Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom Edgerton
Expressionists often like to think they have a corner on artistic "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!
Threaded Mode
