Picasso & Modern Art

[Karin Wells]

This topic is really a continuation of some/many of the latter posts on the following: http://forum.portraitartist.com/show...=5622#post5622

My mother said to me, "If you become a soldier you'll be a general; if you become a monk you'll end up as the pope." Instead I bacame a painter and wound up as Picasso.

Pablo Picasso actually said this!

It sounds to me like his arrogance and/or determination (rather than pure talent) may have contributed to so much of his success.

[Jim Riley]

After learning of this new thread I transferred my recent post, below, from the (Beat up Freud 'cause it makes us feel better about what we truly talented artist do) thread. And it kicks off with another convincing self indictment by the artist. God only knows there aren't any oustanding realism painters guilty of arrogance and determination(?). And how does that translate into no talent?

Previous post: (Use Karin's link above to see this in context.)

After reading about Picasso's death bed confession, Mark Rothko's suicide, and Pollock's raging alcoholism I almost gave up my defense of modern artists and their contested contributions to fine art. Who knows what other sins they and their "ilk" may be guilty of. Maybe higher divorce rates and increased teen pregnancy might be traced or linked to the "damage" the Modern Art hoax has maintained for more than 50 years. GOOD GRIEF!!!

And maybe the Harvard Business school should do a study and find out how the likes of Picasso ("who could not draw", "If he could it was nothing more than typical academy level", and "if he can he doesn't show it") "started drawing and painting crudely" and somehow people lauded the work and for more than a half century the art world has been brainwashed into believing and buying the products of the Modern Art movement.

And we should believe that Galleries, Museums and Schools have conspired to systematically undermined representational art? I have little contact with and admittedly am not familiar with the curriculum and spirit of contemporary art schools but it has historically been true that art students have been among the least likely to buy into something that their artistic heart and soul does not believe. It's not a place to easily sell snake oil.

To believe that nonrepresentational art is a hoax and has damaged our ability to "know how to look at well-drawn and well-painted work" is an insult to any of the many millions of people that regularly make an effort to see and appreciate the visual arts. For those who have stood before a Rothko, Picasso, Jackson Pollock or any of major contributors to contemporary art for the last half century and been moved by the experience would find it hard to understand the notion that "any idiot could do it".

To the extent that one would believe denigration and invalidation were used to discredit classic realism it is surprising that that so many posts on this thread are determined to revive realism by this same shallow tactic. And why? To the extent that realism did not go away neither will the effects of "modern art". For a number of years Portrait painting was a part time business for me as I made my principal living in the employ of domestic and international compani]es whose success depended largely on providing good pattern, color and design in commercial and residential products. This activity gave me a chance to appreciate the broad effect that contemporary art has had on our everyday life. It carries over to textiles and architecture as well.

I do not understand all the self pity. Without any evidence to test my thoughts it seems that across the country a great amount representational art is produced, shown, published, taught, and sold. The national Gallery got more than a few visitors to the Sargent exhibition and I almost couldn't get a seat for the Robert Bateman presentation at the same gallery. And it's not likely that several more lifetimes would be enough to allow me buy an Andrew Wyeth.

And who are the masterful realistic painters that are not "successful"? Perhaps we should consider establishment of a Masters Relief Fund?

No less a painter than Nelson Shanks has suggested that the reason realism does not get a large share of notoriety is that it will take someone with a distinctive skill as artist like Vermeer was able to do in his day. It was realism but not as anyone had done before or since and had a profound/lasting effect on the art world.

Once again. The gap between greatness and the rest of us is not reduced by undermining or denigration. I doubt that any conspiracies, if they exist, could thwart, for long, the impact of a modern day Vermeer or Picasso.

[Juan Martinez]

Dear Jim, et al.:

As I said in my earlier post; this issue never reaches a resolution. I doubt that there is anything you could say that would make me see my wrongness, or vice versa. However, it is always, for me, a useful excercise in polemics.

Much of what you do say bears closer examination, but I won't attempt to deal with everything in one post in the interest of keeping our readers' collective attention. Unfortunately, it is part of a larger phenomenon that goes like this: if one asserts what is more-or-less the established wisdom, as you are, then no extensive backing or validation is required. One simply needs to make assertions. So, asserting the genius of contemporary masters needs no further comment. In fact, all of what you have said I have heard a million times over. Conversely, I am the one who gets dismissed as a crank, as petulant, or just as someone lacking in true understanding. This is because if one wishes to dissent from the established opinion, as I do, one requires huge amounts of backing, evidence, validation, argumentation, etc.. And this, in turn, requires time and/or print space. So for me to deal with everything you have said would encompass many pages. As such I will deal with only one or two of the things you mentioned. Even with that, it is a longish essay, by cyber standards.

I wish to consider the issue of "insulting someone's intelligence", particularly the "millions of people who make an effort to see and appreciate visual art", by my suggestion that we no longer know how to look at representational pictures. I believe that to be true, for the most part. Of course, I don't mean everyone, but just generally, as a rule. Explaining that would take a rather longer essay, so I'll write more broadly-speaking here. First of all, though, the number of adherants to some belief or cause, or other thing, is quite irrelevant and does not say much one way or the other about that cause, belief, or thing. Do we for a moment think of the hurt feelings of the millions of Nazis, Facsists, Communists, terrorists, and sociopaths there must be out there? Do we agree with them simply because there are or have been so many of them? No. So the numbers are simply a statistical measure that is only the beginning.

In any event, there are also other ways of insulting a person's intelligence. For instance, if one claims to dislike or find little of value in the efforts of Picasso, Matisse, Rothko, Jackson, etc., and says so to someone who has devoted his/her life to loving that art, it would certainly be taken as a personal affront. As such, one must use some tact or diplomacy. I am not setting out to insult or to hurt anyone's feelings.

But, for argument's sake, just whose intelligence is it okay to insult? Mine, I guess--or so it seems--and the millions like me. I am expected to worship at the altar of drip paintings and colour field expressionism just as I would in front of a Titian, eh? And I am to do that unquestioningly. These pictures are, after all, housed in the finest museums and galleries in the world, aren't they? Moreover, I will not truly "understand" art unless and until I do like those pictures and am thereby "moved" by them. But, somehow, throughout that experience, my intelligence is not supposed to be insulted. Curious.

Here's an especially curious example of an assault to our intelligence, courtesy of Canada's National Gallery in Ottawa. Last year, they awarded a $50,000 prize as the Millenium Award in the Visual Arts. Please note that the prize was for "visual" art. It went to a recording of the 20-or-so separate voices of a choir, taped while they were rehearsing. That's right, a recording. In other words, the award for "visual" arts went to a work that could just as easily be enjoyed by the blind as by the sighted. Frankly, that not only insults my intelligence but my pocketbook, because it came from a publicly funded institution. There are thousands of examples like this all over the world. But I can't say "boo" about the Modernist "masters" without being accused of crying over spilt milk or of insulting someone's intelligence. Again, curious.

Finally, speaking of Robert Bateman, our National Gallery is also noteworthy for not having a single work of his in its collection. Bateman is probably the most successful and well-known artist during his lifetime that has ever come out of Canada. Yet, he doesn't merit inclusion in our National Gallery? Is this simply because he is no Vermeer? Must be. (By the way, Mr. Shanks also said that Mark Rothko's pictures are to art what eye charts are to literature.)

It is true, as you say, that representational art didn't really die off in the 20th century. It remained the most popular form of art among the "people". (Any poster shop's sales records will attest to this). My complaint is not with "the people". The problem lies in the realm of the art cognoscenti or, at least, among those who are serious about art, the dealers, curators, and generally those who consider themselves connaisseurs, and the like. In other words, the "establishment". They are the ones who set the tone and get the media's ear, who establish criteria for funding and exhibiting, both private and public, etc.. They are the ones who are supposed to know, yet they largely, do not. Citing a handful of examples of representational painters who are now getting a bit of recognition within some circles of this group, does not really get to the heart of the matter.

I could go on. If this were a discussion in speech--perhaps over a couple of bottles of wine in the real Cafe Guerois--it would not seem to be so long-winded. But, as it is, I'll stop.

Next up: Conspiracy theories.

All the best.

Juan

[Sharlene Laughton]

It's wonderful that recent posts to the forum have been so passionate. However, I've noticed that many of the posts (both here and in the Lucien Freud threads) have lost site of some basics.

First, it doesn't matter whether or not a painter knows how to draw when their work is non-representational.

Museums frequently display work based on how it fits into historical art movements ... and, often, sidestep making judgements on the value of that work.

Criticizing the work of someone who paints with different objectives than you do doesn't necessarily mean you are slamming or don't understand the objectives of that painter's work.

With very few exceptions, even the best painters have greater and lesser works ... as well as a few failures that get away! For one thing, they tend to take chances. No matter who you are, if you take chances you're going to hit and miss at times. On the other hand, if you don't take chances your work will be pretty mundane.

There are many painters who are now considered to be among the greats that weren't given credit during their lifetime. There were also great painters who achieved great success during their lifetime. Extreme examples of these are Vincent VanGogh in the former case and Peter Paul Rubens in the latter. Time is the test of greatness; not contemporary opinion.

Who cares if a painter is an egotist or a madman? The wonderful thing about painting is that the work stands for itself.

While fine art and commercial art have different objectives, in the hands of a great artist, however, commercial art can be great. For instance, Degas created his ballet dancers simply because they sold ... and, who would dismiss Toulouse Lautrec posters as simply being commercial?

By the way, some members of this forum may be able to dismiss what I have to say because I used white lead when I began to paint with oils. In the mid-fifties, they still sold Dutch Boy white lead in cans and painters used it. To this day, I miss the wonderful qualities of working with white lead. Of course it was poisonous ... but so was turpentine (which I also used). Still, neither titanium white, zinc white, nor a combination of the two can replicate the qualities of white lead.

[Peter Jochems]

Here is a short response, I will go more in-depth on some of the issues raised later, but first I have to say something to Jim:

Jim, you say:

...I have little contact with and admittedly am not familiar with the curriculum and spirit of contemporary art schools but it has historically been true that art students have been among the least likely to buy into something that their artistic heart and soul does not believe. It's not a place to easily sell snake oil.'...

Is it historically been true ? Why did I go to a contemporary art school for 4 years and DIDN'T LEARN A SINGLE THING about representational painting? All I know about that is self-thaught.

Jim, you talk about 'an insult to any of the many millions of people that regularly make an effort to see and appreciate the visual arts. That's not an argument. That's hiding yourself behind statistics. And what about those 'millions of people' who never go to such a museum?

Jim, you say:

...someone with a distinctive skill as artist like Vermeer was able to do in his day. It was realism but not as anyone had done before or since and had a profound/lasting effect on the art world.

... Vermeer had an effect only after 200 years of being almost forgotten. When you look at the work of Frans van Mieris, Pieter de Hoogh you will notice that Vermeer did, in many ways, what others did before him, but more perfect. The way you describe his effect is how art critics want to paint a romantic view about certain aspects of modern art. It's a cliche to describe it like that, and not accurate with how it really went.

Why, do you think aren't there any painters with the skill of someone like Vermeer, or let's say an average 17th century painter? Because the art schools decided not to teach the proper skills since the fifties and the sixties.

Calling myself an artist is making me feel like I am calling myself the village-idiot, because of the current situation in art.

If one had lived in 1702, and one had compiled a list of the greatest painters of 17th-Century Holland, neither Rembrandt, Frans Hals or Vermeer would have been on that list. Just a thought...

Greetings,
Peter

[Peter Garrett]

The saga continues!

Just a couple, (well, a few) points:

1) Not all contemporary art schools are a waste of time. I've learnt a great deal at the one I am currently attending. (I acknowledge that others may have a different experience, but that's about the relative quality of schools, not about contemporary art education in general.)

2) My teachers and fellow students still value drawing. We still have life drawing classes. We still learn about anatomy. We still learn about the craft of painting...and so on. We look at Rembrandt, Vermeer, Velasquez and the rest. We also look at Pollock, Picasso, Rothko, Hockney, and anyone else who is exhibiting or has work accessible to us. We try, I hope, to look at all of these with initial respect. We may ultimately rank their work personally in terms of quality, but we begin with the assumption that they are genuine and not frauds.

3) EVERYONE on this forum or anywhere else is free to dislike, or even disrespect, any artist. That's just a human prerogative.

4) Recently I was encouraged to SPEND AN HOUR looking closely at a work I hadn't really considered particularly good. I was surprised how much I found in it. It was a humbling experience. Perhaps part of the trouble is that as inheritors of the TV and computer revolution we have lost, to an extent, the ability to contemplate.

Peter G

[Jim Riley]

Juan,

Wow! The millions among the general public and the art aficionados's in sympathy with Modern art as a legitimate segment of fine arts are given comparison with Nazi supporters and the like? I fail to understand who the victims of modern art might be and would suggest that it was strong world wide opinion that thwarted your list of failed tyranny. You not only discount popular sentiment you insist that somehow people are no longer able to appreciate and judge realism. Of all the schools of painting it would seem that representation art requires the least preparation or training to appreciate and understand. Having said that, I also believe that it is far more difficult to decide the merits of any given piece of nonrepresentational artwork and far easier for the less competent to hide as Modern Artist.

You insist that I or someone has told you what you should like and I would like to make it very clear that I DID NOT, nor did I imply that you should like anything. Having respect for other artists and their mode of expression does not require "liking" their work. And, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has called you an "idiot", as has been used in these threads to describe Pollock and his followers. The real start of this thread went from dumping on Freud to the defense of Picasso/Modern Art and not the selling of same. As much as you insist that others should not dictate your likes it would seem that you would like to see modern art undone (it's history and can't be undone someone said) and be more than likely to establish criteria for judging good or bad art then I would suggest. Your list of favorite painters and styles can be as small as you like. Further more I don't represent "established opinion" (if it exists and contains any implications that representation art is not legitimate?).

I must be traveling some special roads. I know modern artist domestic and a few from Austria, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark with studios and galleries in New York and London. Without exception they speak knowingly of past and present painters involved in realism show apparent respect for my efforts. Should I assume that they are clever and careful to not disclose the ongoing efforts to void our efforts.

Peter,

I give!... Why did you go to a contemporary art school for four years and not learn a single thing about representational painting? I worked my way through art school where I attended classes from 9 to 4 and sneaked out 15 minutes early to get to my 4 to 12 job I did this for the last two years and was happy that in doing so I had complete say on where I went to school and that I was able to get schooling at all. Perhaps that is why, in addition to being close to home, I wanted to make sure that the program fit my hopes for the future as an artist. I thought the training available at the Cleveland Institute of Art was more important than other schools even though it did not confer degrees at that time. Have I been misled to think that there are schools still teaching drawing and painting skills?

Vermeer may not have received great recognition in his time and I admit that I was unaware. I hope he did not suffer and starve. At any rate I think everyone should take their chances and do whatever they can to do that new break through realistic painting. I think there are more than a few galleries that would take on a modern day Vermeer, Hals, etc. I would suggest that it would be far more difficult in this day and age of communication and despite the claim that people have lost ability to understand realism, to go unoticed and unappreciated.

And, of course there are huge numbers of people who would only consider realism. Its not taking a big chance. Payoff related to skill seems to be in balance in the cruel art world.

Otherwise, lay down your brushes and find another career if the climate looks so dim.

Sharlene,

You must have started at a very young age to have been painting when I started art school. I too remember our ignorant bless using lead white.

Thanks for you note regarding commercial artist. I was offended when a post on another thread said: "graphic designers are a dime a dozen". Some outstanding watercolorist with eventual recognition in the AWS and others, came out of the studios of American Greeting Card and Mort Solberg is still active a a very successful wildlife artist. I know several regional artist whose training was on the job sign painting. I believe Karin Wells did sign painting in the past.

I am now going to play my yearly round of golf.

Have a good day.

[Peter Jochems]

Jim, about Vermeer: He died at age 43 from a heart-attack. In 1,5 day, according to his widow he went from healthy to death. He had eleven children, and because he could not sell his own paintings or those of others (like many artists, he was an art-dealer also) he was in debt. He cold not feed his family. He was quite respected as a painter in his own time, but a lot of people had bad luck at the time, and so had he.

When I was in artschool, I wanted to be an artist, and expected to learn the things I needed to do to be one. The problem is, as I see it, it's not even the artschool's mistake. The old masters techniques are forgotten.

To be honest, I'm starting to remember why I never took part in this kind of discussions. Before you know it you start to explain and explain and explain, as the long posts in this thread prove. It doesn't make me feel any better.

There is not a side here which I can choose where I can fully identify with. I consider classical modern art (Picasso, Braque, de Chirico and others) as a valuable and necessary development, and it took talent and a lot of effort to do what people like Mondriaan and Braque did. It's what happened in the second half of the 20th century I guess where certain things went into a direction that is problematic. I think Robert Hughes put it very well in his last chapters of the books 'The shock of the new' and 'America's visions'.

And another thing...when words like 'Nazi' start to get into a discussion, I'm outta here.

Greetings,
Peter

[Juan Martinez]

Just a couple of quick points to clarify. Jim, please play nice. I did not compare the millions of people who admire modern art to Nazis. It is considerably misleading to have characterized my statements as such. I was using an analogy to show how the number of adherents of something is not a particularly good measure for judging its value, and you know it. Or, at least, you should have known it. Also, when using the term "idiot" repeatedly, as I did, it was used because of the common phrase in English "any idiot can do it". That does not really mean that only an idiot can do it, nor that everyone who does whatever it is one is talking about is an idiot. It's just a saying, and I expect that you knew that, too. We should try to keep our arguments a little closer to the substantive issues of the discussion. If my writing is not clear enough (although I feel it was) please ask me to re-state it. Thanks.

More later.

Juan

[Peter Garrett]

On a positive note: maybe the posts are a little passionate because we actually care about art and what we're doing.....

I don't feel Jim is denigrating any form of art, or anyone contributing to the thread, either.

It's quite possible to have respect and an open mind about "realism" and so-called "modern" art. Incidentally, if you look at some of the drawings from the "golden age" you might be surprised to see that a few of them were distinctly "gestural", and there were many "pentimenti" (or repentances!) of the artists.

I heard a classical music expert on the radio recently who said "the purpose of music is to change lives".

How does this sound: "the purpose of art is to change lives"? I kind of like the ring of it, and it seems we are really talking about the purpose of art....