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
__________________
TomEdgerton.com
"The dream drives the action."
--Thomas Berry, 1999
|