Picasso & Modern Art

[Sharlene Laughton]

Just as you said, PETER GARRETT, probably "the posts are a little passionate because we actually care about art and what we're doing". It's great to see painters duke it out ... isn't that the whole idea behind the Cafe?

On the other hand, dealing in generalities is pretty tough as there are always exceptions to the rule.

I've seen exhibits of the work of students coming out of one unnamed (but allegedly reputable) art school here in San Francisco that truly made me cringe. Whether or not they could draw was beside the point. Unless they professed to be anti-art, nothing in their work could be called worthwhile.

On the other hand, there are works by a figurative and abstractionist painter Diebenkorn that absolutely make me drool. His mastery of richly layered and subtle paint surfaces is unsurpassed. The only other painter I can think of whose paint surfaces were so rich and wonderful is Rembrandt. When I saw his 'Rape of Lucretia' at the Minneapolis Art Institute, I could hardly believe it!

Yes, a painted surface can knock me out ... so can beautifully painted edges, an exciting juxtaposition of colors, a delicately painted passage, an imaginative composition, a fantastic brushstroke that says it all ... and, more!

Hey, it's good for painters to learn how to draw because it expands the possibilities of their work. But, let's not make someone's draftsmanship the sole criteria by which we judge a work.

I'd like to say to PETER JOCHEMS that the techniques of the masters have only been forgotten in some quarters. Like JIM RILEY I chose to study at a particular art school (even though it didn't offer a degree) because colleges and universities at that time were very much into "do your own thing" and "innovation for innovation's sake".

JIM, Thanks for the compliment about my age. However, I graduated from high school in 1955!

By the way, while my focus has always been in the fine arts, I was a graphic designer and illustrator myself for about 10 years!

[Lon Haverly]

Picasso said himself something to the effect that "Every child is an artist. We just prevent them."

If every child were taught to draw, as I believe they should, we would have a much different country, and a much more intelligent civilization regarding art. Our nation is almost "illarterate." Even our PhDs of schools of art cannot draw. There is the problem. It is like being a music professor without being able to read notes.

[Marvin Mattelson]

My point of view may seem simplistic, however I offer it as food for thought. According to Eastern Philosophy everything in the universe seeks balance, a sense of equilibrium. I feel that we artists are blessed with an innate connection to the intrinsic beauty of the world around us. Traditionally artists have seen beauty and called attention to it by sharing their insights through their work.

I agree with Peter. I feel the purpose of art is to elevate the human condition. What makes a great Rembrandt painting so compelling? Is it the paint surface, the draftsmanship or the sensitivity towards light? I believe all these factors certainly come into play, however, to me it is his spirituality, his sense of oneness with his subject that moves and connects me.

Today we live in a world that is grossly out of balance. We are disconnected from nature due to our reliance on technology. We walk around with a bottle of water in one hand and a cell phone in the other. We eat processed foods. We are bombarded by microwaves and electromagnetic radiation. Most people feel disconnected. How could they not? People walk with their heads down. They even actually believe that a mechanically formulated image (a photograph) can capture the essence of a person as well as a hand painted portrait.

People are seeking more and more severe stimulation in an ineffective effort to regain their equilibrium. However trying to rebalance a grossly lopsided state of equilibrium invariably leads to overcompensating in the opposite direction. Personally, I think this explains the big attraction people have for modern art, whose main emphasis seems to be the peripatetic vacillation between extreme movements. It

[Peter Garrett]

Marvin! Hi!

For a guy against rhetoric, you're pretty good at it. Another not-so-lost art?

Sharlene,

Good to hear someone talk about edges, surface and the relative importance of drawing. I agree- we should learn to draw because it is ultimately about SEEING. Good drawing, I'd say, isn't always about accurate proportion and perspective etc.

There are still art schools trying to supply a set of skills out there. No school can be perfect, but in the end the artist has to decide his or her direction and pursue it.

Sounds like a bunch of truisms...so maybe it's true.

Peter G

[Sharlene Laughton]

Give me a break. Not only have I seen countless examples of miserable "modern" art, I've seen countless examples of miserable representational art.

Depending on the atmosphere of my surroundings I might choose to hang a Chinese watercolor on my wall over a Rembrandt or Vermeer painting ... but, of course, there's no way I can afford a Rembrandt or Vermeer...and I might build a house around them if I could. I'm sure that you don't expect most of us poor folk to live up to such exalted standards or call our work worthless if they don't.

You are right to some extent in that art is reflective of the times. But, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water! While we strive to reach for more, there's something wrong with us if we don't also appreciate "only" color and design.

I fully understand Picasso's fascination with African masks. I also understand Degas' and Cassatt's fascination with Japanese prints. Art reflects the context within which the artist works. The artists I mentioned integrated their influences into their work ... just as we're all integrating the camera and modern sensibilities into our work.

It's inevitable. In the hands of fine artists this will result in fine work.

[Jim Riley]

HOLD THE OBIT!

I thought it important to report that Mother Nature called early this morning. Therefore I can say with a good amount of certainty that reports of her demise do to the industrial revolution have apparently been exaggerated. (Forgive me Mark Twain)

On a less argumentative note, perhaps, I would like to suggest a book for those of you who may not be familiar with the thoughts of artist teacher Robert Henri. I have met a few artist who insist that it was/is recommended reading for all art students and yet was only brought to my attention four or five years ago. Were I Director of an art school this book would be at the top of the required reading list.

I delivered a portrait of the retiring President Judge of Westmoreland County Pennsylvania to the Greensburg Art Museum where a new frame would ready the painting for it's unveiling that very evening. While there I learned that a show titled "Robert Henri and His Influence" was being hung and the Director allowed us to see the show in mid installation.

Shortly thereafter I found coverage of the show in the June 2002 issue of American Art Review. The article noted Henri's schooling, which included the influence of Eakins and Windslow Homer, study at the Academie Julian with William Bouguereau and exposure to the impressionist while in France. He had a huge influence and believed in a strong association of Art to Life.

In 1923 his book The Art Spirit (ISBN 0-06-430138-9) was published and here is the description from Art Review:

"The Art Spirit, which consisted of a collection of lecture notes, fragments from letters, and other written texts between 1900-23, did not advance a single ideology or champion a specific style at the expense of others, but asserted a general view of art that was thoroughly modern and thus could be assimilated into and adapted to nearly any aesthetic or ideological context. In the foreword to his book Henri writes, 'The opinions are presented more as paintings are hung on the wall, to be looked at at will and taken as rough sketches for what they are worth. If they gave a suggestive value and stimulate to independent thought they will attain the object of their presentation.' And it is this passion, the belief that art was not simply an application of technique but a lifestyle, that was life transforming that Henri affirmed."

[Marvin Mattelson]

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

Peter- There is nothing wrong with rhetoric as long as there is substance backing it up!

Charlene- I think you misunderstood the essence of what I said, so I

[Sharlene Laughton]

Marvin, you in NO WAY offended me ... and, I certainly didn't want to offend you! I must have come across stronger than I intended in my last posting.

It's just that I'm not sure where you draw the line in the continuum between "Art" (written large) and that which is created visually with great skill.

It seems to me that you're saying there is a point at which craftsmanship simply stops being craftsmanship and moves into another realm. No one can argue with you on that. If that's so, that's what I'm saying too!

The only thing I've been trying to add along the way is that I also appreciate elements of insight and fine craftsmanship that can be found in the works of nonobjective artists as well as those of us who are representational. As individuals we will all draw our lines a little differently. So be it.

This string has been very seductive. I think I'll sign off from it for now. Thank you all for sharing. I really mean that.

[Peter Garrett]

Marvin:

I agree, nothing wrong with rhetoric. Quite the contrary. It has a bad press because the meaning has changed to mean something empty and shallow. My comment was intended as a (somewhat ambiguous) compliment.

Hey, who really cares WHAT we call "ART"? What we call it isn't relevant, I'd say...either it speaks to you or it doesn't.

Mind you, some things take a little longer to understand than others. We make the effort or we don't. Sometimes we make the effort and conclude it doesn't speak to us.

Let's just keep making the effort and see what happens.

[Jim Riley]

Marvin,

I won't say "give me a break" knowing it might seem confrontational again but it otherwise was my first thought when traveling through your explanation of ART. After that question gets solved (it might take more than a few posts) and armed with that success we might then tackle the definition of God. It sounds as though any as yet discovered civilization not having had the benefit of a Western made altar and without the genius of Rembrandt will have no chance of cultivating an Artist qualified for that special spot in heaven for our like.

It seems as though each time any artist, who sooner or later earns the general consensus of Genius, is found to have broken with the conventional wisdom of quasi governmental organizations and academies are then likely to have the same bodies establish a revised set of dogmas to bind and blind the next generations of artists.

"Lower the bar"? (Whose bar?) "Modern Artist are imbalanced"? And an earlier post suggested that "any idiot can do it"? Is there not a whiff of arrogance and self rightfulness in these comments?

I was disappointed that "The Art Spirit" was dismissed because you are not inspired the writers work. I wouldn't think teacher/writers's merit rested so strongly on his painting abilities. I went to the trouble to post the book description by American Art Review just so all could know that is is NOT a treatise and does not promote any aesthetic or ideological approach. And if Rembrandt published a book on art what kind of guarantee would we have that his words could match his paintings?

The book is hardly threatening and I dare you to read it and tell me it was not worthwhile.

It's also my personal philosophy that I will be my best, most thoughtful, and eventually most self assured to the extent that I am willing to be open vulnerable. I always thought it intrinsic to the role of the fine artist to take on and seek out those who seem to have strong and well thought out differences from me. They are the very ones to provide new insight, reinforce the views, truths, and values that remain basically unchanged and generally to provoke new ways to know, understand, and paint.