National Portrait Gallery Contest Review

[Sharon Knettell]

.

-- Blake Gopnik

[Julie Deane]

Interesting article, with some valid points. I think that most portrait artists tend to be traditionalists, and not on some "cutting edge". The writer obviously expected less traditional works. I do believe that the use of academic realism as an end to itself is limiting.

I just went to see the Cecilia Beaux exhibit at the High in Atlanta, and what struck me most were her unerring brush strokes, and clear color. She did not overwork her portraits. Such boldness- it was very freeing to see. Perhaps the extremely realistic style so popular now will relax after artists have proved that they can, indeed, produce highly realistic works.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Thanks so much for posting this review, Sharon. Thomasin, I think you are right about the points he makes having been made before.

Originally Posted by Julie Deane

Cecilia Beaux. . . . did not overwork her portraits. Such boldness- it was very freeing to see. Perhaps the extremely realistic style so popular now will relax after artists have proved that they can, indeed, produce highly realistic works.

Recently I was reading the new biography of Cecilia Beaux, and near the end the author describes her dismay at the changing art scene. Beaux herself thought that the new trend away from realism was merely a flash in the pan--but look how long it has lasted! When you read the reviews in the book, you get a really good idea of the many conflicting opinions and the turmoil in the art scene at the time. The conflict in the art scene now is reminiscent of that, except realism is coming back rather than on the way out.

Julie, I agree with what you say about realism. I've been watching the New York art scene with disouragement. Right now the public sees the tight academic realism as "better" and more skilled than the brushy and painterly style with which I identify more. I have had a gallery owner tell me that I will lose my collector base if I keep painting more loosely--even though the change in my work over time has been very gradual.

We really do have to go in the direction that we want, and not worry about these trends. That's the only answer.

[Thomasin Dewhurst]

I think asking yourself "what is the point?" about the very realist paintings that are being painted (and winning competitions) at the moment is something valid. I am quite often seduced by the realism, and impressed by the energy and staying-power these artists have (it's a bit like becoming fit enough to run a great marathon), but that question about the point of it all always comes up in my mind. The paintings are like novels that have all the characters and places described with great care and detail, but there is no real crafting of story around a central climax that expresses an original idea, and even the lack of such structure is not considered.

Originally, when photorealism first came about it was a comment of the meaningless of a Modernist expression in the midst of thinking society's cynicism, resulting in part from a disillusionment with the shallow ideas and obsession with commercialism that was taking such a firm hold at the time, wasn't it? Anything unashamedly less "civilised" than the new glossy advertisments that were dominating visual culture (or so it seemed) or, more accurately, anything less "civilised" that was created without a sense of its own irony, was seen as below par; irresponsible; blatantly ignoring the crisis that was looming over the increasingly consumer-centered western world. Now it's just a gimmick, albeit a very clever one, but there's very little self-critical thinking; very little standing back and looking at one's place in today's world, with it's own place in history, and, of course how history has traditionally been described, who described it, and again, of course, what is included and what left out of documented history, and whether or not this is fair, and why. There's so much to consider, at the very least it's the complacent repetitiousness of photorealism that is rather shameful.

[Allan Rahbek]

[QUOTE=Sharon Knettell
Vermeer's "Girl withe the Pearl Earring" is an example. It is vividly, quiveringly real, yet exquisite in it's poetic descriptiveness. It asks something more of us, to simply open our heart to beauty.[/QUOTE]

I agree that art is about beauty, beauty of structure, beauty of color and beauty of many other aspects.

I don't believe in "protest painters" because the protest is not their real motive for making the painting, they are trying to make something real, something beautiful ! The reason why such trends gets so boring is that the painters are not good enough, they have'nt got the sense of beauty.

I can't think of a better question than; how to define beauty?

[Thomasin Dewhurst]

Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell

"One of the easiest things to do is to criticize society", Chogyam Tulku Rinpoche.

I am sure that's true. However, criticism of society does have it's uses. In some cases it may lead to making society more considerate of all it's members. But that's due, I am sure, to acting on the criticisms - actually doing something about changing what is disliked.

In the case of mid C20th Photorealism and Pop Art, from where Photorealism stemmed, the artists were thinking activists, rallying effectively against their society's growing commercialism on the one hand, and Abstract Expressionism and Minimalism on the other. Painting was proclaimed dead - it certainly looked like it was in it's final death "throws" or had disappeared completely. The triumphant march of Modernism seemed to have led down a road to the grave. Painting no longer existed, then, and a new visual culture of commercial photography was emerging.

Though if something happens en masse it ought to be looked at carefully. Did the western world's obsession with commercialism and individual commercial enterprise have anything to do with a response to the threat of communism? Did the idea of the death of painting, and with it the idea of the great artistic genius and old master artist (as the epitome of artistic endeavours towards which other artists should strive), go some way to encourage the idea of democracy?

Whether they did or not, the tragedy of these efforts lies in the belief that aesthetics itself was dead, or, at least, the fine arts and aesthetics were no longer a happy partnership. Movements such as the Arts and Crafts Movement of the earlier C20th, and it's followers, show where aesthetics was now relegated: in the realm of the so-called hobbyists. Aesthetics was trivialised; the essence of art was ostracised from the arena of the "thinking" "artist".

[Linda Ciallelo]

Back in the 70's I was being told that my paintings were too photographic. I switched from egg tempera to pastel and studied Monet in an effort to loosen up. Now I'm being told that I don't have enough modeling in my work. If you look at many of the masters like Rembrandt, Vermeer, Velasquez, etc. they are really quite Impressionistic in their style. It's not tight photographic realism , but the essence of the idea that they have painted. Bouguerreau, Ingres, and others, of the 19th century,are more tightly photographic. Zorn is quite loose, as is Klimt , of course. On and on we go.

I have always dismissed the idea that paintings must address a current politic issue. This is total nonsense and any painting that is made for that purpose will be forgotten in ten years. People will look at it and wonder what in the world the artist was thinking, unless they read the history books to find out what political issue was popular at the time that the painting was painted. If you want your painting to retain worth throughout history it must come from your soul, not the newspapers. We all have taken this trip here to earth to experience life. True art is when one person communicates visually with another , saying ," look , this is what I see here". It makes us feel less alone. It's all in the way one "describes" his visual experience to others. We are , in a sense , talking to the viewers about how we are experiencing life. Our verbal communications severely limit the expression of our visual experiences. Art fills in that gap.

This is just my opinion.

[Thomasin Dewhurst]

But it's all been said before - many times! His article regurgitates known ideas as much as traditional realist art does. You have to ask yourself whether you want to please yourself or reassure and gain the approval of people-in-the-know who might not be in-the-know as much as they proclaim.

In a time when human psychological disorders and transgressions (so-called) are not considered as degrading as they once were, but something to be, perhaps, proud of; something that gains attention and concern, and something that, when come to terms with, could be an aid to personal growth. In a time such as this, why is sentimentality so frowned upon. Surely it is as valid and real a human emotion as the more aggressive human emotions that are so highly regarded by Modernists. Freud (Sigmund) considered the quiet emotions false happiness - this type of mood was akin to death, he thought, and the only validly positive emotions were the active and productive ones - those akin to life. He was wrong. Quiet contemplation is necessary for human beings to process the information gained from living actively in the world. It is the source of philosophy, and the means of adapting to circumstance. Sentimentality has it's place in the cycle of human emotions and should be lived through and respected in order to achieve an intelligent balance of self.

There may be, apparently, too many artists pursuing the route of high realism, but you have to ask yourself why. You have to look at the phenomenon objectively and not respond from a disgruntled Modernist viewpoint.

The trouble with Modernist ideals - i.e the pursuit of the new and the eschewing of the already-been-done is that you methodically eliminate subjects and styles open to the artist. There are only so many things one can do with paint. Modernism ended with Minimalism - a blank canvas. In this stripping the art of painting of subjects and styles meaning itself was lost. This current-day obsession with high realism is, in my opinion, a search (perhaps unconsious in quite a few cases) for that Holy Grail; the point to art; the reason you take up the tools of your craft in the first place - a thorough and rigorous sifting through the impressions of the real world where artistic meaning was discovered in the first place.

[Thomasin Dewhurst]

Perhaps we should look at the definitions of sentimentality and reword them in a less judgmental way; go to the very start of sentimental emotion as it occurs in a human being. Because if it does occur spontaneously - emerging from the subconscious into the conscious mind - then it is a valid key to the workings of the human mind and thus a valid tool in it's (the human mind's) expression.

Post-modernist philosophy and art presents kitsch, albeit ironically, as an unexplored theme or subject of art. They are very aware of its conventionally low-brow status, and make very sure everyone knows they are aware of this, hence it's ironic presentation in their work. Perhaps we could go one step further and look at kitsch, sentimentality, etc. without irony. I don't like sentimentality or kitsch, but I am ever-increasingly aware that I have these sentiments myself and that they will insist on coming out. My art is a constant battle against a "nasty feeling" coming though. My son is a lovely excuse for buying kitsch ("well, it's for the children, really ... ). These feeling are there, like laziness, boredom (I am thoroughly BORED with this painting, for example), selfishness. Should they be curbed, stamped out, or looked at with interest and expressed with honesty?

[Lisa Gloria]

I think, speaking honestly, that I abhore anyone's sentimentality except my own. But I am curious - are there really 10,000 people who can realistically depict anything - especially a person? ESPECIALLY a person? That seems arbitrarily dismissive. I doubt its veracity.

Perhaps 10000 people can realistically depict the Tree in the generic, but nobody ever said "That's not my tree."

If the portrait depends on the likeness, there's more than the photographic likeness at stake. Isn't there?