Classical realism? Interpretive work?

[Timothy C. Tyler]

You all are waxing poetic.

This is good, warm writing.

I never found I had to dismiss the old for the sake of the new. I think the two can be blended just as you blend the influences of several painters from several times and countries into your own style.

I admire perfection over invention. I think the new ground Bouguereau broke was high ground. One could say Michael Jordon and Tiger Woods break no new ground, but boy they surely do what has been done before in an impressive way. So well, as to have gained international lasting fame. Someone once said about such excellence, "they may not be in a class by themselves, but it doesn't take long to call role."

[Steven Sweeney]

Your eyes will tell you the truth

Carl, this is the crux of it for me. If I'm force-fed an Old Master whose work I just don't like, I'm comfortable now saying so. If a local high-schooler's work knocks my socks off, I'll clap loudly. And I don't have an art degree to my name. I just know what I like, when I see it. I couldn't care less whether it's Flemish or Jersey or Guernsey.

(Well . . . I do think the Guernseys are a bit bovine and rural and earthbound in their aesthetic, not that there's anything wrong with that, at least nothing that can't be cured by indoctrination or intimidation.)

We may all need to get back to work and let the eyes of those who see our work help us find our own truths. Or perhaps just trust our own artistic instincts and do what we love, and let those who are taken with our perceptions enjoy writing the checks and sharing the celebratory cabernet.

(Note: if you're drinking the wine alone, however, there could be worse things than a close re-reading of this thread.)

[Tom Edgerton]

Steven--

I understand your unease with some of this as you also ably hold the post as a moderator, and obviously hold a loyalty to the forum and what it's trying to achieve for struggling artists.

However, there are over 22,000 posts herein that seek to school beginning artists that all of the good intentions and heart in the world will not rescue a painting that is drowning in bad technique, or no technique at all. This is a valuable message. However, I don't feel threatened or uneasy when someone also reminds us that a boatload of stupefying technique will not make a painting when there is an absence of heart and soul to go with it. I think also that this is a valuable message, and I don't mind the dedication of at least one thread on the forum to discussing it. I don't begin to think this thread will trump all of that previous wise counsel to budding artists.

I've reviewed everyone's comments, and though some are stated more passionately than others, I don't see anywhere here where classical realism or any other style has been trashed wholesale as being cursed with a lack of soul. Rather, I think that we have all agreed here that drawing and rendering are absolutely essential skills in portraiture. It's just that some of us are saying it's important to strive also for another level of transcendence at some point in the journey.

Otherwise, if we're not careful, this discussion will indeed degenerate into another endless debate over personal stylistic preferences. It's the same endless historic spectacle of the dog chasing its tail, when David was debated against Delacroix, Bouguereau against Manet, and Sargent against Alma Tadema. It's a pretty superficial debate, but one that is unlikely to end among us passionate artists for the forseeable future.

As a wise man just told me this morning: "The truth is that stylistic dalliances have nothing to do with good painting. It's a communication between artist and viewer regarding the subject matter." I would add that regardless of the style, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

I have to express my distress over the continuance of personal attack here in the forum. Just because someone is passionate in their argument, it doesn't mean they are perceiving themselves as an "art god" or the only bringer of the truth. Sometimes I express myself forcefully also, but I never mistake my own opinion for anything else, and I don't expect anyone else to. But if we can't have a healthy discussion without dismissing or attacking each other personally, the value of this forum will wither on the vine, and what a shame that would be.

Respectfully--TE

[Steven Sweeney]

Tom,

With respect, my perspective isn

[Cynthia Daniel]

Well, I'm not a painter and you all may throw rocks at me. However, on a personal level, I have one simple criteria when it comes to art and it is totally subjective: Does it move or touch me in some way?

A portrait might move me in terms of the message, the colors, the total scrumptiousness of skin tones (you like that technical term?), the haunting look in a face, the juxtaposition of forms, the interaction between people, the playfulness of highlights on white or sheer clothing, etc, etc. But, it has to move me in some way. Beyond that, on a personal level, nothing else matters.

A recent new member submitted two samples for the approval process. My breath was taken away by one of the samples submitted. I could see the hand wasn't painted perfectly, but that didn't matter to me (please, I'm not saying to those still learning that you should stop perfecting your anatomy abilities) - the way it was painted overall, the look on the subject's face totally moved me.

No doubt, I can be impressed by modern masters of today who have admirable career accomplishments. But, that may only be objective, depending on the artist. And, objective would likely never get me to purchase a painting, unless I just wanted an investment.

[John de la Vega]

Rereading this healthy discussion, I very much appreciate the last few posts, amplifying and clarifying some of my comments. Bravo, Tom, for hitting the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned, on what lies at the core of this whole exchange. Carl, your comment on Zen as a discipline applicable to many approaches is right on the money. I used Zen as a shorthand symbol to make a point. Some posts have read my words somewhat narrowly, and that's okay. Maybe it's my pedantic-sounding tone, but then the burden is on me.

The last thing I mean to do is to set up one style or approach as a paragon and put others down. I equally love too large a range of styles, periods, and personal solutions to our visual and other insights as artists to do that. Also, nothing is farther from my mind than to favor sloppy technique over rigorous pursuit of accuracy.

I personally have grown from many different approaches, often seemingly contradictory. I am always ready, after forty-odd years of experience as a professional artist, to challenge and discard elements of my technique or my thought which I feel might hold me back. This often creates problems, and the 'retooling' I've done in the past three or four years has cost me dearly, but I feel it will all be worth it.

I do encounter a great deal of smugness, even among some I consider very fine artists. I suppose in a way I'm rallying against that, and supporting people whose work -regardless of style and approach- shows- again, to subjective me- a dynamic, ever-growing attitude. Of course we only see snapshots of individual development, including our own. Painters who bore me today might delight me tomorrow, either because they've grown or because I will have grown, hopefully both.

Speaking of Bouguereau, he alternately bores me and delights me, often on the same viewing. So what else is new? I did say we can learn a lot even from people who bore us, right? Heaven knows we can learn transatlanticloads from good old Adolphe William (and please don't forget our own Elizabeth Gardner Bouguereau, his wife, who, wow, REALLY learned from him)!

[Tom Edgerton]

Steven--

I need to apologize for the miscommunication. I was actually expressing distress over personal attack of another artist by someone other than you--it bloomed up on this thread and has since been deleted. I made the mistake of tacking my objection to it onto a post addressed to you about the main topic.

Again, sorry for the confusion. I've never picked up a trace of personal animosity in any of your posts.

Thanks--TE

[Carl Toboika]

I read that the thread has wound its way towards more clarification, which appears to give a fuller, more evenhanded balance in the end. All have certainly added some more thoughtful and valuable points.

[Elizabeth Schott]

"Heaven knows we can learn transatlanticloads from good old Adolphe William (and please don't forget our own Elizabeth Gardner Bouguereau, his wife, who, wow, REALLY learned from him)!"

Darn John, before you edited this quote, I thought you were telling me my workshops were REALLY paying off for me this summer!

I just wasn't sure how Bill would have felt about the "Adolphe" thing.

Elizabeth...Gardner Bouguereau...NOT!

[Michael Fournier]

I have been conspicuously absent from the forum lately but this thread drew me in. Then as I read them all I found many intelligent posts with varied opinions.

I could not help but think that I have heard this all before as well as been known for similar statements that come down on both sides of the fence. I love Impressionist work. I also feel that the accomplishments of the academic artists, many featured at ARC, has been dismissed all to often as boring.

The ARC school of thought is a backlash to the modernist movement that grouped all realism as trite or pass