This world we call art
Thirty thousand years ago the art world was confined to a few walls inside a few dark caves in Europe. It was simple in scope and belonged to a single school, and probably had only a handful of practictioners throughtout the whole world. Today the art world is so emmence in scope, and the definition of art seems to be only limited to the number of people using the word, art. The word has been used, overused, and misused so much that it really no longer has any meaning. In order to have a discussion about art today we have grown into small tribal associations of moderists, impressionists, realists, butchers, bakers, and candle stick makers. It seems everything has become some sort of an art form, in somebodies eyes.
The modernists look down on the realists because everything is based on meaningless skills and no concept. The natural realists look down on the modernists for lack of basic skills and only dealing with concept. Each group has surrounded itself with meaningless peramitters and rules.
So I was thinking wouldn't it be great if there was a chat room/blog where we could begin to have a discussion about all of this. I believe that great art could become greater with the cross pollination from one group to another. The modernists could benifit through learning better skills, the natural realists might benifit from developing bigger and more dynamic concepts. We all get caught up in our own traps so to speak. I believe this could benefit artists from all levels by bringing a discussion on studio and painting procedures.
Eventually I could see giving solid constructive critiques and instruction through this website and who knows what else this could lead to. So let me know what you think.
Wm. F. Reese
The modernists look down on the realists because everything is based on meaningless skills and no concept. The natural realists look down on the modernists for lack of basic skills and only dealing with concept. Each group has surrounded itself with meaningless peramitters and rules.
So I was thinking wouldn't it be great if there was a chat room/blog where we could begin to have a discussion about all of this. I believe that great art could become greater with the cross pollination from one group to another. The modernists could benifit through learning better skills, the natural realists might benifit from developing bigger and more dynamic concepts. We all get caught up in our own traps so to speak. I believe this could benefit artists from all levels by bringing a discussion on studio and painting procedures.
Eventually I could see giving solid constructive critiques and instruction through this website and who knows what else this could lead to. So let me know what you think.
Wm. F. Reese
I would love to see you critique some paintings. Anything to improve our paintings is more than welcome.
Reply to this
I'm a guy that has spent his life drawing with charcoal and fishing with worms, so this cyber world for an old timer like me takes a little getting used to. I have a bit of thinking to do first to figure out the logistics and such before we start the critique process. But rest assured I am working on it.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Great idea - a forum to get the different sides to the same table.
I consider myself a realist, but I surely understand where the modernists are coming from with their insistence on design and concept. For a plein air painter, these aren't things we necessarily consider when confronted with a knock-your-socks-off piece of scenery, but we should. Learning from the modernists can bring a lot to a realist's painting.
Reply to this
Well design and concept are certainly something we should be thinking about. Traditionally painters went out to paint in the field for information and inspiration and their knowledge of design and thoughts of concept were some of the tools they used along with the tools of skill like drawing,color, value and temperature control. Some how painting outdoors has turned into a contest complete with rule book. Some of this is all right and it's fun and all, but we must remember painting is not a contest and its not a science project. Hence I have seldom if ever found the perfect 'Knock your socks off' landscape that didn't need some rearranging in order to turn it to music. When I say turn it to music keep in mind I am not always successful but I never stop trying.
I was fortunate enough to have gotten part of my training in a university where I learned design and composition, concept, and perspective drawing; and little of drawing and painting. Oh I took the classes in drawing and painting but there wasn't much information changing hands. I then went on to a legitimate commercial art school where the skill classes were emphasised.
Figure drawing was more than a class you passed and considered completed, but more of a disipline you were expected to continue each and every semester.
I can still remember my head drawing instructor, Paul Souza, a brilliant teacher, saying, " There are 20 people in this class, one of you will probably make it and the rest are here to pay for this persons tuition. this person is the one when I see him in the coffee shop will be the one drawing and not drinking coffee. This person will be the one drawing when and ever I see him."
I decided then and there that I could barely pay for own my education and for sure I had no intention to pay for anyone else's so I would be the one that makes it. This was the day I decided to do exactly what ever Mr. Souza asked and this was the day I really began to learn to draw.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
100% behind you Bill!!!
let's do it
where is the first one to get critiqued?
... and this will
lead to
art
of war
jokes a side ,
it is great you're spending time sharing your wisdom and experience with everybody who has eyes and ears
thank you
Reply to this
Simon
Art of war or war of art. Let's do it.
Simon, I would be interested in your thoughts on the difference in the way you were trained in Russia from how many are trained in the US.
For those who don't know Simon Kogan is a brilliant painter and sculptor who understands the marriage between skills and concept, so it is fortunate that he has written in at this point. I am using his full name with his permission by the way, because I think it is important to the discussion. Any one who has studied with Simon will understand what I mean.
Were skill and concept taught seperately or together? If seperated when were they rejoined? At what level did the training begin?
Fill us in my friend.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
thank you Bill for the introduction
you're making me blush
you are opening the Pandora's box
Pandora's box - (Greek mythology) a box that Zeus gave to Pandora with instructions that she not open it; she gave in to her curiosity and opened it; all the miseries and evils flew out to afflict mankind
let's start with the fact that i am not the purebred Russian-
i am a Jew = everything i wanted was forbidden or limited to some extent,
education included
I was angryhungry and wanted more
we had only 2 art schools, which counted — i picked one.
after 7 attempts
i ended up in army.
after that i had a "GI bill" and had to be excepted to the school,
not the one i wanted to,
Educational University - teacher of art = not an Ivy League.
Everybody I started with were graduating the year I got in.
I was hungry( did i say that?)
took every class
mornings then evenings
copied all available plasters at Pushkinski Museum
three nights a week for 5 years
(museum had plaster copies of all best world sculptures)
drew every monday,
museums are closed to the public, but open to the art students
free
use to call them a "copy day".
i say it all only for one reason -
i am the product of the soviet school
but
not a very typical one.
skill and concept...
finally!
i get to the point.
what the hell is that?
skill? - i want to draw like GOD! that was simple
concept - was pushed on me as a composition
... unheard of here,
there,
they did not explained much either
you just had to output compositions-painting, sculptures, prints
on top of expected( by weight in tens of kilos) studies.
composition then and there was an idea,
a literal idea as "storm", "tragedy", "a letter from a friend " or a girlfriend - that's had more juice to it...
turned into a new "plastic" form of
painting, print or sculpture
not an illustration, but a new reality of already heard story.
God forbid, to paint a pissing man( i know - i did) in the alley under drying cloth.
one had to become a little more inventive
in the art of suggestion
rather then description.
what considered here today in many cases as an art of the landscape
was a mere exercise,
that goes for the "abstract art" too,
everybody had to know how to paint thaaat...
turn that into the painting-composition,
show me the mood,
make me bleed,
experience the seeing...
then will talk about art
not about how good the artist is!
nobody gives a damn how good you are
you are not !!!
period!
you are not the reason for the conversation
your work is!
how filling is that?
thanks for the opportunity to spill it all over the place.
yours,
sk
Reply to this
Simon
Thank you, you've said so much I don't know where to start. In fact I'm not sure I need to say anymore, but I will.
Five years in the antique or the copy room working directly from the works of the masters speaks volumes as to the developement of taste as well as skills and concept. Robert Henri said that if you want to become a great draftsman or a great colorist surround yourself with great drawings and great color. Bad drawing and bad color are like living in a slum you soon get used to it. The converse is also true you were surrounded by great works and your taste and skills were elevated to the occasion.
You are also correct that so much of what we called excersizes before, we now pass off as finished statements. Great abstract designs with no blood is not art. Good drawing with nothing to say is not art.
Tricks by a magician are not magic if they don't work, and work by an artist is not art if it doesn't fit.
More inventive in the art of suggestion rather than description. What a strong point. The poetic thought over the technical discription wins every time.
You say you are a product of the Soviet school but not a typical when. Great examples of any school are seldom typical, and if it took this angerhunger to drive you to where you are we are all better for it.
At this point I can hear Sergei Bongart say, "So you draw monkey exactly like monkey all you have is two monkeys."
Thank you
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Hi Bill
All this talk about war? Can't we all just get along? I was so glad to read your thoughts on this fragmented art world we live in. Instead of being diverse, it is segregated! There are two separate worlds and the two don't seem to have much tolerance for each other. The people who are "modernists" have different galleries, collectors and philosophies than the so called "realists". Neither think the other is art? Maybe the battle starts from within, with the artists. There I go talking about violence again.
The goal is create better art, right?. Can you image how exciting art shows would be again. ? I think we would all be better served to learn from each other and reconnect the pieces. It is the rare artist that can understand it all and put it together for their own voice. I think you are one of those. Therefore, Bill, if you were to walk through any realist gallery or show, what would be your main critique. In general of course, the big picture critique. Has it gotten worse over the years that you have been watching and isn't that kind of depressing? What would you like to see more of?, or less of? Can you recommed some excersises or painters you like to look at to push the envelope. A lot of people I know don't even like Picasso? In some circles he is looked at as a god. I had the same feeling. But now he amazes me. Not everything of course, but the body of the work. How about DeKooning? Do you think the reasons the realists don't strech and go beyond the craft is beacause their buying public would not understand? Do you think they would. Some artist seem to be able to breech that "style change issue" but not many. Most of the artist find something that works and keep on doing that. Is that what you once meant when you said worse than copying someone else's solutions is when you copy yourself? And what is the difference between having a "style and "copying" yourself?
Reply to this
Dear Susan
The separation you are speaking of between objective and non-objective or realist and modernists, I think is basically based in the place they are taught. Now keep in mind this is my own theory based only on what I consider to be common sense, so I welcome any and all discensionand discussion.
Four to five hundred years ago painting was considered a craft. The fine arts were literature, music, architecture, and sculpture, with sculpture only a second cousin really, to art. The crafts like painting were taught in an apprenticeship setting. Where a young man would work directly with a master often times in large shops or studios such as with Rubens. All of this worked extremely well if it is to be judged by the outcome, namely Rembrandt, Van Dyk, Rubens and probable every great painter along the way. Eventually painting was recognized and accepted as a fine art and was taught in the universities where the apprenticeship program was no longer practicle. Although there were studio classes, more and more art classes were taught in lecture halls. In America by the late 19th and early 20th centuries art was being taught in small classes under practicing painters of very high calibre such as Howard Pyle. Most of the most skillful painters also had real jobs. Some with newspapers, lithography houses, or painting portraits. My guess is that the universities were hiring their own in other words those with degrees to teach in the university setting. Those that had learned their trade as an apprentice probably didn't qualify.
There is an old saying that, "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach." If this is where that saying came from then it doesn't take a lot of imagination to be able to see a pool of knowledge, or a collection of skills just simply dry up with each generation.
So by the time I reached this system in the 1950's I saw little trace of the traditional skills in the university that I went to. I did have a very good design and composition teacher, a professor in his last year of teaching so he was probably the last remnant of an earlier time. I also had a great perspective drawing teacher from Italy, but drawing and painting no. We were pretty much left to own devices. By this time the skill classes were pretty much left to the commercial art schools like Art Center School in Los Angeles. I know the Art Students league in New York and a few others were still teaching the full course but for the most part the teaching of skills had dried up. The people who were teaching the skills were usually practicing artists and not professional teachers.
The university went on to teach concept and design and soon that became non-objective art, and then those interested in drawing began to produce objective art. Both sides left to their own devices will only half statements. So in affect we split the baby.
I don't believe the greatest drawing can stand on it's own without a reason for being, nor do I believe the greatest concept can be expressed without the tools to express it. In short I believe both sides need the other.
Style is like personality you can't avoid it. The first time you do something clever it's an innovation the second time it's a gimmick and that is copying yourself.
There was a whole lot of the art history class where I drew a blank so feel free to set me straight this is just how it appears to me. So tell me where I'm wrong.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this
Dear Bill,
I miss your musings. You haven't posted since May 31st! I'm reading Sergei Bongart's books and I've ordered yours. For the first time in my 52 years I am worried I may not have enough time to learn all I want to.
I have several questions, please. (I hope they are not too naive):
How would you describe your painting style to someone who wasn't an artist? How would you compare it to Sergie Bongart's style? Is there a critical review of your work that you felt was especially insightful?
Those workshops with Bongart are so romanticized in the book...one might expect a bit of exaggeration. Then one sees the magical paintings!!! Please muse again soon.
Reply to this
Let me set your mind at ease. I've been painting since I was 12 which was before you were born, and I don't think I am going to live long enough to learn all I want to know. In fact I know I won't live long enough because every day I discover a deeper and deeper deficit in my knowledge. So then we just do the best we can and enjoy the process.
I've talked to a lot of people who discribe how they picked the style that they wished to paint in usually it is one that others have made successful. I wasn't exposed to any successful artists when I was young so I just painted in the manner that I had learned to see. So I never really thought of my style and still don't for that matter. I am not saying that I was never influenced by the work of others because I was and continue to be influence by others to this day. Most of these painters that have affected my thinking all walk different paths. So my style is the sum total of all these folks plus the influence of my own eye and sense of esthetics. I also believe in allowing the subject to dictate how it will be painted so my work has many variants from subject to subject and medium to medium. At the same time I can see a thread that goes through it all.
I have admired the work of realists, impressionists. abstractionists, and expressionists and they probably have an affect on me depending on my mood and subject matter. Over the years I have been labeled a realist, impressionist, expressionist, and even once even an abstractionist, and I never really agreed with any of them. So now after all of that I guess the answer is "I don't know."
Your reference to Sergei's workshops being discribed as romatic. I suppose this may be due to the fact that in many ways Sergei was in a way a bigger than life individual. We've all know those who turn heads when they walk into a room, Sergei was such a person. His students idolized him and in a way he loved it, and who wouldn't.
He was a genius at bringing a student to a certain level in painting in a relative short time, unfortunately he was so dogmatic in his teaching that few went beyond looking like Sergei. I don't mean this in a negative way because once the student reached a certain point they should have searched for their next master. I'm a firm believer in having many masters each one chosen to cover ones most immediate weakness. Having only one master makes it almost impossible not to imitate. The more cross pollination the better.
You also asked how I would compare my style to Sergei's. Sergei believed in seeing spots of color where I am more interested in searching out the form. Sergei worked almost entirely in broken color I do too but not nearly as much. He also worked fairly large seldom smaller than 24x30 he felt it was impossible to work smaller and still be able to express your self. He did do a few 12x16's after I forced him to it because that was all I had available one day and he did actually admit to enjoying it. I really enjoy working small especially in the field. I may start every painting different than the last sometimes light to dark and sometimes half tone to light and dark, I love to experiment. Sometimes changing palettes sometimes adding a new color or two. Sergei was much more systematic in his approach.
There is no right or wrong each must find his own way.
Wm. F. Reese
Reply to this