[Catherine Muhly]

Well, it seems I agree with everybody on this thread. Like Marvin and Sharon, the benefit of being taught by a master is beyond compare. My teacher, John Murray (same as Marvin's) was the best thing to happen to me since being born. There were six-hour workshops on Saturday, 3-hour ones on Monday night, and sometimes I traveled to his private school in Long Island after work. Students came from as far away as Reading, PA, Philadelphia, PA, from all around New Jersey, from upstate New York, even from as far away as Troy (a suburb of Albany). So, for those with a will, there was a way.

Meanwhile, I must remember how serendipitous it was that I encountered this teacher at all. He was on a panel of faculty in the School of Visual Arts Illustration department making their presentations at a "career night." He explained his philosophy, showed slides of his students' work, insisted that one semester of a class would not be enough to turn anybody into an able painter. On the basis of that presentation I picked his class to enroll in, and continued doing so happily for the next 11 years. If I had gone to that career night a couple of years earlier, or one year later, he wouldn't have been on the panel and I may not have ever discovered him.

There is something tragic, if not criminal, that aspiring artists have to pick through so much chaff to locate a grain of wheat, when it comes to finding instruction. Whether it's at a workshop or at a local college, you pays your money and takes your chance. I, too, took many art classes before encountering my teacher. They were usually pleasant, but I felt that I was going to have to grope for insights, rely on happy accidents, "copy nature" and hope for the best for the duration of my art career. So, I programmed computers, instead.

There is an excellent book - I think lots of you already know about it - by R.H. Ives Gammell, The Twilight of Painting. (Moderator's note: this book is currently out of print.)

He excoriates the modern art movement for leaving students of painting bereft of decent and consistent instruction. My teacher used to say that all artists before the modern period spoke the same language. Van Dyck could go to Italy and talk about an imprimatura, and it would be an imprimatura, and everybody saw the same thing in his mind's eye. Hue is hue, value is value, and so on. Between the first world war and now, the art "establishment" undertook to blow this body of knowledge into smithereens. Only the mavericks, usually illustrators, acquired this old knowledge and passed it on. It would be the lucky ones who would stumble onto this or that rare maverick.

Now classical realism is enjoying a come-back, and it is palpable how much people are aching for instruction that isn't all that easy to find. Individual artists or students of art shouldn't be to blame. In fact, the task of locating capable instructors should be undertaken collectively. Marvin's got his hand up; I've taken some classes from him, and he's good. So, there's somebody in New York. Now, what about Iowa, Texas, West Texas, Louisiana, Arizona, where I see people on this forum posting from?

I could see where the portrait societies (ASOPA, PSOA) could undertake to vet instructors. Members of distinction, who were students of Gammell or students of Reilley or who have comparable credentials could begin to review the teaching methodology and work of candidates, issuing a seal of approval to the successful ones. Then, students who really want to learn to draw and paint, but don't want to wander in the wilderness for a couple decades, could look for an ASOPA- or PSOA- accredited instructor.

After a few iterations, we could even, possibly, end up with a decent craft guild, or an association or two with teeth, or clout, or whatever. And then, when someone on the forum critiques with 'you need to master some basics, first' it won't sound like the kiss of death.