National Portrait Gallery Contest Review

[Sharon Knettell]

.

-- Blake Gopnik

[Julie Deane]

Interesting article, with some valid points. I think that most portrait artists tend to be traditionalists, and not on some "cutting edge". The writer obviously expected less traditional works. I do believe that the use of academic realism as an end to itself is limiting.

I just went to see the Cecilia Beaux exhibit at the High in Atlanta, and what struck me most were her unerring brush strokes, and clear color. She did not overwork her portraits. Such boldness- it was very freeing to see. Perhaps the extremely realistic style so popular now will relax after artists have proved that they can, indeed, produce highly realistic works.

[Thomasin Dewhurst]

But it's all been said before - many times! His article regurgitates known ideas as much as traditional realist art does. You have to ask yourself whether you want to please yourself or reassure and gain the approval of people-in-the-know who might not be in-the-know as much as they proclaim.

In a time when human psychological disorders and transgressions (so-called) are not considered as degrading as they once were, but something to be, perhaps, proud of; something that gains attention and concern, and something that, when come to terms with, could be an aid to personal growth. In a time such as this, why is sentimentality so frowned upon. Surely it is as valid and real a human emotion as the more aggressive human emotions that are so highly regarded by Modernists. Freud (Sigmund) considered the quiet emotions false happiness - this type of mood was akin to death, he thought, and the only validly positive emotions were the active and productive ones - those akin to life. He was wrong. Quiet contemplation is necessary for human beings to process the information gained from living actively in the world. It is the source of philosophy, and the means of adapting to circumstance. Sentimentality has it's place in the cycle of human emotions and should be lived through and respected in order to achieve an intelligent balance of self.

There may be, apparently, too many artists pursuing the route of high realism, but you have to ask yourself why. You have to look at the phenomenon objectively and not respond from a disgruntled Modernist viewpoint.

The trouble with Modernist ideals - i.e the pursuit of the new and the eschewing of the already-been-done is that you methodically eliminate subjects and styles open to the artist. There are only so many things one can do with paint. Modernism ended with Minimalism - a blank canvas. In this stripping the art of painting of subjects and styles meaning itself was lost. This current-day obsession with high realism is, in my opinion, a search (perhaps unconsious in quite a few cases) for that Holy Grail; the point to art; the reason you take up the tools of your craft in the first place - a thorough and rigorous sifting through the impressions of the real world where artistic meaning was discovered in the first place.

[Thomasin Dewhurst]

Perhaps we should look at the definitions of sentimentality and reword them in a less judgmental way; go to the very start of sentimental emotion as it occurs in a human being. Because if it does occur spontaneously - emerging from the subconscious into the conscious mind - then it is a valid key to the workings of the human mind and thus a valid tool in it's (the human mind's) expression.

Post-modernist philosophy and art presents kitsch, albeit ironically, as an unexplored theme or subject of art. They are very aware of its conventionally low-brow status, and make very sure everyone knows they are aware of this, hence it's ironic presentation in their work. Perhaps we could go one step further and look at kitsch, sentimentality, etc. without irony. I don't like sentimentality or kitsch, but I am ever-increasingly aware that I have these sentiments myself and that they will insist on coming out. My art is a constant battle against a "nasty feeling" coming though. My son is a lovely excuse for buying kitsch ("well, it's for the children, really ... ). These feeling are there, like laziness, boredom (I am thoroughly BORED with this painting, for example), selfishness. Should they be curbed, stamped out, or looked at with interest and expressed with honesty?

[Lisa Gloria]

I think, speaking honestly, that I abhore anyone's sentimentality except my own. But I am curious - are there really 10,000 people who can realistically depict anything - especially a person? ESPECIALLY a person? That seems arbitrarily dismissive. I doubt its veracity.

Perhaps 10000 people can realistically depict the Tree in the generic, but nobody ever said "That's not my tree."

If the portrait depends on the likeness, there's more than the photographic likeness at stake. Isn't there?

[Jeff Fuchs]

I used to have a litmus test for art: If I see an object in a gallery or museum, and imagine that I had just found it in my attic, would I still know it was art? I'd love to discover an old urinal, covered in dust, and alert the media to the discovery of a lost DaDa masterpiece. But in reality, all I have in my attic is junk, and a neo-constructionist heating and cooling system.

The realist lovers say that modern art isn't art. The modernists say that realism isn't. No one can agree, and please notice that Mr. Gopnik is quick to say what isn't art, but shrinks from saying what is.

My sophomore sculpture teacher claimed that there is no art. It died years ago. Now, he says, there's only geometry. I'm not sure about the geometry, but lets all agree that art died years ago. Lets just paint our pictures, enjoy ourselves, maybe even sell a few, and forget about whether it fits into the inscrutable, elusive pigeon hole that used to be called art.

This weekend I watched a documentary about Teri Horton, a retired lady truck driver who bought a big ugly painting as a gag gift for her friend. Her friend couldn't get it through the door of her trailer, so she was stuck with it. She had picked it up for five dollars in a thrift shop, only to be told later that it was an original Jackson Pollock. This happened several years ago, and she still thinks it's ugly, though she's holding out for big bucks, knowing there are people willing to pay. The previous owner didn't know it was art, nor did the shop keeper, nor the buyer, nor her friend. Even renowned critics dismissed it as junk until forensic tests proved it was authentic.

Remember the toddler who won the major art competition? Honestly, no one knows anything anymore. Just paint your pictures, and maybe other people will like them.

[Linda Ciallelo]

I read through the entire review by Mr. Gopnick thinking "ok, so when will he tell us what "is" art". But it never came. The man has no hope. I found myself wondering why he doesn't just kill himself and get it over with. People paint things in their lives that they find interesting, or beautiful . I hesitate to use the term "beautiful " because it's not something , according to modern critics, that we ,as painters, should be looking for. His article in the end just convinced me more than ever that I should just be painting for my own happiness. It's noone elses business what I paint or how I paint it. Mr. Gopnick can paint his own paintings and until he does, he has no right to criticize mine. I feel that way often about commissioned portraits. People have an image in their minds eye of what they want. If I don't produce that image then they will complain. I have often thought, " why don't you just paint it yourself then?" Mr. Gopnick is only one person and doesn't know any more about art than anyone else. What he "is" good at is politics. That's how he became an authority on art.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Thanks so much for posting this review, Sharon. Thomasin, I think you are right about the points he makes having been made before.

Originally Posted by Julie Deane

Cecilia Beaux. . . . did not overwork her portraits. Such boldness- it was very freeing to see. Perhaps the extremely realistic style so popular now will relax after artists have proved that they can, indeed, produce highly realistic works.

Recently I was reading the new biography of Cecilia Beaux, and near the end the author describes her dismay at the changing art scene. Beaux herself thought that the new trend away from realism was merely a flash in the pan--but look how long it has lasted! When you read the reviews in the book, you get a really good idea of the many conflicting opinions and the turmoil in the art scene at the time. The conflict in the art scene now is reminiscent of that, except realism is coming back rather than on the way out.

Julie, I agree with what you say about realism. I've been watching the New York art scene with disouragement. Right now the public sees the tight academic realism as "better" and more skilled than the brushy and painterly style with which I identify more. I have had a gallery owner tell me that I will lose my collector base if I keep painting more loosely--even though the change in my work over time has been very gradual.

We really do have to go in the direction that we want, and not worry about these trends. That's the only answer.

[Thomasin Dewhurst]

I think asking yourself "what is the point?" about the very realist paintings that are being painted (and winning competitions) at the moment is something valid. I am quite often seduced by the realism, and impressed by the energy and staying-power these artists have (it's a bit like becoming fit enough to run a great marathon), but that question about the point of it all always comes up in my mind. The paintings are like novels that have all the characters and places described with great care and detail, but there is no real crafting of story around a central climax that expresses an original idea, and even the lack of such structure is not considered.

Originally, when photorealism first came about it was a comment of the meaningless of a Modernist expression in the midst of thinking society's cynicism, resulting in part from a disillusionment with the shallow ideas and obsession with commercialism that was taking such a firm hold at the time, wasn't it? Anything unashamedly less "civilised" than the new glossy advertisments that were dominating visual culture (or so it seemed) or, more accurately, anything less "civilised" that was created without a sense of its own irony, was seen as below par; irresponsible; blatantly ignoring the crisis that was looming over the increasingly consumer-centered western world. Now it's just a gimmick, albeit a very clever one, but there's very little self-critical thinking; very little standing back and looking at one's place in today's world, with it's own place in history, and, of course how history has traditionally been described, who described it, and again, of course, what is included and what left out of documented history, and whether or not this is fair, and why. There's so much to consider, at the very least it's the complacent repetitiousness of photorealism that is rather shameful.

[Allan Rahbek]

[QUOTE=Sharon Knettell
Vermeer's "Girl withe the Pearl Earring" is an example. It is vividly, quiveringly real, yet exquisite in it's poetic descriptiveness. It asks something more of us, to simply open our heart to beauty.[/QUOTE]

I agree that art is about beauty, beauty of structure, beauty of color and beauty of many other aspects.

I don't believe in "protest painters" because the protest is not their real motive for making the painting, they are trying to make something real, something beautiful ! The reason why such trends gets so boring is that the painters are not good enough, they have'nt got the sense of beauty.

I can't think of a better question than; how to define beauty?