[John de la Vega]

Steven,

Thank you for your perceptive reply to my post, perhaps a bit too sweeping in my (apparent) injunction of classical realism and reality-rendering skills. I say apparent because, firstly, I do specify 'some' -and not all- classical realists. It would be foolish of me to disparage realistic craftmanship and painting technique, which I greatly admire and try to emulate even in those whom I consider boring, or bland. I constantly work to improve my own technical skills and do my best to instill them as an ongoing discipline in my students. As the recently maligned Duchess of Windsor said, appropriately: "You can never be too thin or have too much technique".

Unfortunately sometimes too much technique DOES stand in the way of the truth, becoming an end in itself, instead of the GATE it really ought to be. The problem, and it is a critical one, lies in equating technical 'academic' skills with artistic achievement (a problem as old -well, almost as old - as drawing and painting themselves). The history of art is decidedly NOT the history of the ability to draw and paint.

Take musical skills, for example: there are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of 10 or 12-year olds all over the world who possess, say, a flawless or nearly flawless piano technique, who not only can play all the notes and dynamics in a complicated score, but can also impart feeling and expressiveness in a performance. Amazing, and glorious, what we humans can do, isn't it?

Does that make them exceptional musicians, great artists, true messengers of the truth (pardon my flowery rethoric)? I'm sure in more than a few cases the answer would be yes, they are indeed great artists, even though at 10 or 12 we would -apparently - lack the experience, maturity and depth required. This is of course a judgement, and a narrow one whether we respond in the positive or in the negative.

Ultimately the 'truth' (in the sense of our recognition of full validity of an artistic message besides a subjective 'resonance' with it is, well, subjective, individual. Even when we can also say there are standards to assist our judgement, in music or in painting.

As far as ArtRenewal's attack on modernism and contemporary art in general I agree with you that, even when deliberate, it hurts them more than helps them. But of course the attacks on modernism are nothing new: they have existed in more or less virulent forms since Impressionism, and today quite a few individuals, critics, and art groups make a living from such posturing, always finding a constituency, even among people who should know better. That's their choice.

I will name one attacker because I happen to have had an ongoing discussion with him: Brian K Yoder, owner of the Brian Yoder Gallery and Critic's Corner. Mr Yoder has a section in his internet gallery called something like 'rogue bad art' in which artists such as Picasso, Kandinsky, Klee, Rothko, Mondrian, etc, are 'exposed' as public cultural offenders. Sad, isn't it?

In my exchange of ideas with Mr. Yoder he never produced critical proof of his assertions, or even acknowledged that his tirades against these modern masters are the result of a definite bias on his part, a matter of personal taste. I have nothing against somebody saying "Picasso stinks, I hate his work", or "my kid can do what Kandinsky did on the canvas", but I have a real problem with somebody who displays wonderful art in a public gallery and has a section reserved for 'bad art' in which great masters are thrashed.

In my view, and again this is entirely personal, there is more truth in one square inch of one of Kandinsky's paintings than in a whole show of some, and I emphasize some, 'classical realists' works. There are classical realists in Art Renewal -and other galleries- whose work I find exquisite and highly artistic and expressive. I have nothing but admiration for people who pursue technical perfection, and spread the need and validity of it. It's wonderful to find when it's coupled with insight, feeling, beauty, and harmony.