Alice Neel: What do you think?

[Rob Sullivan]

I voted "no."

Some of Tom's reasons mirror mine exactly, so I won't repeat them.

As regards boldness: If I walk out of my door naked, I get arrested. If I paint a nude self portrait, I am bold. Another take is this: Consider how much more "bold" or "honest" Alice Neel's nude self-portrait at 80 would be if it were totally realistic, and not a caricature...

Anyway, I first saw Neel's work in a book of portrait art that my grandmother gave to me at age 11. I had already decided a few years prior that I was going to be an artist. So when I saw the work, and that it was on a technical level equal to mine at age 11, I dismissed it. Now 24 years later, as an adult artist I understand the rationale behind her style, it still doesn't justify (to me) the lack of (or intentional leaving off of) technical skill.

[Tom Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Rob Sullivan

Consider how much more "bold" or "honest" Alice Neel's nude self-portrait at 80 would be if it were totally realistic, and not a caricature....

Rob--

This is a FANTASTIC point to make, for realism's sake. Expressionists often like to think they have a corner on artistic "honesty."

Or even beyond this notion: What if she had given herself over to someone else to portray her in the altogether?

I ask myself, which idea is more fearful, or takes more guts, having Alice Neel depict me nude at age 80, or say, Nelson Shanks?

Fortunately for you all, this will never be anything but a rhetorical question (whew!), but ask yourself this about yourself, and you'll get the point. Which is stylistically more truthful, finally?

--TE

[Alexandra Tyng]

Originally Posted by Tom Edgerton

Expressionists often like to think they have a corner on artistic "honesty."

But don't we realists like to think WE have a corner on artistic honesty? Do we, really?

I know I'm expressing a point of view that may not be so popular here, but I have to say it: I don't think artistic honesty belongs to straight realism more than it does to expressionistic realism. I think it is safe to assume that Neel, when she painted her portraits from life, was responding to the presence and soul and personality of the person she was painting. She was expressing herself, like any artist, and painting reality the way she saw it. She was not thinking self-consciously about her style.

Rob and Tom, I know it is frustrating, as a realist, to be painting along for years in an art world dominated by modernism and people oohing and ahhing over installations. We've worked hard to master all the necessary skills. Believe me, I'm with you on this. It's just that Alice Neel's work speaks to me. Her portraits tell me fasinating things about herself and her subjects. Even though I don't want to paint in that style, I want my paintings to say as much as hers do.

Linda said "I don't think it's possible to remove the artist's point of view." I agree. I want to go even further and say that it is not desirable to remove the artist's point of view. Personally, I aim for an anatomically correct portrait, and I assume you do, too. Obviously that was not important to Neel, but she did nail the idiosynchrosies of her subjects, which many straight realists have trouble doing because it has to do with capturing life and character as well as just anatomy.

By the way, I would be just as reluctant, at 80, to let Neel paint my portrait as I would Nelson Shanks!

[Mischa Milosevic]

The work of an artist is only good if it conveys a message. In today

[Tom Edgerton]

I can't speak for Rob, but if--in the effort to make a point--I implied that Alice Neel's work has no value or power, that's not what I was after. Again, it's just not my area of interest.

Alexandra, your points are well made. You probably did pick up on a certain residual frustration I have felt when confronted with the conceit on the part of some expressionists that distortion is inherently more psychologically probing or accurate than traditional realism. Ultimately, in either approach, the success of the work depends on the talent and ability--and yes, the unique point of view--of the artist.

Ideally, the last thirty years or so may have made a realist defense unnecessary. I hope so, because I don't want to become the Rodney Dangerfield of art ("We don't get no respect!"). I'd rather just paint.

My final overarching philosophy is that the work--in any style--has to stand on its own, and any particular work that depends for its success on an accompanying verbal manifesto or explanation of some sort has failed on some level. You know instantly if a work takes your breath away, or not.

Best regards--TE

[Allan Rahbek]

Originally Posted by Alexandra Tyng

I don't think artistic honesty belongs to straight realism more than it does to expressionistic realism. !

I voted NO.
I agree with Alex that no particular ism should claim to be more truth than others. It would have been much to easy if it was that simple.

Ren

[Alexandra Tyng]

Tom and Allan, these were such good points. I'm glad we went a little further in that discussion!

[Tom Edgerton]

This is interesting...

As I think of this thread, I perceive a basic misunderstanding in the reactions to my original post. I'm not advocating that the highest an artist can strive for is to divest one's work of any individual stamp, and achieve a totally generic, unrecognizable result. I too doubt that this is even possible. It's merely that, at the point when viewing the work--especially portraits--I become aware of the technique at the expense of an emotional connection to and understanding of the subject, I lose interest.

Case in point: consider Sargent, Richard Schmidt, Burt Silverman, and Mr. Kinstler. All have highly unique and individual styles, with some expressive elements. But when looking at their portraits, I connect with the subject first; THEN I admire the technique and revel in their individual methods. This is not a "viewing choice" on my part, they've created and handled their work so I "enter" the painting that way. Probably because they've had an emotional connection with the subject themselves. My feeling that I "know" the subject of these works is, I realize, an artistic and aesthetic illusion, but it's a pretty convincing one.

As it's a goal for me in my own work, thus it's what I admire most, and what is the mark of a master to me. Sometimes I get there a little bit, sometimes not.

When I encounter Alice Neel's and other such expressionist works, I don't come away feeling that I've had the subjects themselves revealed to me the same way--that, because of what the artist did, I "understand" them. Again, I may revel in the bold way they're painted, but for me, their power comes from the technique first, and sometimes exclusively. So the technique becomes an impediment to understanding the subject, not an aid. It may be painted exuberantly, but for me it still falls short somehow.

Anyone?