Alice Neel: What do you think?

[Henry Wienhold]

When I saw the self portrait I wanted to laugh, but then I asked myself, "should I be laughing." Then I realized
this is one bold lady, and to me boldness has merit. She reaches out with her work and makes you stop and think. Both of the portrait's draw you in and leave you wondering and contemplating her motive. Then I realized I would of liked to have met this lady, just to have a conversation with her. She's definately an artist who paints as she wishes and obviously she isn't a conventional crowd pleaser. I like that kind of attitude, be who you are is what I think she is saying. I like these two paintings.

[Tom Edgerton]

So what is the relationship between truth and beauty? (I've found this to be a hot issue when painting commissioned portraits) And how does this affect your response to Neel's work?

We've discussed this before here, but it's still interesting to me.

I honor my clients in my commissioned work. I think that's my job. I'm not ashamed to show them as they appear on a really good day. But I don't portray them in an untruthful way, and I don't accept direction to do so, and I don't accept the commissions in which I'm asked to.

My explanation for this is that I think people are perfect as they are, and don't need me to make them more so. So when I'm working on a commission, I try to be as straightforward in my depiction as I can, but to stay out of the way. When you look at my commissioned work, you should be aware of the subject and not of me.

If I begin to chafe under this, I do a personal work where I can experiment and paint anyway I please.

Some artists might think this is a pact with the devil, but any commission you accept is in some measure a collaboration, and if you don't believe so, you are free not to paint them. I don't worry about it a lot, because if I'm being paid to stand there and practice, it's purely heaven and I don't take this circumstance for granted.

Finally, stylistically speaking, I can see the boldness and force in Alice Neel's work, but it isn't my cup of choice. But ANYONE who picks up a brush and tries to make a picture has more guts than the average bear, and don't forget it.

Love to all--TE

[Michele Rushworth]

Tom, this is surely one of the most thoughtful and thought provoking posts in recent memory on this Forum. Thanks for posting your perspective on what we do!

[Linda Brandon]

Originally Posted by Tom Edgerton

My explanation for this is that I think people are perfect as they are, and don't need me to make them more so. So when I'm working on a commission, I try to be as straightforward in my depiction as I can, but to stay out of the way. When you look at my commissioned work, you should be aware of the subject and not of me.-TE

Yes, but, yes, but... (always love your comments...)
Tom, I can always tell which are your portraits and which are somebody else's. I don't think it's possible to remove the artist's point of view. Even your decision to be straightforward, an honorable attempt toward honest impartiality, is a point of view.

[Alexandra Tyng]

It's true, Tom--artists who paint portraits run the gamut between those who think accepting commissioned work is equivalent to making a pact with the devil, and artists who do only commissioned work because it is deeply satisfying practically and artistically.

Don't think I'm wishy-washy, but I think the whole spectrum of viewpoints is valid. No one should feel defensive about the chioces they make. There is a lot to be learned from the cooperation that goes into commissioned work; it can challenge the artist to make things better and solve problems, and it can challenge the client to think in new ways, too. There is also a lot to be learned from having complete freedom to compose a portrait and solve problems without the parameters of the client steering the artist in one way or another. As Tom was saying, he does both at different times. I also do both, and in very much the same spirit that Tom works. Some people only do one or the other, and that's fine.

My impression from watching the documentary on Neel (Andrea, correct me if I am not right) is that she often asked people if they would sit for her. Her portraits were appreciated by some subjects, but not others. She was inspired to paint her version of truth, whether or not it was appreciated. She was okay with living more on the edge financially than some other people. I'm not saying that that is more admirable. What I'm saying is she was living the way she wanted to live. If we express ourselves the way we want to, if we are true to our particular kind of creative spark, then that is what is important in life.

Alex

[Michele Rushworth]

Alexandra wrote:

There is a lot to be learned from the cooperation that goes into commissioned work; it can challenge the artist to make things better and solve problems, and it can challenge the client to think in new ways, too.

While I sometimes think I'd like to have complete freedom in what I paint -- and still have a client waiting for it at the end! -- I know I have benefitted from the collaborations I have entered into.

The structure and limitations of commissioned portraiture have made me a much better artist. In the past, with absolutely no limits or direction to my work I often changed my focus and artistic objectives quite dramatically from painting to painting. I had no individual voice, no recognizable style, and not that much in the way of honed skills.

Now I am on a clear path and the discipline is causing me to channel my efforts and skill in one particular direction. This has allowed me to achieve some very productive growth in recent years. Without that externally imposed discipline and structure I think I would still be going off in all directions.

[Tom Edgerton]

Linda--

I absolutely agree, that it's impossible to remove oneself or one's point of view from the process. I just try to remember where the focus is supposed to be when I'm working for hire.


Alexandra--

I agree wholeheartedly that everyone is on their own path, and that's just fine.

For those of us who do both personal work and commissions, I think that problems arise most often with clients when we forget which hat we're wearing when.

By the way, I've become aware of your work through this forum and I think it's fine stuff indeed. A lot to learn from in it....


Best--TE

[Andrea Kantrowitz]

Without that externally imposed discipline and structure I think I would still be going off in all directions.

I've had the same experience, for me the focus has led to a higher level of skill which has translated into my non-portrait work. Last night I was at a reception for the AAF Contemporary Art Fair in NYC, where some of my work is being exhibited. Another artist asked me where I studied and I told her, but then I realized, and said--I really learned to paint by doing commissioned portraits.

people are perfect as they are, and don't need me to make them more so.

I love this so much, thanks Ted.
I seem to have an unconscious desire to please--so that for me, when the likeness is off, its usually because I've unconsciously strayed toward some false ideal--the eyes aren't small enough, the nose isn't big enough, etc... I only ran into the opposite problem at the beginning. Now it seems if prospective clients see my work, and like it, then they're ok with how I see people. The trick is to find the reference photos that they truly feel happy with.

she often asked people if they would sit for her. Her portraits were appreciated by some subjects, but not others

Alex, she worked in relative obscurity and poverty for a lot of her life, and her main subjects were family, lovers, and neighborhood kids that she asked to sit for her. She only became an art star in the seventies, when she was already in her seventies. (had to do with the decline of formalism, and a more pluralistic art world, including pop art, photo-realism etc...) It then became a great honor to sit for her, and her subjects sometimes purchased the paintings and sometimes others did. So at all times, she pretty much had total artistic control over the project, it was not a collaboration in the way much of our work is.

[Rob Sullivan]

I voted "no."

Some of Tom's reasons mirror mine exactly, so I won't repeat them.

As regards boldness: If I walk out of my door naked, I get arrested. If I paint a nude self portrait, I am bold. Another take is this: Consider how much more "bold" or "honest" Alice Neel's nude self-portrait at 80 would be if it were totally realistic, and not a caricature...

Anyway, I first saw Neel's work in a book of portrait art that my grandmother gave to me at age 11. I had already decided a few years prior that I was going to be an artist. So when I saw the work, and that it was on a technical level equal to mine at age 11, I dismissed it. Now 24 years later, as an adult artist I understand the rationale behind her style, it still doesn't justify (to me) the lack of (or intentional leaving off of) technical skill.

[Tom Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Rob Sullivan

Consider how much more "bold" or "honest" Alice Neel's nude self-portrait at 80 would be if it were totally realistic, and not a caricature....

Rob--

This is a FANTASTIC point to make, for realism's sake. Expressionists often like to think they have a corner on artistic "honesty."

Or even beyond this notion: What if she had given herself over to someone else to portray her in the altogether?

I ask myself, which idea is more fearful, or takes more guts, having Alice Neel depict me nude at age 80, or say, Nelson Shanks?

Fortunately for you all, this will never be anything but a rhetorical question (whew!), but ask yourself this about yourself, and you'll get the point. Which is stylistically more truthful, finally?

--TE