Classical realism? Interpretive work?

[John de la Vega]

.Admin note from Chris Saper: This thread was split off from Linda Brandon's Oil Critique, "Jack", since it delves more into philosophy better suited for discussion in the Cafe.

In response to Jim Riley's comment:

John,

I agree with your comments and attempted (without luck) to find Robert Henri's book "The Art Spirit" where he provides helpful comments on the role of backgrounds in a portrait. I do recall that he believed the background recedes and exists only as a compliment to the figure.

I also like Chase's quote regarding overt quests for every detail.

"Don't hesitate to exaggerate color and light. Don't worry about telling lies. Most tiresome people - and pictures are the stupidly truthful ones. I really think I prefer a little deviltry."

Jim,

I couldn't agree more with you and Chase about the artists who equate pursuing slavish detail with art or truth. A case in point is the work of several (not all) of the so-called classical realists, who unquestionably possess uncanny 'reality'-rendering skills but whose paintings are, yes, boring. Not quite the same can be said of our friend (no names mentioned here) whom I referred to in Reston as practicing 'portraiture as high technology', remember? At least his work ocasionally exhibits some depth, some 'gravitas'. The bland/ prettyfied classical realists can be found, for those who are reading this but are not familiar with their work, in a site called artrenewal.org, in its "Living Masters" gallery. The artrenewal gallery as a whole contains a wonderful array of past and present painters besides the bland classical realists, bless their heart. Unfortunately it also contains high-horse editorializing against 'modernism' which reflects an overt bias if not outright ignorance of art and culture history and painting.

From my own high horse I'd like to emphasize that, in my own experience, artistic truth does not lie in 'copying' or 'duplicating' visual reality, no matter how 'selectively' and 'artistically' the task is approached, as most of us portrait painters soon find out: the edifice of reality alone is composed of many floors, some decidedly closer to heaven, with no fast elevator anywhere around

[Steven Sweeney]

From my own high horse I'd like to emphasize that, in my own experience, artistic truth does not lie in 'copying' or 'duplicating' visual reality, no matter how 'selectively' and 'artistically' the task is approached

But this, as so often, leaves us wondering where the truth does lie (and why there?). I confess to some confusion here

[Timothy C. Tyler]

Nelson Shanks, Bill Whitaker and Morgan Weistling's work is on ARC and it's hardly tight and boring, nor does it lack expressiveness. The dead painters represent several countries and 7 centuries.

[John de la Vega]

Steven,

Thank you for your perceptive reply to my post, perhaps a bit too sweeping in my (apparent) injunction of classical realism and reality-rendering skills. I say apparent because, firstly, I do specify 'some' -and not all- classical realists. It would be foolish of me to disparage realistic craftmanship and painting technique, which I greatly admire and try to emulate even in those whom I consider boring, or bland. I constantly work to improve my own technical skills and do my best to instill them as an ongoing discipline in my students. As the recently maligned Duchess of Windsor said, appropriately: "You can never be too thin or have too much technique".

Unfortunately sometimes too much technique DOES stand in the way of the truth, becoming an end in itself, instead of the GATE it really ought to be. The problem, and it is a critical one, lies in equating technical 'academic' skills with artistic achievement (a problem as old -well, almost as old - as drawing and painting themselves). The history of art is decidedly NOT the history of the ability to draw and paint.

Take musical skills, for example: there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of 10 or 12-year olds all over the world who possess, say, a flawless or nearly flawless piano technique, who not only can play all the notes and dynamics in a complicated score, but can also impart feeling and expressiveness in a performance. Amazing, and glorious, what we humans can do, isn't it?

Does that make them exceptional musicians, great artists, true messengers of the truth (pardon my flowery rethoric)? I'm sure in more than a few cases the answer would be yes, they are indeed great artists, even though at 10 or 12 we would -apparently - lack the experience, maturity and depth required. This is of course a judgement, and a narrow one whether we respond in the positive or in the negative.

Ultimately the 'truth' (in the sense of our recognition of full validity of an artistic message besides a subjective 'resonance' with it is, well, subjective, individual. Even when we can also say there are standards to assist our judgement, in music or in painting.

As far as ArtRenewal's attack on modernism and contemporary art in general I agree with you that, even when deliberate, it hurts them more than helps them. But of course the attacks on modernism are nothing new: they have existed in more or less virulent forms since Impressionism, and today quite a few individuals, critics, and art groups make a living from such posturing, always finding a constituency, even among people who should know better. That's their choice.

I will name one attacker because I happen to have had an ongoing discussion with him: Brian K Yoder, owner of the Brian Yoder Gallery and Critic's Corner. Mr Yoder has a section in his internet gallery called something like 'rogue bad art' in which artists such as Picasso, Kandinsky, Klee, Rothko, Mondrian, etc, are 'exposed' as public cultural offenders. Sad, isn't it?

In my exchange of ideas with Mr. Yoder he never produced critical proof of his assertions, or even acknowledged that his tirades against these modern masters are the result of a definite bias on his part, a matter of personal taste. I have nothing against somebody saying "Picasso stinks, I hate his work", or "my kid can do what Kandinsky did on the canvas", but I have a real problem with somebody who displays wonderful art in a public gallery and has a section reserved for 'bad art' in which great masters are thrashed.

In my view, and again this is entirely personal, there is more truth in one square inch of one of Kandinsky's paintings than in a whole show of some, and I emphasize some, 'classical realists' works. There are classical realists in Art Renewal -and other galleries- whose work I find exquisite and highly artistic and expressive. I have nothing but admiration for people who pursue technical perfection, and spread the need and validity of it. It's wonderful to find when it's coupled with insight, feeling, beauty, and harmony.

[John de la Vega]

Timothy,

I am actually quite fond of Whitaker's and Weistling's work, and I admire yours. I am also extremely fond of Nelson Shanks' work, but, try as I may, I cannot find his paintings in Art Renewal. Perhaps you can tell me how to access them, and, if they are not there, in some way help to correct that oversight.

Thank you,
John

[Timothy C. Tyler]

John, I think we agree on several things. (I think I can understand your implied stuff too.) Thanks for the compliment, by the way. Shanks' work is on the Atelier page now. I assume the other part is to come?

Many folks slip through the cracks on such a huge site and with so many artists. For example, I still don't think this guy is on the site yet. He's one of my favorite artists: Nicolai Fechin.

PS. I disagree with Brian Yoder often. However, Fred Ross really can read a painting like few people I've seen that don't paint every day. John Gerherty of the Autry Museum is another that comes to mind and maybe Jack Morris of Morris Whiteside gallery.

[Timothy C. Tyler]

John, I visit your site every so often to see what's new. Your "Rebecca..." is a fine example of the use of transparent/opaque colors. Too seldom is this device utilized fully....it sure brings a work to life.

[John de la Vega]

Timothy,
Thank you for the info on Shanks' work on ARC. Shouldn't he be in the Living Masters Section? Nothing comes up entering his name for a search on the site (yes, large and somewhat convoluted), which is really an oversight, woudn't you think?

I do think we agree on quite a few issues, besides inclusion in ARC. I will look up the names you gave me.

By the way, I wasn't refering to tightness or looseness in my comments on the classical realists. Tightness is perceptually unpleasant, whether boring, masterly, or not. Looseness can be boring also, I'm sorry to say, as your guy here, Fechin, could be in some of his paintings (I very much like this particular drawing and a LOT of his other work).

The great Lawrence Olivier was asked by a critic what lied at the heart of his acting, to which (who many consider) the greatest actor of the twentieth century quickly replied, "Well, it's all in the EYES, isn't it?" For us people painters particualarly, and I believe for painters in general, we could say something like,
"Well, it's all in the FORM, isn't it?"

I'm not talkin' psychological insight into human expression or any such esoteric or obtuse malarkey here: an ARM can be rendered to perfection in 'shape' and modeling nuances of lighting on the form, beautiful and accurate color (what I was referring to when I talked about 'copying' and 'duplicating') and still be totally devoid of 'the soul of the form' as Henry Hentsche, quoting Hawthorne, mentioned in a workshop I took with him many years ago.

Perhaps 'higher' truth and expressiveness, whatever these may mean to each and every one of us, are elusive things. Believing they will be arrived at through exhaustive execution of detail and 'duplication' totally misses the point, precisely because academic technique - whether in Parisian, Florentine ateliers or those on our own blessed land - often obscures and blocks the more direct path to essence, to a Zen transmition of a higher order of seeing and awareness.

By the same token, exhaustive copying and rendering, used as a gate to discovery, control and eventual mastery, alla Geoffrey Mims, can indeed function as the right gate, but just that, a gate, an important checkpoint on the road to artistic integration and self-realization. Surely one of many, but not necessarily the most important.

Sadly, in the case of many realists - not just some of the classical realists, but realists of all stripes - technique becomes, in my own subjective or objective evaluation of what they do - an obstacle to higher consciousness. The result is often contrived, shallow, sterile, albeit it very 'correct' work, which pulls the wool over many people's eyes.

[Steven Sweeney]

I never had the pleasure of actually studying at Provincetown with Hensche, nor certainly with Hawthorne, though I

[Jim Riley]

I reread John's comments and do not get the impression that drawing skill/accuracy are not of considerable importance. I think the suggestion that an exclusive commitment to accuracy and detail might work against other aspects of painting that would help touch ones' soul and spirit. Sometimes the whole of the painting is better than the accuracy of the parts. Sargent, no less, said something to the effect "paint the apple and not the spots" and as the student (aren't we all?) develops it is helpful that they understand this as much as the importance of angle of the mouth. Otherwise everything can be in perfect place just like the railroad crossing where the gates are down, the bells are ringing, the lights are flashing......but no train is coming.