|
This is interesting...
As I think of this thread, I perceive a basic misunderstanding in the reactions to my original post. I'm not advocating that the highest an artist can strive for is to divest one's work of any individual stamp, and achieve a totally generic, unrecognizable result. I too doubt that this is even possible. It's merely that, at the point when viewing the work--especially portraits--I become aware of the technique at the expense of an emotional connection to and understanding of the subject, I lose interest.
Case in point: consider Sargent, Richard Schmidt, Burt Silverman, and Mr. Kinstler. All have highly unique and individual styles, with some expressive elements. But when looking at their portraits, I connect with the subject first; THEN I admire the technique and revel in their individual methods. This is not a "viewing choice" on my part, they've created and handled their work so I "enter" the painting that way. Probably because they've had an emotional connection with the subject themselves. My feeling that I "know" the subject of these works is, I realize, an artistic and aesthetic illusion, but it's a pretty convincing one.
As it's a goal for me in my own work, thus it's what I admire most, and what is the mark of a master to me. Sometimes I get there a little bit, sometimes not.
When I encounter Alice Neel's and other such expressionist works, I don't come away feeling that I've had the subjects themselves revealed to me the same way--that, because of what the artist did, I "understand" them. Again, I may revel in the bold way they're painted, but for me, their power comes from the technique first, and sometimes exclusively. So the technique becomes an impediment to understanding the subject, not an aid. It may be painted exuberantly, but for me it still falls short somehow.
Anyone?
__________________
TomEdgerton.com
"The dream drives the action."
--Thomas Berry, 1999
|
Hybrid Mode
