Alice Neel: What do you think?

[Andrea Kantrowitz]

The Lucian Freud discussion reminded me of Alice Neel . In her later years she did quite a few commissioned portraits, as well as portraits of major art world players, such as Andy Warhol.

I am including two images that I can attest to personally as amazing likenesses. The first is a self-portrait--I met her at this time, and I can tell you this exactly conveys both her physical and spiritual essence. (she was wearing clothes when I met her, but she still cut an imposing figure.)

The second is of Linda Nochlin and her daughter. Nochlin is an important art historian, specializing in 19th century realism. She wrote, among many other books, "Realism" in 1977, and was a champion of the contemporary realism that emerged in the 70's, as well as of contemporary women artists more generally. I knew Nochlin when I was a graduate student 20 years after this painting was made, but it is absolutely her.

But I'm curious what you all think of her work. Is it at all relevant to the kind of commisioned portrait painting many of us do? Please vote yes, no or maybe, and then say why.

[Alexandra Tyng]

Alice Neel is definitely one of my favorite painters. Not because I want to paint in her style, but because her work fascinates me.

A few years ago I had only a vague impression of her work. I'm not much of a TV-watcher so it was uncharacteristic of me to actully sit down in front of the TV while a documentary of Alice Neel was on. Before I knew it, I was totally absorbed in the story and the images. Sometimes it takes a little extra something to trigger an interest in something I ordinarily would have passed by without much notice. Around that time there was a show of Neel's work at the Philadelphia Art Museum. I went to the show and saw the work in person. Let me tell you, those portraits had so much presence. I couldn't help but react to the direct and personal presence of these people on canvas.

Earlier this year there was a much smaller show of her work at the Locks Gallery in Philadelphia, and I went with an artist friend. I wasn't expecting to be as knocked out by her work the second time, but I was!

It's hard to put into words what I love about her work. First of all, the people just jump out at you. There's an emotional engagement with not only their faces but their whole body posture and shape. The characterization is so memorable I think I would recognize them if I saw them in person. So this must be realism, right? But certainly not traditional realism. Much more expressionistic and personal, but realism nonetheless.

The other thing that is striking about Neel's work is the vibrant color and the brillliance and inventiveness with which she arranges the compositional elements. It seems intuitive, and probably is, but she is brilliant at these things. I never saw the same pose, or variation of it, used twice. It was obvious that she treated each painting as a new, exciting challenge, using the person and surroundings as her inspiration.

Every time I see an Alice Neel painting I get a visceral urge to create something amazing!

Alex

[Michele Rushworth]

Personally, I don't like any of Alice Neel's work.

[Anthony Emmolo]

Maybe I am a bit old fashioned, but I value taste. Personally I don't see good taste in either of these pieces. I must admit that I don't know any of her other work though.
Anthony

[Linda Brandon]

I like her because she uses line and exaggeration, the caricaturist's method of accentuating individuality to distinguish each human from the next. To me, line does this better than form, and it has more energy. Neal has her own language and isn't trying to copy a photo so I give her points for that. I'm in favor of as many styles of realism as there are artists out there with a creative vision.

To tell you the truth, this is giving me the urge to paint a big caricature of myself, though a nude would be very unlikely indeed.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Her style reminds me of children books, in being very colorful and quirky. I can't say that I like it, but if she has done a good job capturing the essence of the subject she has portrayed, then good for her.

It is interesting to see that she chooses that raw depiction of "self", almost as if she wants the viewer to wonder "what's up with these people?".

[Andrea Kantrowitz]

Personally I don't see good taste in either of these pieces.

I thought Anthony made such an interesting comment to think about. What is good taste? Is it about what is beautiful?
Certainly an naked lady in her 80's would not generally be considered beautiful. For me, this brings up the relationship of truth to beauty. Like I said, I can personally attest to the fact that there is a great deal of truth in Neel's work. To me, personally, this makes it beautiful. But reasonable people can certainly disagree on whether or not that is so.

I am one of the legion of admirers of Lucian Freud's work, but I find a diffferent, more life-afirming truth in Neel's paintings

It's hard to put into words what I love about her work. First of all, the people just jump out at you. There's an emotional engagement with not only their faces but their whole body posture and shape. The characterization is so memorable I think I would recognize them if I saw them in person. So this must be realism, right?

I thought Alex put so well what more traditional portrait painters might have to learn from Neel's work. Its not about the style, that was Neel's. But the level of emotional engagement she had with her subjects, that could be something to strive for. As far as I know, she only painted from life, and it could be quite the experience for her sitters (especially the ones who were ordered to strip! She was a force of nature not to be argued with.)

I'm in favor of as many styles of realism as there are artists out there with a creative vision

I think Linda's saying something really important here. And there's a lot to learn from artists who are not necessarily to our personal taste. At another extreme of taste might be Bougereau, an artist I might not have learned about without this forum.

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?

[Anthony Emmolo]

Andrea,

I hope my comment wasn't offensive. It was not meant to be.

It is a good question you ask, and I don't think I have an answer to it. Here's my feeling. Art touches the realm of emotions, and I don' think it is always going to be explainable by words. With that in mind, maybe he word 'taste' wasn't even he right word. I look at John Singer Sargeant's (I know I spelled it wrong) 'Tramp' , and it touches the emotions in a positive way. He wasn't trying to paint the man in a beautiful way. He painted the reality of life of a tramp. MAYBE, but I'm not sure, what hit me wrong was the fact that the three models in these two paintings stare the viewer right in the eye with no fear. It drives something home deeper. In this case something uncomfortable, but in the power of the artist to choose that message.

A thought completely unrelated to these paintings, but on the topic of 'Taste' is this: Have you ever looked at the album covers of today's rock stars? No more gentle Elvis smiles, or fun loving Beatle glances. Today's rock stars look angry. They look as if they want to fight with the viewer. It's not pleasant.

Or maybe it is just me..

Anthony

[Andrea Kantrowitz]

I'm not offended in the least, Anthony! I put this out because I was interested reading a variety of opinions about this work, especially after the discussion of Freud. You honestly made me think about what "taste" means. So thanks for taking the time to respond.!

[Brenda Ellis]

Well, hello Alice Neel, it's nice to meet you.
I've not heard of or seen any of Neel's work until now. Thank you, Andrea for bringing her to our attention (though most others are probably very familiar with her.)
I, as Linda, enjoy seeing fresh interpretations of what portraiture can be. And I appreciate the emotion and in-your-face humanity that these paintings have. There are other things there, too, that I percieve: a kind of struggle against or impatience with "beauty". Is it possible that women grapple with that word or that stigma more than men? By putting beauty in quotes, I am signalling that I'm referring to the social concept of beauty. Not the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" philosophy.
I get the feeling Alice wasn't all that keen on social concepts of beauty. Others may know how correct or incorrect I am.
'Beauty', like 'love' and 'truth' and 'bargain', will always be hard to definitively define.
So, now that I've taken that off the table for myself, , I will say that 'taste' is a made-up thing. Like curfew and taxes. It's a construct made by those who want to be in control. And I try not to buy into that. I won't wear black socks with shorts, but that's as far as my taste obedience goes.
I have a feeling Alice may have been bolder than me.
Or maybe not.
I find myself constantly wanting to know the artist that does any certain work. I can't just be content to see the work as something on it's own. It always, for me, is something created. And so I want to know the creator. Is it conceit to think that I can know the creator by just looking at what he/she created? Is it still art if one creates something gloriously beautiful and yet has put none of their soul into it? This could be a whole nother can of beans.

Alice Neel is okay in my book. She was expressing herself in what is obviously (to me) a true and honest way, and she found a language in visual media (not just lines or colors on a flat surface). Portraiture? People have discussed the point and meaning and measure of portraiture on this forum before, but I am beginning to see that "portrait" is a broad term, indeed.