|
Juried Member
FT Painter
Grand Prize &
Best of Show, '03 Portrait Society of Canada
Joined: Nov 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 106
|
Jim, Peter(s), et al.;
Hmmm. This seems to be the longest post I have ever seen on this forum. Sorry about that. Do I get a prize? (I know, I'll get the "blowhard" award.) Anyway, if no-one responds for a week, or a month, or ever, I will understand. In order to respond you will have had to read the darned thing and digest it. Perhaps I'm just getting things off my chest. But, for those who are interested, or who are like me and have no life . . . enjoy:
------------------
This line of discussion invariably leads to no clear resolution, but I find it interesting and challenging nevertheless. With that in mind, I shall press on with my lengthy essay.
First, I agree that all are free to like what they like and I'm not about to suggest that that shouldn't be so, or that certain types of art should be disallowed. My difficulities with Modern art and with Picasso--as one of its chief architects--are based on my admitted bias toward representational art as found in the Western tradition. Also, they are based on my perceptions as a practitioner of this art among my peers rather than as someone saying simply what he likes or doesn't like. I am very much of the "live and let live" school of thought, and I don't challenge every single person every single time they say they like some picture that I don't like. But here, I am among artists.
There are a couple of things to get out of the way before expanding on the issue of Picasso and Modernism, though. When we speak of Western art and are deciding whether it is "good", "bad" or otherwise, it is irrelevant to compare it to, say, African, Native American, or Polynesian traditional arts. These are all completely different things. You might call them folk arts, or traditional, spiritual iconography, what have you. They have their own set of rules and systems without which they would not be what they are. They are also, for the most part, culture-dependant. On the other hand, Western (European) art has its set of systems and traditions, so it should be judged within those. But, unlike traditional systems, it is open to all because it no longer depends upon having grown up in any one specific culture or being a part of any specfic spiritual practice. So, anyone around the world can practice Western-style art without being questioned for it. And they do.
If Picasso, or anyone else, made pictures based in part on the folk traditions of other cultures, does that then mean these works should be compared to those traditions or to other work held within Western art galleries and museums, for instance? I think the artists themselves would choose the latter, wouldn't they? By-and-large, if you're not an aboriginal American and don't adhere to their spiritual practices, you have no business doing art that you expect people to call aboriginal American art. You may, however, do art that is inspired by, or based upon those traditions, as l'm sure a number of artists have done over the years. Similarly, if we today see the work of Chinese artists that is done in the Western representational vein, do we only compare these works to traditional Chinese paintings? No. We compare them to what they are. Anyway, the point is, I'm not saying Western art is better or worse than anything in particular, although it is what I prefer.
Now, that being said, what do I look for in art? (I'll refrain from using "Western" every time I use the word "art" from now on. I wish the adjective to be implied). As someone who is proud of my hard-won drawing and painting skills, as I'm sure the rest of you are and rightly should be, what I look for and admire in art is demonstrably good drawing and/or painting skills. If the work doesn't have much evidence of that, why should I admire it? To me, good drawing, at the least, is the fundament of good art. Once I say that, of course, there are those who will say (and have said), "Oh, you want everything to be the same." Or, "You just like "pretty" pictures." Or, worst of all, "You should be more open-minded." I see, so unless and until I like everything equally well, then I am closed-minded? More accurately, until I like what they like, I am closed-minded. Hmmm?
Here is a small sampling of some artists--much of whose work I do admire (in no particular order): Maxfield Parrish, Hokusai, Rosa Bonheur, Gustav Klimdt, Alphonse Mucha, Uderzo, Bruno Liljefors, Pietro Annigoni. I have left out hundreds, obviously, as well as the Old Masters, whom everyone seems to like. However, if you are familiar with the works of the artists I listed, you will note there is no sameness about them at all and they represent a huge range of styles, subjects, and expression--ranging from Naturalism to animals to comic art. I submit, though, that they could all draw pretty well. I also try not to like artists as such, but rather, I like (or dislike, as the case may be) pictures. I don't like every picture that Annigoni, Bouguereau, or Rembrandt ever did, but I like a lot of them.
All of which--believe it or not--brings us to Picasso. So here's a guy who, apparently, could draw well but chose not to. What am I to admire in that? According to Jim, Picasso (and others) gave us new ways to see and to express ourselves. I agree that a great change was brought about by them and it is, after all, history. Nothing we can do about that. But, does that mean that it is somehow "good"? Is a new and different way to keep someone conscious while they are being tortured, a "good" thing? Right, so newness and different-ness do not necessarily represent goodness or progress in the positive sense.
Once Picasso and others started drawing and painting crudely and being lauded for it, a lot changed. For one thing, people stopped knowing how to look at well-drawn and well-painted work (I can expand on this if anyone wishes it). It also made art more accessible, but not how the hype would have had it. Modernism was, in part, a backlash to "bourgeois" preferences and the result of a generally anti-establishmentarian rebelliousness of the turn-of-the-century. It was meant to be "the art of the people". But, the rank-and-file still couldn't afford to buy this artwork any more than they could the previous era's academic and other representational work. But, what the heck, since it obviously did not require especially adapted skills any longer, the "people" could now make their own art. Thanks to Picasso and his ilk, it was shown that art need not be made by skilled artisans who devote their lives to perfecting and advancing their discipline. Any idiot could do it so long as they were sincere and wanted to "express" themselves (Jackson Pollack instantly springs to mind). That continues to be all it takes--have a look inside any mainstream public art gallery.
Which brings me to the end of my polemic. Jim suggested that it was only the realist painters who make a big deal out of this and that it is really not an issue that is shared by the Modernist realm. I disagree. Although representational painting has survived in the 20th century, it has been despite a systematic attempt to undermine it. I'm not talking about some conscious conspiracy here, just something that has happened over time. Think about the following points: how many living representational artists were displayed in major public art galleries throughout the twentieth century? Not many. (Pennsylvania may be an anomoly because of its history with the Brandywine School and the Wyeths. I don't know). If they were, though, they did either grotesqueries (Lucien Freud) or cartoon-y work (David Hockney). Anyone who did or does representational work that has elegance or beauty or atmospheric illusion in it is dismissed, ridiculed, or called a "mere craftsman" or a "mere illustrator". Sadly, the people who say this do not have a clue how to make a picture. Further, have a look at any art history book or art encyclopedia written in the mid- to late-20th century and look up the names of representational painters. If they are even in there, read the kinds of adjectives used in the text. It will use words such as "conservative", "safe", "officially-sanctioned", "illustrative", "bougeois", etc. as modifiers. It will never be positive wording. (Recently, I had a look at a 700-page encylopedia of 20th century Italian artists; Pietro Annigoni does not even have a listing in it. And you wonder what I have to be upset about?). Representational artists are left out of modern art history books--except to be dismissed--out of art school curricula, and out of public galleries. Is this not systematic, or at least, systemic?
So, as representational artists who are steeped in a grand tradition and proud of our skills and accomplishments, just what is wrong with our using those enviable talents as a basis for exercising discernment and discretion? It is this very discernment why so often an artist (or Tom Wolfe) will say about Picasso, or whomever else, "Yeah, but he couldn't draw." Whether he could or couldn't draw, if it's not in the picture it's not in the picture. Do I then have to like it or else be labelled as some kind of narrow-minded reactionary? So it seems. Frankly, I'm surprised that there aren't more representational artists who are resentful of the damage wrought to our craft by the vagaries of the 20th century's art movements. I know that there is nothing we can do about history and that we are the sum total of it, which is why in my earlier post I said I wouldn't change it for a minute. But, do I then have to like and admire art that takes little skill, lore, and artistical intelligence to do? I admire a child-like drawing when a child makes it, not when an adult does. Do we admire adults who talk baby-talk, or who pound their fists on a piano or on a computer's keyboard? Do we then call them orators, musicians, or writers? No. But in art, it's exactly what we do and I, for one, don't like it.
Best to all and thanks especially to those who stayed with me and, after their nap and a light meal at base camp, finished reading.
Juan
|
Peter G
Linear Mode
