Artistic Principles
Iian Neill
>>I am a 20 year old art student who fervently wishes to paint in the
>>realistic manner typical of such Masters as Gerome, Meissonier,
>>Bouguereau, Tadema, Leighton, and so forth. Unfortunately, this was
not
>>perhaps the best century to be born in, when the stand on art
education
>>seems to have been diametrically opposed to those standards advocated
by
>>such artists as I have named above.
>
>I certainly sympathize- although I do not empathize with- your plight
>concerning your work.
By this do you mean that you disapprove of those artists whom I might
conceivably model myself after (stylistically)? - or that you perhaps
disapprove of realistic painting in contemporary society?
>As a painter/printmaker/ teacher, my advice to
>you is that you should by all means stay true to your inner vision
>andprimary motives and urges for expressing yourself. There are
>numerous ways of fulfiling that need. As you mature, you may very
>well find new needs, new possibilities, etc. Tou may even eventually
>outgrow much of your current anxiety over postmodernism.
I will be happy with Post-Modernism when universities and art colleges
offer students classes styled along the ateliers of last century; one
wouldn't expect servile immitation of course, which crushes all
individual expression. But I see the situation analoguous to the
training of musicians; in our times no-one questions the validity of
concert pianists studying and practising in a manner somewhat consistent
with traditional practises - we all understand that the pianist's
technique should be ready at his fingertips, in the service of
expression and artistry. The situation, however, is quite different in
the Visual Arts. Contemporary painters and sculptors, by and large, are
not expected to have a tithe of the technical training that their 19th
century academic predecessors had at their disposal. By no means do I
claim that this scenario is exclusively dominant; illustrators, for
example, are expected to have some mastery of life-drawing and
decoration. When it comes to the so-called 'fine arts', however, little
that was universally understood to be skill or talent is these days
taught, or even endorsed in contemporary practise.
>As you stay true to your convictions... PLEASE do not slip into
>cynicism and despair over the twentieth century, modernism, post
>modernism, etc. Try to understand CULTURE, how it develops, the whys
>and hows of hows of it all and msot importantly hoew the visual arts
>relate to everything else in the culture.
Oftentimes people misinterpret me when I say that I would like to be as
much a master of painting as Alma-Tadema, Leighton, Meissonier, and
Gerome were. They automatically assume that I wish to copy these
Masters, and intend on adding no ideas of my own. Nothing could be
further from the truth. I have some very personal and unusual ideas that
I would one day like to paint and sculpt - but I am also aware that I'll
never be able to realise these 'visions' if I do not have at my disposal
a fluent technique; otherwise my work will be painfully clumsy and
inept.
Some 2,000 years of art has shown us that people respond most
immediately to art that is realistic; this is not to deny the power of
decoration or architecture, but paintings and sculpture generally convey
a clearer message than either of the previous two. Perhaps it is
something intimately related to how the brain is structured, or some
aspect of psychology; I do not know for certain. But a realistic
painting has an immediate rapport with its audience as it speaks the
universal language of sight. This connexion is deepened in paintings
that 'tell a story', ones that show an interplay of thought and emotion
between the characters in the painting - Post-Modernists would call this
"establishing a dialogue between the art-work and the audience".
Now of what use is a garbled dialogue, or an incomprehensible one? All
art is some form of this dialogue, this "soul communication" between the
artist and the rest of Mankind. The dialogue is disrupted and obscured
when the images themselves are obscured or hard to visually read. This
is where composition saves the day - image-elements are ordered,
organized - this is the 'grammar' of art.
What happens, then, if an orator gives a speech to contemporary
America in ancient Greek? None but an extremely remote circle of some
elite would have any chance of understanding him. This is what happens
if art-work strays too far from the roots of its universal visual
language (ie., 'realism') - it risks speaking a language so foreign, so
alien that it only makes any 'sense' to the one who invented it in the
first place, the artist. Furthermore, it risks becoming non-art - for
what can be said to be art if only one or two people 'understand' it? If
this is not the case, then one could claim anything to be art; a
situation as blatantly dishonest as calling a building a cigar.
>As a 20 year old, the late
>twentieth century world culture, globalism, the internet, the good,
>the bad- all of it- are integral aspects of YOUR CULTIRE. Your
>psyche is really shaped by cultural variables. Ninteenth century
>artists could not even conceive of this era not to mention how to be
>affected by it.
I do not want a return to the past - I merely ask for a return to
artistic quality.
>None of this makes much sense to you, I am sure,
I'm not sure whether to be offended by that.
>but the point I am
>struggling to make is that, among other things, art is about making a
>statement concerning what it means to being alive in this time and in
>this place.... a celebration of life (as Andrew Morgan, former
>President of the Kansas City Art Institute so aptly put it).
>Regardless of the style or technique you choose to employ, I think
>that you will gain deeper fulfillment from creating art that connects
>with late 20th century and early 21st century reality. Your work will
>be deeper and richer from your having done so.
All great art of all eras attempted this connexion to contemporary
society; as should the art-work of our times. Unfortunately, more often
than not, "modern" art succeeds only in aliennating an indifferent
public. Perhaps that is the saddest out-come of the modern movements -
they have made the public indifferent to contemporary art. People were
far from indifferent to the art of their time, in other centuries. 19th
century Salons were well attended events, whose decline today can be
justifiably blamed on television, radio, cinema and "modern" art. The
visual/audio media of our times have in many senses replaced the Salon
as a temple of contemporary culture; more and more people turn to the
movies than they would to an art gallery.
Yet "modern" art has made the situation immeasurably worse. In the
past people had some enthusiasm for art - even if they were passionately
opposed to whatever artist was the darling of the day. What do we find
in our time? - a widespread indifference to contemporary art, which many
artists often complain of. Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Futurism, Abstract
Expressionism, et cetera, have all served to widen the gulf between art
and culture. This situation will not heal until artists again return to
the roots of art; they will have to stop hanging up flayed pig carcasses
in Munich museums, abandon performing sado-masochistic acts and claiming
them as art, and they will need to try and establish some sane rapport
with the modern world, which they seemed to have successfully ignored
for the past ninety years.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
CBurnsCT
I must say that I am impressed with the depth of your opinion of 20th century
art vs. art history. And with your passion for realism. My opinion coincides
with yours somewhat, but not entirely.
Please consider the following differences:
...on painting realistically:
My professor (at Unity College in Maine) asked me, when I said I wanted to
paint realistically, "why don't you just take a photograph of it?" He meant,
why labor over copying something when you can just photograph it? He has a
point. All of that copying, and believe me, I do it, is just plain labor. It's
a skill. It's a craft. People are impressed by accuracy. But is it painting? I
mean, the act of painting. The gesture of moving the brush freely around the
canvas, letting the paint ooze a bit, overlap a bit, drip a little. Is copying
something accurately the same as the experince of freely expressing yourself
with paint? My paintings are tight little realistic copies of the world around
me and I'm ready to break free. I want to make a painting in one sitting that
is pure painting, pure color, line, composition, gesture and has the spark of
life that comes from my hand. Have YOU tried it?
...on studying the masters within the university system:
Once I took an unusual class called Master Painting (at Moore College of Art in
Philadelphia). We studied the work of the Masters and COPIED their paintings. I
learned more from that than most of my other classes. There are lessons that
reveal themselves through copying the masters. But, you have to take those
lessons and USE them to create your own paintings. It's not a literal thing,
its an approach. And, that same thing applies to copying 20th century abstract
art. Kandinsky and Sol Lewitt have more depth than you know, they really make
you think. (But the flayed-pig-carcass generates negative thinking, thats a
whole 'nother subject). Can you make observers of your paintings THINK? Do your
paintings make the observer ask questions, consider new ideas, laugh, cry? My
tight little paintings only make people say, "that's pretty". Big @!#%@%! deal.
(excuse me.)
...hanging up flayed pig carcasses
Oh, God, I hate to look at dead meat. I hate to look at trash, pollution, dead
mangled people, oppression, oily scummy water, war torn children, starving
animals, drunken street people and billboards. :-)
You know, if I could avoid every unpleasant thing in this burdened world, I
could do just that. The comfort zone is a cozy place. You gotta love it. How
did I get so lucky to be born near the comfort zone? Am I responsible for that?
Should I care about the uncomfortable zone, the terror zone? Oh, man, this is a
bummer, I do care. I really care.
The flayed-pig-carcass is my wake-up call and it does stink. Do we compare this
to Bouguereau? I don't think so, except that they are opposites. Or maybe not.
Do they both make you think, experience life? You should do an essay on this
for school. Send me a copy. :-)
Well, I'll get off my soap box. Thanks for making me think. Keep on painting
and follow your heart. Trust your intution, but be aware of the comfort zone.
camille
graduated from Unity College with B.A. in fine art 1982
hi Leonard and Gretchen if you are out there.
camille
Frederick C. Gibson, Architect
Alexandra York of _ART: American Renaissance for the Twenty-first Century_
may be able to help you in finding the best there is in romantic realist art
education opportunities in the United States. See http://www.art-21.org or
call ART in New York at 212.759.7765.
Let me know when you start creating art that inspires as I am always looking
for great art.
My best,
Fred Gibson, Architect
Fred...@gibson-design.com Architecture designed Objectively
==================================-----------||||||||||||||||||||||
(c)1998 http://www.gibson-design.com
s34...@my-dejanews.com
In article <3566A7ED...@student.uq.edu.au>,
Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Yet "modern" art has made the situation immeasurably worse. In the
> past people had some enthusiasm for art - even if they were passionately
> opposed to whatever artist was the darling of the day. What do we find
> in our time? - a widespread indifference to contemporary art, which many
> artists often complain of. Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Futurism, Abstract
> Expressionism, et cetera, have all served to widen the gulf between art
> and culture. This situation will not heal until artists again return to
> the roots of art; they will have to stop hanging up flayed pig carcasses
> in Munich museums, abandon performing sado-masochistic acts and claiming
> them as art, and they will need to try and establish some sane rapport
> with the modern world, which they seemed to have successfully ignored
> for the past ninety years.
I really enjoyed your discussion, however, I don't agree that the -isms of the
20th century is to be blamed for the public's decreasing interest in fine art.
I believe that our changing lifestyle is the main cause for the decline of
artistic awareness. Nowadays people have less time and are obsessed with
speed and paintings, sculptures...etc need to be studied and read - which can
be too time-consuming for today's audience.
Modern art is one of the most wonderful inventions in human history. It is
less easy to understand because people don't bother to take time to understand
art.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
J-Bird
In article <199805251806...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, cbur...@aol.com says...
>The flayed-pig-carcass is my wake-up call and it does stink. Do we compare thi
>s
>to Bouguereau? I don't think so, except that they are opposites. Or maybe not.
>Do they both make you think, experience life? You should do an essay on this
>for school. Send me a copy. :-)
I would refer you to an article in the May 25, 1998 NEW YORKER,
page 112, titled GUT FEELING. It is about the artist Chaim Soutine and
should give you a good basis for comparison with Damien Hirst or
whoever it is you are referring to when you talk of flayed pig carcasses.
Hirst is simply doing with the real thing what Soutine did with the
painted subject. Don't read the article I referred to here while eating
though. The article is an enjoyable read in and of itself, written by
Simon Schama who is a regular critic for NEW YORKER and a
professor of art history at Columbia. Enjoy. J'Bird.
Iian Neill
> Alexandra York of _ART: American Renaissance for the Twenty-first Century_
> may be able to help you in finding the best there is in romantic realist art
> education opportunities in the United States. See http://www.art-21.org or
> call ART in New York at 212.759.7765.
>
> Let me know when you start creating art that inspires as I am always looking
> for great art.
The day when I start creating inspiring art is many, many years away, if it ever
comes. But please feel free to visit my home-page, "The Renaissance Cafe" if you
wish. I would not call the works on their "art" so much as "studies".
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
> > Yet "modern" art has made the situation immeasurably worse. In the
> > past people had some enthusiasm for art - even if they were passionately
> > opposed to whatever artist was the darling of the day. What do we find
> > in our time? - a widespread indifference to contemporary art, which many
> > artists often complain of. Fauvism, Cubism, Dadaism, Futurism, Abstract
> > Expressionism, et cetera, have all served to widen the gulf between art
> > and culture. This situation will not heal until artists again return to
> > the roots of art; they will have to stop hanging up flayed pig carcasses
> > in Munich museums, abandon performing sado-masochistic acts and claiming
> > them as art, and they will need to try and establish some sane rapport
> > with the modern world, which they seemed to have successfully ignored
> > for the past ninety years.
>
> 20th century is to be blamed for the public's decreasing interest in fine art.
> I believe that our changing lifestyle is the main cause for the decline of
> artistic awareness. Nowadays people have less time and are obsessed with
> speed and paintings, sculptures...etc need to be studied and read - which can
> be too time-consuming for today's audience.
I agree that changes in society are important reasons as to why the public is
pretty much indifferent to contemporary art. But I also believe that Modern Art
has brought the situation upon itself as well.
> Modern art is one of the most wonderful inventions in human history. It is
> less easy to understand because people don't bother to take time to understand
> art.
It would depend on how you see "art" - I see Modern Art (very generally speaking)
as being anti-thetical to what I consider to be good art, or even art at all in
some cases. This being so, people such as myself will probably not see Modern Art
as being one of the greatest inventions of humanity; they may see it as being the
opposite, in fact.
Being a free universe, however, we are all entitled to think whatever we wish, no
matter how "correct" or "incorrect" it may happen to be. In the case of
contemporary arts practise, I have less problems with the artists themselves so
much as the so-called 'teachers' and curators of various galleries. If students of
today were at least offered the chance to inherit the technical tradition which is
rightfully theirs (as potential artists), then I would perhaps not be as
vociferous as I tend to be at the moment. I still would consider non-art to BE
non-art, but I would have less complaint regarding art education, which is abysmal
in our times, and can only be called "art" education if one has a bizarre sense of
humour.
(Not that I am besmirching Art History - there are some wonderful AH courses
around these days. True, many of them are prejudiced when it comes to late 19th
century painting, but the situation is very slowly improving to the stage where a
balanced view may again be offered some time in the next fifty years.)
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Paul W. Bognar
Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
<snip>
> (Not that I am besmirching Art History -
<snip>
Art History should be exactly what its name implies. The history of art.
It should be like any other history, and that is a record of that which
has past.
OK, I'm not dumb. I know that no history is ever completely objective,
but golly, AH shouldn't be besmirched, art historians maybe...
Smile. this too shall pass.
--
"What is there more fugitive and transitory
than the expression on a human face?"
- Henri Cartier-Bresson
mark webber
On 28 May 1998, Paul W. Bognar wrote:
> Iian Neill <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > (Not that I am besmirching Art History -
> <snip>
>
> Art History should be exactly what its name implies. The history of art.
> It should be like any other history, and that is a record of that which
> has past.
>
> OK, I'm not dumb. I know that no history is ever completely objective,
> but golly, AH shouldn't be besmirched, art historians maybe...
>
> Smile. this too shall pass.
> --
To paraphrase James Joyce, Art History is a wet dream from which I am
trying to awake.
Mark