What makes him/her a true artist?

[Mischa Milosevic]

I do apologize for not naming the attachments. I had thought that someone else would chime in with a comment regarding the images even to name them. Being that no one has:


The first is Bouguereau, zenobia. There is much to be said about this painting. It is so rich with information technically and historically.

Second is Ilja Repin

Third is Anschutz Thomas

Forth is a etching executed by Zorn and sent to me Grethe Angen.

I so weary much wish I had more of Zorns works. His color/value execution is exquisite. His brush work free and not tight at all.Anyone that has a chance to study his art is quite fortunate.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Misha, I love the painting by Anschutz Thomas. I find it so vibrant and alife. I will have to search out more works by this artist, whom I'm not familiar with. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.

[Marvin Mattelson]

To me, art is what I respond to visually in a positive way. I believe we all react to certain stimuli based on a variety of factors, which are directly tied to our experience. What we see is based on what we learn and this informs what we look for.

As my understanding evolves it's interesting to note which aspects remain strong and which dissipate. I see a great number of commonalities in the approaches of the artists that I favor, and these I try to incorporate in my working methodology. It's also the basis of what I teach.

My preferences are solely the function of my taste and not biased by what anyone else thinks is correct or what is commonly agreed upon to have merit. Time alters perception, and the general consensus always reverses itself. I believe that the more agreement there is, the less the likelihood of any real merit. My true path revealed itself when I became frustrated with the status quo and sought a different direction.

I always weigh the opinions of others and consider what they say. If I'm swayed and shift my position it's ultimately a function of my intuitive judgment responding to the revelation of a bigger truth. As a result my clarity is ever evolving. My path is dynamic, not static and the end is nowhere in sight. I'm closer now than ever before and that's very exciting. As a result I consider myself an artist in training.

[Mischa Milosevic]

Here is a few more masterful peaces bu Zorn and Anschuts Thomas.

[Mischa Milosevic]

Enzie it is my pleasure. I'm glad you like his work. In the second painting of his you can notice his approach the under-painting, drawing, massing and value. Notice that he did not bother covering the under-painting in its entirety. What grate lessons!

Marvin, I have learn't much from you in the past year or so, by being on this forum. One can benefit much from your wisdom.

Of course, we all see shining examples of technique, some of which we admire very much and which we attempt to copy for technique's sake alone. As a result technique actually gets in our way and we end up by not seeing the subject we are painting truly and often overlook many of the other ESSENTIAL elements of painting as well. When a person thinks in terms of technique he/she probably is not giving his/her best attention to VALUES, RELATIONSHIPS, or even COLOR. He/she thinks about the strokes he/she is making and not much else. Technique is a strong indication of individuality and if one allows, it will get into your work subconsciously. It is much like handwriting, of which no two specimens are alike.

[Mischa Milosevic]

One of my favorite women master portrait artists is the famous Vigee le Brun. If you search out her biography and you closely scrutinize her art you will notice why her portraits meant so much to many.

[Marvin Mattelson]

Enzie, the artist's name whose work you posted is Thomas Anschutz.

Thanks Mischa, I'm always happy that my words have a positive effect. I just share my experience. I don't speak hypothetically nor do I try to assume knowledge of subjects of which I have none. I have little tolerance for anyone who speaks for the sake of hearing their own voice, or bullies others into agreement, in order to compensate for their insecurities. I just tell it like it is. I like to stir the pot.

When I spoke about the common traits which attract me to certain works of art, I wasn't talking strictly about technique. Obviously technical skill is very important when it comes to expressing one's ideas, just as a good grasp of prose can be a powerful tool for a writer. Poor use of language, just like bad technique can be very distracting.

The most important quality that a painting can possess, in my opinion, is that of sincerity. I look for a genuine connection between the artist and the subject. There needs to be a certain sense of awe for what one is painting. This quality is first and foremost when I view the best works of Paxton, Bouguereau, Kramskoy and DeCamp. I feel the love baby. It needs to come from the heart and convey to the viewer why it had to be painted.

It's sad that so many of our artistic brethren are too quick to dismiss certain skillful artists simply because they have great facility and they therefore totally miss the true beauty. A painting isn't necessarily bad if it's tight or a portrait, nor is it necessarily good if it's loose or allegorical. Style is not the determining factor in judging good from bad.

The painters I like also all seem to demonstrate a convincing understanding of what they are painting. Certain elements may merely be suggested but they are never just techniqued out. In addition, there is a huge difference between copying and understanding. It doesn't matter if you copy from life or from a photo. If you don't understand something, it's just copying. Working from life can help you understand, but only if you truly search.

I also think far too many artists look at the paintings they admire in a strictly superficial way and are seduced primarily by the surface, be it tight or brush-strokey. Too many artists are trying to emulate surface effects and to me this is the major shortcoming with realism today.

I post here to get people to open their eyes and think. The smarter we artists are, the better the odds the general public will be enlightened as well.

[Steven Sweeney]

A characteristic that the posted images have in common, to my eye, is that they are artistic expressions that could have emanated only from the brush or charcoal or ink nib of a particular artist. No one would even think to

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Thanks Misha for posting more another work by Anschutz, I still haven't looked him up, no time! I like the idea of sometimes having the underpaintg show through and have done it on occasion, when it added a special effect.

I admire those artists (old or new) most and consider them a true artist, whose entire body of work shows growth and a collective understanding of great drawing skills and an acquired handle on technique (paint application, color knowledge, brush handling, composition/design).

These are attributes gained through study and careful observation and a true love for what one does. The paintings produced by such artists have a quality on to themselves that are capable to attract attention and withstand the judgment of time.

If such an artist is able to push further with innovations that make the work ahead of it's time, than I call him/her a true master.

[Mischa Milosevic]

Steve, I could not agree with you more. It is like you say that art comes about when the heart and the hands/mind work together. Happy accidents are just that happy accidents.

I have found that by doing master copies I can learn much. I not only benefit from their skill but from their faults as well. I think that at times one can get so engrossed in a painting, when doing a copy, we tend not to notice what is amiss. Sure it takes much time and study to be able to see these things, of which I am but a babe, but it is there for the discerning eye.

When I was at the academy and I was on my first charcoal cast, while in the finishing stages, the face of Michaelangelo's David, I was asked to render the background perfectly smooth. When I thought that I had accomplished what was asked of me the instructor came by and by example afforded me in a 1" square what I was to accomplish. In my minds eye what I have accomplished with the background was perfect and it was but there was more to learn. At that moment, I could not understand why I must refine the background to such a degree of perfection. It was later that I understood and began to appreciate the benefit of such understanding. Then again having the understanding is one thing being able to use what you understand is what takes time and lot of hard work.

When I hear the words like "oooo you have it so easy just siting around drawing and doodling" I laugh for they have no idea. No one does! unless you have walked the walk. That is why today I can honestly say I can just scratch the surface and appreciate the work of the old masters and a few of the masters of today.

So, let us not forget the old saying, we can learn much even from the mistakes of others.


Enzie, you have put it all in a nut shell. That is exactly what it is all about. If one exemplifies the qualities the public will beet a path to your door. Sure one needs to let the public know that you are available and exhibitions are good but the best advertisement is word of mouth. Even though word of moth is best advertisement but remember it can be ones worst enemy. So, let us do our best and strive for nothing short of excellence.