Who cares what someone decrees who identifies themselves with some aspect of "Art" (with a capital "A") ? The field of contemporary art is rife with divisions that admit of no particular value in another . . . conceptual artists, installation artists, abstract artists, abstract impressionist artists, neo-impressionists, "realists", photo-realists, academics, classicists in modern-day ateliers, the folks at ARC, people who make an olympic event out of plein-aire painting, the list goes on and on.
Looking back over the centuries and the "commercial" aspects of the work of yeoman painters who created 2-D illusions for a living, for every Leonardo, for every Rembrandt, there are literally thousands of also-rans whose art never even came close to communicating "that certain something" that makes 21st century viewers pause before a Rembrandt portrait . . . of someone they cannot ever know.
Ever since Mr. Daguerre invented his infernal device, the challenge for all portraitists has been to rise above the superficial, and a mere 2-D simulacrum of the likenesses of our sitters, to communicate "that certain something" . . . something (God willing) that can be
meaningful. Too many "competent" portraits do not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson
I'm trying to create paintings that reflect the same kind of artistic integrity that the great masters of previous generations utilized.
|
Spot on, Marvin!
Threaded Mode
