an artist. I thought the training available at the Cleveland Institute of Art was more important than other schools even though it did not confer degrees at that time. Have I been misled to think that there are schools still teaching drawing and painting skills?

Vermeer may not have received great recognition in his time and I admit that I was unaware. I hope he did not suffer and starve. At any rate I think everyone should take their chances and do whatever they can to do that new break through realistic painting. I think there are more than a few galleries that would take on a modern day Vermeer, Hals, etc. I would suggest that it would be far more difficult in this day and age of communication and despite the claim that people have lost ability to understand realism, to go unoticed and unappreciated.

And, of course there are huge numbers of people who would only consider realism. Its not taking a big chance. Payoff related to skill seems to be in balance in the cruel art world.

Otherwise, lay down your brushes and find another career if the climate looks so dim.

Sharlene,

You must have started at a very young age to have been painting when I started art school. I too remember our ignorant bless using lead white.

Thanks for you note regarding commercial artist. I was offended when a post on another thread said: "graphic designers are a dime a dozen". Some outstanding watercolorist with eventual recognition in the AWS and others, came out of the studios of American Greeting Card and Mort Solberg is still active a a very successful wildlife artist. I know several regional artist whose training was on the job sign painting. I believe Karin Wells did sign painting in the past.

I am now going to play my yearly round of golf.

Have a good day.

Jim, about Vermeer: He died at age 43 from a heart-attack. In 1,5 day, according to his widow he went from healthy to death. He had eleven children, and because he could not sell his own paintings or those of others (like many artists, he was an art-dealer also) he was in debt. He cold not feed his family. He was quite respected as a painter in his own time, but a lot of people had bad luck at the time, and so had he.

When I was in artschool, I wanted to be an artist, and expected to learn the things I needed to do to be one. The problem is, as I see it, it's not even the artschool's mistake. The old masters techniques are forgotten.

To be honest, I'm starting to remember why I never took part in this kind of discussions. Before you know it you start to explain and explain and explain, as the long posts in this thread prove. It doesn't make me feel any better.

There is not a side here which I can choose where I can fully identify with. I consider classical modern art (Picasso, Braque, de Chirico and others) as a valuable and necessary development, and it took talent and a lot of effort to do what people like Mondriaan and Braque did. It's what happened in the second half of the 20th century I guess where certain things went into a direction that is problematic. I think Robert Hughes put it very well in his last chapters of the books 'The shock of the new' and 'America's visions'.

And another thing...when words like 'Nazi' start to get into a discussion, I'm outta here.

Greetings,
Peter

Just a couple of quick points to clarify. Jim, please play nice. I did not compare the millions of people who admire modern art to Nazis. It is considerably misleading to have characterized my statements as such. I was using an analogy to show how the number of adherents of something is not a particularly good measure for judging its value, and you know it. Or, at least, you should have known it. Also, when using the term "idiot" repeatedly, as I did, it was used because of the common phrase in English "any idiot can do it". That does not really mean that only an idiot can do it, nor that everyone who does whatever it is one is talking about is an idiot. It's just a saying, and I expect that you knew that, too. We should try to keep our arguments a little closer to the substantive issues of the discussion. If my writing is not clear enough (although I feel it was) please ask me to re-state it. Thanks.

More later.

Juan

On a positive note: maybe the posts are a little passionate because we actually care about art and what we're doing.....

I don't feel Jim is denigrating any form of art, or anyone contributing to the thread, either.

It's quite possible to have respect and an open mind about "realism" and so-called "modern" art. Incidentally, if you look at some of the drawings from the "golden age" you might be surprised to see that a few of them were distinctly "gestural", and there were many "pentimenti" (or repentances!) of the artists.

I heard a classical music expert on the radio recently who said "the purpose of music is to change lives".

How does this sound: "the purpose of art is to change lives"? I kind of like the ring of it, and it seems we are really talking about the purpose of art....

The Whole Idea Behind the Cafe
 

Just as you said, PETER GARRETT, probably "the posts are a little passionate because we actually care about art and what we're doing". It's great to see painters duke it out ... isn't that the whole idea behind the Cafe?

On the other hand, dealing in generalities is pretty tough as there are always exceptions to the rule.

I've seen exhibits of the work of students coming out of one unnamed (but allegedly reputable) art school here in San Francisco that truly made me cringe. Whether or not they could draw was beside the point. Unless they professed to be anti-art, nothing in their work could be called worthwhile.

On the other hand, there are works by a figurative and abstractionist painter Diebenkorn that absolutely make me drool. His mastery of richly layered and subtle paint surfaces is unsurpassed. The only other painter I can think of whose paint surfaces were so rich and wonderful is Rembrandt. When I saw his 'Rape of Lucretia' at the Minneapolis Art Institute, I could hardly believe it!

Yes, a painted surface can knock me out ... so can beautifully painted edges, an exciting juxtaposition of colors, a delicately painted passage, an imaginative composition, a fantastic brushstroke that says it all ... and, more!

Hey, it's good for painters to learn how to draw because it expands the possibilities of their work. But, let's not make someone's draftsmanship the sole criteria by which we judge a work.

I'd like to say to PETER JOCHEMS that the techniques of the masters have only been forgotten in some quarters. Like JIM RILEY I chose to study at a particular art school (even though it didn't offer a degree) because colleges and universities at that time were very much into "do your own thing" and "innovation for innovation's sake".

JIM, Thanks for the compliment about my age. However, I graduated from high school in 1955!

By the way, while my focus has always been in the fine arts, I was a graphic designer and illustrator myself for about 10 years!

Picasso said himself something to the effect that "Every child is an artist. We just prevent them."

If every child were taught to draw, as I believe they should, we would have a much different country, and a much more intelligent civilization regarding art. Our nation is almost "illarterate." Even our PhDs of schools of art cannot draw. There is the problem. It is like being a music professor without being able to read notes.

Yin & Yang
 

My point of view may seem simplistic, however I offer it as food for thought. According to Eastern Philosophy everything in the universe seeks balance, a sense of equilibrium. I feel that we artists are blessed with an innate connection to the intrinsic beauty of the world around us. Traditionally artists have seen beauty and called attention to it by sharing their insights through their work.

I agree with Peter. I feel the purpose of art is to elevate the human condition. What makes a great Rembrandt painting so compelling? Is it the paint surface, the draftsmanship or the sensitivity towards light? I believe all these factors certainly come into play, however, to me it is his spirituality, his sense of oneness with his subject that moves and connects me.

Today we live in a world that is grossly out of balance. We are disconnected from nature due to our reliance on technology. We walk around with a bottle of water in one hand and a cell phone in the other. We eat processed foods. We are bombarded by microwaves and electromagnetic radiation. Most people feel disconnected. How could they not? People walk with their heads down. They even actually believe that a mechanically formulated image (a photograph) can capture the essence of a person as well as a hand painted portrait.

People are seeking more and more severe stimulation in an ineffective effort to regain their equilibrium. However trying to rebalance a grossly lopsided state of equilibrium invariably leads to overcompensating in the opposite direction. Personally, I think this explains the big attraction people have for modern art, whose main emphasis seems to be the peripatetic vacillation between extreme movements. It

Marvin! Hi!

For a guy against rhetoric, you're pretty good at it. Another not-so-lost art?

Sharlene,

Good to hear someone talk about edges, surface and the relative importance of drawing. I agree- we should learn to draw because it is ultimately about SEEING. Good drawing, I'd say, isn't always about accurate proportion and perspective etc.

There are still art schools trying to supply a set of skills out there. No school can be perfect, but in the end the artist has to decide his or her direction and pursue it.

Sounds like a bunch of truisms...so maybe it's true. ;)

Peter G

Marvin, how many Rembrandt's do you know?
 

Give me a break. Not only have I seen countless examples of miserable "modern" art, I've seen countless examples of miserable representational art.

Depending on the atmosphere of my surroundings I might choose to hang a Chinese watercolor on my wall over a Rembrandt or Vermeer painting ... but, of course, there's no way I can afford a Rembrandt or Vermeer...and I might build a house around them if I could. I'm sure that you don't expect most of us poor folk to live up to such exalted standards or call our work worthless if they don't.

You are right to some extent in that art is reflective of the times. But, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water! While we strive to reach for more, there's something wrong with us if we don't also appreciate "only" color and design.

I fully understand Picasso's fascination with African masks. I also understand Degas' and Cassatt's fascination with Japanese prints. Art reflects the context within which the artist works. The artists I mentioned integrated their influences into their work ... just as we're all integrating the camera and modern sensibilities into our work.

It's inevitable. In the hands of fine artists this will result in fine work.

HOLD THE OBIT!

I thought it important to report that Mother Nature called early this morning. Therefore I can say with a good amount of certainty that reports of her demise do to the industrial revolution have apparently been exaggerated. (Forgive me Mark Twain)

On a less argumentative note, perhaps, I would like to suggest a book for those of you who may not be familiar with the thoughts of artist teacher Robert Henri. I have met a few artist who insist that it was/is recommended reading for all art students and yet was only brought to my attention four or five years ago. Were I Director of an art school this book would be at the top of the required reading list.

I delivered a portrait of the retiring President Judge of Westmoreland County Pennsylvania to the Greensburg Art Museum where a new frame would ready the painting for it's unveiling that very evening. While there I learned that a show titled "Robert Henri and His Influence" was being hung and the Director allowed us to see the show in mid installation.

Shortly thereafter I found coverage of the show in the June 2002 issue of American Art Review. The article noted Henri's schooling, which included the influence of Eakins and Windslow Homer, study at the Academie Julian with William Bouguereau and exposure to the impressionist while in France. He had a huge influence and believed in a strong association of Art to Life.

In 1923 his book The Art Spirit (ISBN 0-06-430138-9) was published and here is the description from Art Review:

"The Art Spirit, which consisted of a collection of lecture notes, fragments from letters, and other written texts between 1900-23, did not advance a single ideology or champion a specific style at the expense of others, but asserted a general view of art that was thoroughly modern and thus could be assimilated into and adapted to nearly any aesthetic or ideological context. In the foreword to his book Henri writes, 'The opinions are presented more as paintings are hung on the wall, to be looked at at will and taken as rough sketches for what they are worth. If they gave a suggestive value and stimulate to independent thought they will attain the object of their presentation.' And it is this passion, the belief that art was not simply an application of technique but a lifestyle, that was life transforming that Henri affirmed."

And the heat goes on
 

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Peter- There is nothing wrong with rhetoric as long as there is substance backing it up!

Charlene- I think you misunderstood the essence of what I said, so I

Marvin, you in NO WAY offended me ... and, I certainly didn't want to offend you! I must have come across stronger than I intended in my last posting.

It's just that I'm not sure where you draw the line in the continuum between "Art" (written large) and that which is created visually with great skill.

It seems to me that you're saying there is a point at which craftsmanship simply stops being craftsmanship and moves into another realm. No one can argue with you on that. If that's so, that's what I'm saying too!

The only thing I've been trying to add along the way is that I also appreciate elements of insight and fine craftsmanship that can be found in the works of nonobjective artists as well as those of us who are representational. As individuals we will all draw our lines a little differently. So be it.

This string has been very seductive. I think I'll sign off from it for now. Thank you all for sharing. I really mean that.

Marvin:

I agree, nothing wrong with rhetoric. Quite the contrary. It has a bad press because the meaning has changed to mean something empty and shallow. My comment was intended as a (somewhat ambiguous) compliment.

Hey, who really cares WHAT we call "ART"? What we call it isn't relevant, I'd say...either it speaks to you or it doesn't.

Mind you, some things take a little longer to understand than others. We make the effort or we don't. Sometimes we make the effort and conclude it doesn't speak to us.

Let's just keep making the effort and see what happens.

Marvin,

I won't say "give me a break" knowing it might seem confrontational again but it otherwise was my first thought when traveling through your explanation of ART. After that question gets solved (it might take more than a few posts) and armed with that success we might then tackle the definition of God. It sounds as though any as yet discovered civilization not having had the benefit of a Western made altar and without the genius of Rembrandt will have no chance of cultivating an Artist qualified for that special spot in heaven for our like.

It seems as though each time any artist, who sooner or later earns the general consensus of Genius, is found to have broken with the conventional wisdom of quasi governmental organizations and academies are then likely to have the same bodies establish a revised set of dogmas to bind and blind the next generations of artists.

"Lower the bar"? (Whose bar?) "Modern Artist are imbalanced"? And an earlier post suggested that "any idiot can do it"? Is there not a whiff of arrogance and self rightfulness in these comments?

I was disappointed that "The Art Spirit" was dismissed because you are not inspired the writers work. I wouldn't think teacher/writers's merit rested so strongly on his painting abilities. I went to the trouble to post the book description by American Art Review just so all could know that is is NOT a treatise and does not promote any aesthetic or ideological approach. And if Rembrandt published a book on art what kind of guarantee would we have that his words could match his paintings?

The book is hardly threatening and I dare you to read it and tell me it was not worthwhile.

It's also my personal philosophy that I will be my best, most thoughtful, and eventually most self assured to the extent that I am willing to be open vulnerable. I always thought it intrinsic to the role of the fine artist to take on and seek out those who seem to have strong and well thought out differences from me. They are the very ones to provide new insight, reinforce the views, truths, and values that remain basically unchanged and generally to provoke new ways to know, understand, and paint.

;) The definition of ART, The definition of GOD, Where is this going to?!?!, please go on!

Peter

Such a tiny fraction (say, .5 percent, a plausible arbritrary figure) of our population has 99% of the knowledge of art. And half of those are questionable in terms of the views of the other other half.

We need to get real art education back into the schools (I am talking grade school, and serious basics) so that children can grow up with some skills. Then we will have a society which produces some quality art and knows it when they see it.

I couldn't agree more about the need for more education in the arts. The preoccupation has been with science and math scores as a basis for measuring education. Therefore support and staffing of these programs come at the expense of subjects like music and art. I'm not sure that it was ever any better. My elementary education devoted two or three hours a week to art and it happened only if everyone behaved the previous week and the good nuns offered it only as a reward.

I participated recently with six local artists in "Art Day" at a local elementary school where we showed landscapes, portraits, sculpture, and drawings in representational and modern approaches. Response was enthusiastic and their questions ran the gamut of the expected, some insightful, and many not related. (As in "how old are you"? Do you have kids?). The classrooms and hallways were filled with a surprising range of subjects, styles, and media. In talking with those teachers and often with my daughter who has taught high school art and recently had K thru 6 students it seems that the programs aim to make students familiar with and construct things with a broad range of materials employing a wide variety treatments. Fortunately, to my mind, they are not steered toward any particular style and not judged on the basis of realistic/modern. Students then have open discussions on what they have learned and observed. From what I have learned there does not tend to be much awareness of any ongoing argument about realism versus realistic art and it would be my hope that being visually literate (?) will make them both sensitive and articulate in the visual arts. I hope teaching children to be knowledgeable and capable of producing good art doesn't mean that they must accept any one school of thought over another.

And an open question: How ignorant do we believe the public to be and how much "training" do they need to respond to the visual arts. And secondly, for lack of any evidence that I am aware of, why do we think there is such a division in the broad art community over realism and modern art?

I have an observation. I recently took a trip with my daughter through the northeast. Part of this trip was by train from NYC north alongside the Hudson river. Another train took us along the coastline of Connecticut. Neither of us had seen this beautiful country. The interesting thing to me is how differently she and I responded to this "visual" stimulus. I am jerking around from one side of the train to the other afraid that I might miss some aspect of this terrific view. My daughter, a bright 17 year old, read four large novels during the course of our trip. While all this captivating visual stimulation was moving past our train she chose to read. I relate to the world through images. Most of what I know has been absorbed and interpreted through my eyes. Most of what she knows has come from verbal or written stimulus.

There is, I believe, and it may well be the majority, a huge percentage of the human race that can never grasp why we must relate to the world the way we do. They go through the motions and they make nice but they don't understand how or why we choose to observe instead of listen, to draw pictures instead of make conversation. Obviously both can function effectively but it can cause problems.

I don't think that I could be trained to act otherwise nor do I believe we can train the other side to switch.

Mike,

I must confess that when I was your daughters age and even though I knew I was going to be an artist I may have spent most of my time in books also. It's a three hour train ride from my home to New York city and I have many areas that I look forward to seeing/studying but must confess that I mostly read.

Robert Henri noted the experience that he has when viewing a painting and explains that he feels as though he is meeting the artist. I immediately understood his comment and realize that the trained artist can make a connection to the painting and the artist that the lay person might never understand. It' a wonderful connection and I often want to say out loud "I know/understand what you were doing. Thanks".

My question though is how much Art Education/Appreciation and or hands on training is needed for the average person to share and appreciate the artist effort. Above and beyond the response to my ability to capture the spirit and likeness of my subjects, the painting usually generates discussion regarding composition, technique, colors and the like. In other words, it seems to me that the general public may not be as ignorant as we think.

Most of my artist friends thrive on conversation though not as good at listening.

The point I was trying to make is that people fall into, and these are gross generalizations of course, basically one of three categories: visual, verbal and tactile. The latter being very much a minority. They interpret and gain their insights of the world either by seeing, hearing or feeling. Of course we can all feel, we can all see but generally we have a primary orientation towards one or the other. There are always exceptions, like you and I, who can do all three with equal aplomb. But for those who are purely verbal, in my opinion, they can discuss the visual arts on an intellectual level but in fact would rather read or hear about it than actually look at it.

In my opinion there is a vast number of people who will never be our audience. They will write poetry and they will become surgeons but they just don't connect to our visual arts.

I think technology has much to do with this. Everything/everyone is faster, quicker, and higher-paced. I think many would rather go to see a movie instead of a show at the nearest gallery.

By comparision, I see the annual Salon in 1800's Paris as the equivalent of today's Superbowl. Everyone attended and it was a huge social event. And isn't the Sistine chapel the equivalent of a billboard today? It is selling the word of the Bible to the people - isn't it? The motives are the same although I really doubt that conservators are going to be restoring a Cingular Wireless billboard any time soon!

The times have changed and I think the general population's needs for art have changed as well. Do they still want art? Yes. Do as many want art? No. Technology has slowly taken the public's attention away from art.

Question: So how do we get around this as "traditional" artists?

Hand me my cell phone....

Hmmm... how to get traditional art into a technological world. How about a billboard with the Mona Lisa on it? ;)

Maybe we can get together via teleconference and discuss this. :D

Susan

Children can be taught the basics of drawing without any philosophy of realism versus abstract. We teach them the alphabet and reading and writing basics. They are then free to read and write as they wish after they learn the basics. Why can't we just give them fundamentals of drawing when they learn cursive, so that they can realize that they have an instinctive, common, human ability to draw. When they realize that, they can go in any direction. But without the basics, children are robbed of choice. Why bother with crafts, crayolas and crappy water paints? They will learn nothing from that stuff.

My art training began when I was seven. Pencil. Watercolor. (The real stuff, not just colored paste.) Oil.

How long? I think that kids can start learning graphite at age seven, should be painting watercolor by age ten. By middle school, they should be experimenting with three-dimensional mediums, after having a strong and consistent drawing background. High school age should be specialized studies in sculpture, oils, or other medea. The problem is, there are so many methods of drawing, and so many experts. Who is to say what is the "primary method"?

Cost? We can afford whatever we really want. Art specialties can be taught via the computer or DVD by masters like yourself at a very low cost.

I have created two CD-ROM instructional videos myself. It was fun and has convinced me that this is a good way to teach a larger group of students. It places the lesson in perfect proximity to the student, allows them to pause and rewind better than VCR lessons, and there are computers already in every school.

I have to jump in here. I am very much an auditory learner. However, in another life I was a dance teacher and have chosen to concentrate solely on pursuing a career in visual arts. So what does that make me? Be careful how you answer! ;)

I spent a semester teaching art in Middle School. Based entirely on my experience, the basics in art were lacking. I walked in with art history, drawing pencils, and dreams of inspiring future artists. I was greeted with tracing, and "that's too hard" and "we never had to do that before." I will leave out the fringe benefits of a teacher having his leg broken outside my classroom along with other assaults on teachers that did not require hospitalization - a gun, and a drug overdose in my room. I digress. The kids I taught were used to tracing cartoons from handouts. So when I came in preaching lessons from "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain" along with studying the great masters, I was not well received. I can say that some kids learned how to draw that semester and were upset when I left, others organized a party.

There are really good art programs with strong funding out there (I know this because I've read about them ;) ), but I have to agree with Lon about children learning the basics. I also agree that the merit of children's art should not be based on realism. Artists do not draw things and people, we draw our interpretation of things and people. I guess that's the backbone of Modern Art - interpretation. Personally, I agree with Nelson Shanks' reported view of modern art!

Renee Price

Modern art? Or a return to primitive art?
 

Modern art, or a return to primitive art? Let's take a look at this based on terms.

First let's take the term,

Michael,

Your point about "art" being subjective, and the impossibility of convincing anyone else to agree, is valid enough. I suppose if we change, we do it ourselves, just as students ultimately must teach themselves.

A forum like this does give everyone a chance to consider the preferences of others. Ultimately that kind of stimulus can lead to small or large changes in what moves us.

I remember years ago I didn't much like listening to Bartok or Stravinsky. Now I like both. In between I was exposed to people who loved their music, and that was part of what changed me.

I'm not suggesting any particular "style" or "movement" is better or worse than another. Every art has its virtuosi, its journeymen and its geniuses.

Virtuosity by itself, though, strikes me as sterile. I'd rather hear a technically flawed performance with musicality, and I'd rather look at a less than brilliant painting that shows commitment and expression, whether old or recent.

I can't stand it, I just have to pass this on. While waiting to have my rotors turned yesterday (the ones on my car) I was flipping through the "Travel and Leisure" magazine. In a section about Mexico City and its art scene, it showed a painting that was recently loaned to the new "Modern Art" museum of Mexico City. The painting consisted of large yellow block letters painted on an orange background. The letters spelled the word "****". In case that was edited, it was a four letter word beginning with "s" and ending with "it".

I watched the movie, "The Millionaire Motel" starring Mel Gibson last night, and there was an interesting comment made by the art dealer character. He said something like, "There is a thin line between art and rubbish. The creator of the work is just the painter, and we (the critics and dealers) are the artists who determine which it will be."

Lead white
 

Sharlene,

You can still get and use lead white and many traditional schools advise it today.

Your ideas about museums is a good point. They exhibit movements from the past, like "modern art." Kind of a silly, shortsighted term they came up with wasn't it?

White lead
 

Thanks. Tim.

I know that white lead is being sold under the name of "Flake White", but I don't use it anymore because of the fear of lead poisening.

By the same token, I no longer use the original formulation of "Naple's Yellow", which is also lead based and head and shoulders above the imitations available.

On the other hand, I've yet to abandon my cadmiums even though I hear the new alternatives may be better. It's just not easy to adjust!

Pablo Picasso confession.
 

Picasso once stated: Pablo Picasso's confession to Giovanni Papini. Nov. 1951,"New Gogs Diary" similar comments repeated in 1952.

The quote is from a fantasy interview which never took place in reality...

I found this piece of information on this web-site: http://www.goodart.org/picconf.htm

But, but...
 

I have read that quote for 25 years in dozens of prints...he said "montebank" (sic?) not clown, I think. How is it now a fantasy interview? I'd like to see the proof that he did not say that. The man talked more than he painted.

That he said the things on the Yoder site doesn't mean he did not say the famous selfless and honest things does it? I've never read any solid denials.

Hmm, what he SAID doesn't matter a hoot. What he MADE is there to see, and to criticize. How many artists have made statements about their own work which are irrelevant in the light of what they painted? Artists are not critics, and what matters is our response to their work, be it positive or negative.