The Painter's Keys Community For Artists

Search the Painter's Keys:

« Generic versus specific

· previous clickback ·

Theft »

· next clickback ·

Join the world's largest art community and get the twice-weekly art letter.
Subscription is free.

Absolutely free, no strings. You'll get the valuable twice-weekly letter and be joining the world's most active art community.

Robert's worldwide gift that artists love to get.

Tracy Owen Cullimore
Row row row -- acrylic painting
Row row row
acrylic painting
Untitled -- oil painting
Untitled
oil painting
Im Not a Baby! - Rachel -- watercolour painting
Im Not a Baby! - Rachel
watercolour painting
I promise -- oil painting
I promise
oil painting


Beyond judgment

February 12, 2013

Dear Artist,

Yesterday, Mike Barr of Adelaide, South Australia wrote, "When jurying art, contemporary and abstract work may be beyond judgment as to quality. Traditional work, on the other hand, is more easily assessed as to its skill level. How do you account for this difference, and what are the implications?"

Thanks, Mike. Great question. In 1975, Tom Wolfe wrote a perceptive little book called The Painted Word. He was trying to understand for himself what made the New York art scene so difficult to understand and how, in his opinion, bad work could so often be touted as good. He decided the critics were to blame--particularly three art-theory pundits he called "The Kings of Cultureberg"--Clement Greenberg, Harold Rosenberg and Leo Steinberg. Critics, Wolfe figured, like to talk and write about concepts, and realistic work didn't offer much conceptual potential.

The artists of the New York art scene at the time--Warhol, de Kooning, Pollock, etc., were guilty, according to Wolfe, of bashing out substandard work that served the purpose of giving "the Bergs" something to talk and write about. With the buzz came unwarranted success, according to Tom Wolfe.

As most of us know, painters, and particularly realistic painters, tend to talk about drawing, composition, colour, technique, and the challenges of developing skills.

When looking at realistic portraits, for example, have you ever noticed that even your one-eyed Uncle Fred can spot deficiencies? That's the trouble with realistic art--it's too easy to do it poorly and to be seen by any Tom, Dick or Fred to be poor. As well, it's pretty easy for artists to fool themselves into thinking their poor realistic work is actually not too bad. The work may be, after all, better than the one Uncle Fred painted.

In assessing realism, there are laws--and there are laws to be broken. Seasoned pros, through their own lifelong studenthood, tend to understand potentials, make suggestions, and sometimes tell you how to fix things. Pulling the plug and refilling the tub are also on the pros' agenda. It's an enigma. Art is a Great Goddess of infinite intrigue and illusion, and even a lifetime of worship may not find her fickle soul.

Best regards,

Robert

PS: "With an 'advanced' artist, it's not now possible to make a portrait." (Clement Greenberg, 1909-1994)

Esoterica: As well as an emotive or provocative underlying idea, effective abstract work still needs a kind of surface magic and design strength. Abstraction can be tough sledding. On the other hand, for those who do realism well, there is little need for the Bergs. The Uncle Freds are suspect as well. But the real enemy is us. "The easiest person to fool," said Richard Feynman, "is yourself." A clear eye and a sense of purpose are worth more than a mile-high stack of the New York Times. FYI, we've put a selection of Mike Barr's work at the top of the current clickback.





Realism demands honesty
by Kent Wilkens, Tobermory, ON, Canada


With realism, you actually have to know how to paint, have to know your craft, otherwise your Surfs Up<br>original painting by Kent Wilkens Surfs Up
original painting
inabilities are quite glaring. I love abstract and psychedelic, did it when I was a kid in school, was fun, free, and the best part, was very hard for people to criticize it. Often tell people in my gallery, "I used to do abstract and psychedelic, then I learned how to paint."Not saying they can't be well done, but your article points out that it is just so easy to foist garbage on people and call it art.



There are 3 comments for Realism demands honesty by Kent Wilkens

From: Speechless -- Feb 15, 2013

Ouch!! "I used to do abstract and psychedelic, then I learned how to paint."

I'm speechless. Such arrogance. Such superiority.

From: Shocked -- Feb 15, 2013

I thought we all belonged to the Great Brotherhood of Artists. I am very disappointed to read all these comments that are so judgmental and dismissive of other artists' work, and sometimes downright ignorant. Just because you don't understand or approve doesn't mean it's OK to bash. Please show a little open-mindedness.

From: Tatjana M-P -- Feb 15, 2013

I don't think that the title of this post communicates truth. Just as it is easy to crank out a bad abstract, it’s also easy to print photos on canvas, touch them up with paint and sell as original realism. This is done a lot nowadays, you can find this stuff in galleries and even in most respected exhibitions. I think that honesty has nothing to do with the painting style. To really find out who has skills and who doesn’t, one would need to go to artist’s studios (not galleries and shows), and to examine the entire body of work. Average art lover doesn’t have the time and interest to do that – so they make assumptions which lead to misunderstandings and arguments. People are very good justifiers.


Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


Why critics' choice?
by Marie Lyon, Summerside, PEI, Canada


It seems that it's who you know and where you live that often makes an artist great. As an artist, I have often wondered why. As our retina contains 120 million rods and 7 million cones, I conclude that none of us see the same, have the same background and experiences, so our choices must be personal. I've always felt that the art critics have a huge influence on who makes it and your article was right in quoting Tom Wolfe, although he's a bit far out. BUT, what was considered bad work yesterday may be looked on as a breakthrough today. Picasso and Jackson Pollock are often referred to by lay people as unable to draw but they are 'out to lunch' there. Both were excellent draftsmen at the outset.



There is 1 comment for Why critics' choice? by Marie Lyon

From: Anonymous -- Feb 15, 2013

Agree about Picasso, but Pollock was never very good. For example, his wife's superior skills were always frustrating to him. Abstracts saved his talent and gave it an adequate vehicle.


Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


Fabrication bewilders public
by Jim van Geet, Australia


As well as Tom Wolfe's must-read book is another excellent book by Roger Kimball - Rape of the Masters: How political correctness sabotages Art. Angelique<br>original painting by Jim van Geet Angelique
original painting
He cites specific critiques and analyses by art academics and critics of works by Courbet, Rothko, Sargent, Rubens, Homer, Gauguin and van Gogh. These art historians largely ignored the artist's creative intent and

fabricated their own thereby misinforming and confusing an already bewildered public. One can only guess at their motives. Nothing much has changed since Tom Wolfe's book.



There is 1 comment for Fabrication bewilders public by Jim van Geet

From: Michael McDevitt -- Feb 15, 2013

Mary N. Balcomb’s book about Sergei Bongart has an interesting essay by the artist on this subject. It is worth a read. He certainly had the talent and production volume to warrant due consideration.


Website Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


How do they know?
by Judy Palermo, Shoreview, MN, USA


Yes indeed, the 'problem' with representational art is that it does have Standards. Standards Peeled Clementine<br>oil painting<br>5 x 7 inches by Judy Palermo Peeled Clementine
oil painting
5 x 7 inches
that can be stretched and broken well, but they come from a reference point where any natural Joe or Jane can feel confident determining all on their own. No need to first hear approval from the Bergs or the New York art scene, who like to promote the sense that a higher sensibility is needed to judge abstract works. Regular folks scratch their heads about abstract art, and just declare 'I guess I don't understand, but it must be good.' Didn't Richard Schmid openly wonder about abstract artists-- 'How do they know when they're getting better?'



There are 2 comments for How do they know? by Judy Palermo

From: Anonymous -- Feb 15, 2013

' Didn't Richard Schmid openly wonder about abstract artists-- 'How do they know when they're getting better?'

That's easy - they check their bank account!

From: Jackie Knott -- Feb 15, 2013

After reading the featured responses and commentary I still have no foundation in which to evaluate abstract art. There is no consensus, whereas there is with realism and impressionism. It kind of gnaws at me, "Well, you just don't understand." No, I don't. Enlighten me, please. Not that I don't like some (Franz Kline, Helen Frankenthaler) ... I am searching for a valid yardstick to expand my own knowledge. The standards listed by <a target=_blank href="http://quote.robertgenn.com/auth_search.php?name=Hans+Hofmann" title="Art Quotes by Hans Hofmann">Hans Hofmann</a> are tossed out the window walking in the MOMA in any major city. Is this where it ends? That abstracts cannot be judged except in the expanse of time?


Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


Emotional response is beyond judgment
by Terrie Christian, Plymouth, MN, USA


When I started painting, I was most interested in realistic work and especially portraits and trained Snow Birds '63<br>watercolour painting by Terrie Christian Snow Birds '63
watercolour painting
for a year of life drawing at the Atelier Lack in Minneapolis. I didn't even think I liked abstract work and dismissed it entirely. Then I joined a local art society and began helping hang and design their shows and learned about myself that some abstracts really spoke to me, but I did not understand it at all. I had no clue as to how to make one. A local teacher of abstract art heard me say so at a meeting and said that if I would come to a workshop that she and another artist offered every year that I would get it. That was early in 2001 and that year my first abstract I created on my own got into the Minnesota state fair in the fall. What I have decided, at least in part, is that a successful painting holds some kind of emotional response for me that I do not always have words for and it is true whether it is realistic or abstract. That emotional response is what I think is beyond judgment!



There are 2 comments for Emotional response is beyond judgment by Terrie Christian

From: Judy Palermo -- Feb 15, 2013

Hello to a fellow Minnesotan! It was your delightful, well-done painting of this couple that made me stop, that's when I read you are from MN. I envy you were at the Atelier when Richard Lack was teaching- that was a lauded time. Love the figures, and that slight diagonal of their bodies that have the feel of energy and movement!

From: Terrie Christian -- Feb 15, 2013

Much of the abstract art that I do these days have representational imagery or I find shapes that remind me of things, especially nature and I have fun developing those. You can find me in the member's gallery at Minnesota Artists Association http://minnesotaartistsassociation.com/ to see what I am talking about. I checked out the site of Susan Fram below and really liked what she had to say on her blog. It is all about following our art journey to be our most authentic selves. I am happy that I started out with classical training, and love the painting that you see here. I just find that I don't want to do them anymore, and even when I go to shows I am most often moved by the abstract these days. For me, I think a lot of it has to do with my active imagination. I love the mysteries and not even having words to evaluate the response.


Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


Thoughtless work never works
by Brian Crawford Young, Forres, Scotland


I agree that there are difficulties in jurying abstract works, but sometimes this depends on the Inner Wave #2<br>oil painting by Brian Crawford Young Inner Wave #2
oil painting
erudition of the jurist. With this kind of work there is still a level of skill required from the painter, although perhaps not drawing skill. Composition, good colour sense, and technique are still required. If you look closely at the work of the New York Abstract Expressionists, as I have been lucky to do, there is no shortage of these qualities. For example, a sense of space and distance is achieved by using aerial perspective. Most of these famous artists were taught by Hans Hofmann (born in Germany, active in the USA, 1880-1966) who had developed his own theory of what he called symphonic painting. In symphonic painting he states that colour is the real building medium and that each colour plane should be carefully placed and ordered in sympathy with its neighbour. Hofmann applied three rules to Symphonic Painting. These stated:

• The entity of the picture plane had to be preserved.

• The essence of the picture is its two-dimensionality.

By this he meant that three-dimensional effects must be achieved by the process of painting, i.e. by skill and artifice.

• A painting should receive the greatest possible richness in light-emanation effect and retain the transparency of a jewel.

By this he seems to mean that the colour saturation and form of the motif should cause an oscillation effect in the eye of the observer. In simple terms, a kind of pizzazz or fizz. This can be created by optical effects based on colour theory, by careful use of pigments, or by causing a shift into and out of the apparent space created (which he would later describe as the Push-Pull effect).

I have painted a few abstracts trying to use these qualities. It's fun, but serious, too. Random, thoughtless work almost never works, and I suspect some painters don't realise this. The good jurist always does. As Edgar Degas once said, "Painting is easy when you don't know how, but very difficult when you do."



There are 4 comments for Thoughtless work never works by Brian Crawford Young

From: Mary Wood -- Feb 15, 2013

Couldn't agree more. Having painted and taught abstraction for years, I become increasingly aware of the importance of basic principles and elements of design. I stress over and over to my students that they need to study these until they are assimilated into their very being. It's much more difficult to paint a good abstraction than a realistic piece which is often deemed 'good' because the viewer recognizes the subject and probably has had an experience relating to it. I think that struggling abstract artists need to recognize that the large world of art, especially as represented by art classes and even this series of letters, is dominated by painters and proponents of realism. The subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, bias toward realism can be discouraging for those aspiring to understand and achieve success in abstract art.

From: Anonymous -- Feb 15, 2013

Thanks for this comment. I feel like it answered the original query more directly than did the main article, which as always provided interesting reading nonetheless.

From: Michael McDevitt -- Feb 15, 2013

"...much more difficult to paint a good abstraction than a realistic piece..." is a statement that lacks the substance necessary to evaluate the comment. It is almost circular in an abstract sense. Even the use of the word 'abstraction' causes a reader to ask is that an 'abstract' or an 'abstraction' from reality? See Piet Mondrian for both. Realism is harder--always--if it is good work, or even deemed 'good work' by modernist, artistic oligarchy. Caravaggio vs Pollock?

From: Terrie Christian -- Feb 16, 2013

I have loved this conversation about abstract and realistic art. I followed the link to Hans Hofmann's quotes and his thoughts about creativity and magic and many other topics is wonderful. I also followed the link in PeggySu's comments below about Jackson Pollock who some have said pejorative words about. What some do not understand, they denigrate. Some of us love what we do not understand, but know that it touches something inside that is wordless and wonderful. This blog that Robert has created has been an important part of my self ongoing education. The science of what Pollock was doing is interesting and affirming. Perhaps some of those who think abstraction is only for children, or unworthy of the name art can open their minds and hearts to a different sort of reality. We are really all such tender souls!


Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


Obnoxious Artspeak
by Frank Gordon, Giggleswick, North Yorkshire, England


My copy of The Painted Word is rather dog-eared these days as I take it down from the shelf and A flurry of seagulls at the weir<br>oil painting by Frank Gordon A flurry of seagulls at the weir
oil painting
skim through it over and again. It's a great antidote to the current obnoxious brand of Artspeak which is intended to alienate and impress rather than inform - although there are signs of the tide going out on that particular genre at last. Wolfe was very unpopular at the time (probably still is) for pointing out that the stuff written about a contemporary artwork had become more important than the work itself; 'talking the meaning into the work' as the work itself didn't and couldn't carry such meaning.

Art Quotes by Tom Wolfe

Since then, of course, things have contrived to get even worse as this was all long before the current crop of 'Conceptual' Art in which the work has virtually disappeared to be replaced by the cult of personality and the farming out of the work to craftsmen. (I still cling to the old-fashioned view that if you can't make it yourself, it's probably best left un-made.) Perhaps it's time for Wolfe to write 'The Painted Word II.'

I see lots of lovely abstract qualities in Mike Barr's work, by the way: use of colour, form, composition, line, etc., to transform an everyday experience into a powerful and beautiful visual statement. All this combines with a sensitivity of drawing to communicate the pleasure of simply being alive. Good work, Mike!



There are 2 comments for Obnoxious Artspeak by Frank Gordon

From: Patsy, Northern Ireland -- Feb 15, 2013

Your painting blows me away! May a rank amateur have the cheek to comment how beautiful your work is - I've just been gawping at your website. ;-)

From: Michael McDevitt -- Feb 15, 2013

Yes, nice work, drawings are really energetic.


Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


Cynicism replaces critiques
by Rick Rotante, Tujunga, CA, USA


Critics, in general, have been a problem long before Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel. By the fire<br>original painting by Rick Rotante By the fire
original painting
They have the power to destroy as well make the career of any up and coming artist. One problem with critics is they are usually affected by personal bias and individual tastes. But then again, who isn't? Most critiques I've ever read had more to do with cynicism and little to do with critique. In many cases the review made the career of the critic paramount to the artist. When the art being produced in the thirties and forties became, how shall I say, more individually expressive and abstract, critics had to say something, regardless of whether they understood the piece or not. That being said, they intellectualized it and fabricated long theories about the meaning of the work which became more meaningful to readers than the work itself and the less the reader understood it the better. Also camps were forms and alliances crystallized with buyers and gallery owner; auctioneers, which only fortified their statements and made them more credible. The more obtuse they wrote, the more credence was attached to their words. This couldn't be more true today than ever if you go to any show on "new" or "abstract" artwork. What is interesting to me is if you were to take away any verbiage used to describe a work, no one viewing it would have the slightest idea what the piece was about. And maybe that would be better. Form your own opinion. Remember all critics' words are only opinions anyway.



Website Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


Principles of design apply
by Barry John Raybould, UK/USA/China/Italy


I do not agree with the statement that abstract work is beyond judgement as to quality. There has Reflections<br>oil painting by Barry John Raybould Reflections
oil painting
been much written about the various principles of design that apply to abstract art (for example: Arthur Wesley Dow, 1899, Composition: Understanding Line, Notan and Color ; Maitland E. Graves, 1951, The Art of Color and Design ; Barry John Raybould, 2008, Virtual Art Academy: Notan, Visual Music & Poetry ). These principles include notan, unity, harmony, repetition with variety, dominance, organizational structures, and many others. Using these principles you can quite easily, with a bit of experience of course, judge abstract art in a subjective way. I recently spent an afternoon with a student who did highly abstract work with vague references to a landscape. We systematically went through her work, working with these principles, and re-painted several of them using ArtRage on an iPad. The improvement in the paintings was substantial and it only took about 20 minutes per painting. If the principles were only subjective, it would have been impossible to improve the paintings.

Moreover, these principles do not only apply to abstract art. They apply equally well to representational art. In fact, the best representational art is precisely that which embodies these principles of abstract design. If it did not, a representational painting would be little more than a photographic record of a scene or subject. I have analysed many great master paintings over the past few years in preparation for a new series of painting courses I am writing for an upcoming new Edition 2 of the Virtual Art Academy program and for a recent series of articles analyzing master paintings that I have been writing for Plein Air Magazine. http://www.outdoorpainter.com/ I found that all of the great master paintings embody these principles of design and notan. Although my own painting is representational, I always think about its abstract qualities when planning the composition. To me this is far more important than precise rendering. Beyond judgement? Yes, but only if the juror does not understand the principles!



There are 3 comments for Principles of design apply by Barry John Raybould

From: Anonymous -- Feb 14, 2013

With your student's permission, it would be instructive to the student's originals and the Art Rage improvements.

From: Jim Oberst -- Feb 15, 2013

Barry, I agree... design is the thing with respect to abstracts. I teach a 1-day Design for Painters course, and have been posting "pieces" of this course as artist tips on my blog www.jimoberst.blogspot.com and in my e-newsletter. Though I typically paint in an imaginative realism style, and illustrate design principles using my own realistic paintings, these principles are critical to the success of all 2-dimensional art, and particularly to abstract art.

From: Anonymous -- Feb 15, 2013

How would you evaluate notan, line and color in works or Rothko, Pollock and Hockney?


Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


On being authentic
by Steve Koch, Gresham, OR, USA


Just read Generic vs. specific - would enjoy this sort of commentary with regards to one of your alumni Joy in the Midst<br>sculpture by Steve Koch Joy in the Midst
sculpture
from Art Center, illustrator Bob Peak and the realist master, Richard Schmid - Having just received and gazed at the coffee table book about Peak and recently read the Alla Prima: Everything I Know About Painting by Richard Schmid.

Like you, both are/were (Peak being deceased) at the top of their game. Both are masters, and while they do a wonderful job of creating what appears to be real, they have unlimited amounts of abstraction in their work. I agree with your premise about authenticity, but would like your comment on the combining of painting specifically and authentically while mixing it with abstraction.



There is 1 comment for On being authentic by Steve Koch

From: Michael McDevitt -- Feb 15, 2013

When I was at ACCD 80-83, realism was a given, because we all wanted to perfect the craft. Abstraction was inherent in 'pushing the envelope' and color experimentation was taught as a core subject. During critiques shoddiness was thrown out, and if you had to explain your work (except in the fine art dept.), it would not stay on the ‘rail’ for very long either.


Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


Authenticity in Art
by Kathryn E. Norman, Brant Beach, NJ, USA


I often wonder how much we reveal ourselves in our art. How willing are we to lay our inner selves on the canvas, paper, board, clay or stone with each stroke thus making ourselves vulnerable to the gaze of others? Does it matter? Is the revelation of our inner selves, or spirit, a deliberate act or does it simply seep into our work unconsciously? Are we sometimes surprised at our own choice of subject, techniques and colors and do these choices teach us something about ourselves which was previously unknown? When we realize that we have revealed ourselves, are we afraid of being judged, not only on our work, but on the very essence of our being--in other words, on our authenticity? These are some of the questions arising in the course of time as we continue to grow in our work.

It's my personal opinion that we cannot help but reveal ourselves in our Art as we are the privileged recipients of a Gift of Expression. As far as deliberately willing to make ourselves vulnerable to the gaze of others and others' opinions depends on how humble we are. However, whether we are deliberate in the revelation of our inner being or not, we are revealed nonetheless. In our choices of subject, techniques and color, we must be fearless, humble and willing to get to know aspects of ourselves hitherto unknown. We are journeying into a realm previously unexplored... be brave... don't be concerned about being judged... as what has been poured forth from our spirit judges itself.



There is 1 comment for Authenticity in Art by Kathryn E. Norman

From: Jim Carpenter -- Feb 15, 2013

Beautifully stated.


Email Add Instant Comment Share this with a friend


Donna & Tom Dickson workshops Held in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico.  <a href='http://clicks.robertgenn.com/workshops/workshop.php'>The Workshop Calendar</a> provides up-to-date selected workshops and seminars arranged in chronological order. Please take a look <a href='http://clicks.robertgenn.com/workshops/workshop.php'>here</a>.
Donna & Tom Dickson workshops
Held in San Miguel de Allende, Mexico.

The Workshop Calendar provides up-to-date selected workshops and seminars arranged in chronological order. Please take a look here.



World of Art Featured artist Mohammad Ali Bhatti, Pakistan



You may be interested to know that artists from every state in the USA, every province in Canada, and at least 115 countries worldwide have visited these pages since January 1, 2013.

That includes David Knoecklein of Phoenixville, PA, USA who wrote, "At its best it is all the fundamentals applied, at once. On the other side of the equation is, 'Have you ever tried to copy a Homer?' Every great gets the poetry just right. Duplicating the poetry is distinctly difficult."

And also John Martzouco of Montreal, QC, Canada who wrote, "We all think we're right. We can't all be right. Which one's true?"

And also Phil Spaziani of Ballston Spa, NY, USA who wrote, "You should read this article for a very pointed view of Artspeak, the garbage written about contemporary art."


If you think a friend or fellow artist may find value in this material please feel free to forward it. This does not mean that they will automatically be subscribed to the Twice-Weekly Letter. They have to do it voluntarily and can find out about it by reading our Welcome Letter.



Archived Comments

Enjoy the past comments below for Beyond judgment...

From: Robert Sesco -- Feb 12, 2013

I must confess to an uneasy feeling regarding the relationship between abstract expressionism, impressionism, and realism: I am part of the crowd who politely claps as the Emperor passes totally naked. Your one-eyed Uncle Fred and millions of regular folks who have never taken a class in Art History, or Fine Art Techniques, have their reactions to the visual arts; few will say "My five year old could do that!" or "Heck, even I could do that" while viewing impressionism or realism. But you will definitely hear that at an exhibit of Pollock, a painter I meekly stand by and allow to be called a 'genius' without objection, or of Rothko, or any event exhibiting abstract expressions of emotions. I think of Michelangelo as genius, and certainly Einstein's name has become synonymous with genius, and the artist/inventor Leonardo da Vinci, and the cosmologist/theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking, and of all of these not one would you find someone saying, "Heck, my five-year old could do that!" I apply every year for a fellowship at the Va. Museum of Fine Art. I don't expect to win, because the odds are something like 28 chances out of 775 applicants. I received my rejection letter the other day, which was expected and in no way caused a blip on my happy meter, and several days later the Museum posted one photo each of what I must assume were considered the best example of the winning artist's work in the several categories. In the drawing category someone had created some pen and ink stick figures to accompany a story. In the sculpture category a student at the local university had created an unattractive couch with garish covers underneath a badly leaning frame of pipe and PVC with a clip lamp at one end aimed back into the couch. This effort won a stipend of a few thousand dollars to continue creating this type of work. I was astounded at what a prestigious institution like the Va. Museum of Fine Art would allow to be associated with its name. If you read the history of abstract expressionism, you will find that although it has origins in Germany, it was in New York that it found American footing. Tom Wolfe was correct, in my opinion. The critics found something they could write about AS SELF-ANNOINTED AUTHORITIES, that could not be questioned, and this attention provided unwarranted success for people like Pollock. It reminds me a great deal of the early origins of certain mainstream religions, who set themselves up as the gatekeepers to heaven, amassing great wealth in the process, and choosing to ignore the Saints' directives regarding possessions and the poor and the possibility that people can achieve Heaven without their help. Critics are the Bishops and Cardinals of Art. Challenge the positive critique of any abstract work and feel the wrath of indignation, the accusation that your ignorance stands in the way of appreciating works that any five year old might execute at random. I certainly do not excoriate all such works, for as a painter I appreciate color, and texture; I can enjoy walking into a gallery where abstracts of beautiful color cause me to resonate; I enjoy Batik, and tapestry, and fabrics, and art paper, etc., all of which might express abstract ideas. But I personally appreciate those works that do not insult me with how quickly they were thrown together; I would not likely hang a Picasso Cubist painting in my home, but I certainly appreciate an artist who creates an entire genre of art, who has demonstrated acumen in realism and has moved beyond it into a journey where no artist had been before. Except for this post, from which I expect plenty of dismissive comments from those who feel threatened, I will likely continue to stand by in the crowd as the Emperor passes, but I will not politely applaud, but stand dumbfounded and incredulous, that my fellow brothers and sisters say nothing about the nakedness before us. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that read, "Artists Are Here to Disturb the Peace". Perhaps SOME artists are here for that reason, but I have enough disturbance of the peace just living my life. I look to art to soothe my soul, to allow me to escape from that which disturbs my peace with a visit for a moment with something of beauty. I've learned to turn off the television and the radio. I've learned that I can live without knowing all of the homicides in my city, all of the exceptional depravities that have happened overnight globally; I am choosing more and more to eliminate that which disturbs my peace and to seek more beauty, more of that which calms and soothes, more of that with substance. I gravitate to Art that does this for me. Photo-Realism is showing off your abilities; interpreting realism beautifully, painterly, with skill and aplomb, is my ambition and what inspires me. I have a long way to go, but joyously I witness my own progress! Ultimately, the journey is more satisfying than the destination; romance, more gratifying than the orgasm.

From: Marsha Hamby Savage -- Feb 12, 2013

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the above post by Robert Genn. I like to be made to think. I also enjoyed the instant comment by Robert Sesco. You said it so very well and it is exactly as I feel. I am a representational painter, a plein air painter, a colorist with a background in tonalism, and I also consider myself somewhat of an expressionist and impressionist. Is that enough titles? Really, I am an artist.

I have been painting for over 40 years and am still learning and hope to always be striving for better outcomes, and even different outcomes. It does bother me when I cannot understand where an abstract piece is coming from, meant to go, or what! I want to see beauty of color or line or something. I do not want to see anger or sad, or to be disturbed by what I am seeing in a piece of art.

I also enjoy the journey and the romance!

From: ReneW -- Feb 12, 2013

All art is an abstraction to some degree. Whether you just throw paint on a canvass or make painstaking brush strokes with realistic style painting you are still dealing with abstractions. With that said you are expressing yourself in your unique, creative way. To take the common and make it uncommon like Warhol or Pollock is the essence of art. I can love it or hate it. It is up to me; not some critic.

From: Jackie Knott -- Feb 12, 2013

Robert Sesco, dang, that's some good stuff ....
My college art classes had the appropriate emphasis studying abstract impressionism and contemporary art. If an artist or work was championed by the critics it ended up in the classroom and the reputation was perpetuated as gospel. As my professors extolled the profound abilities of these recognizable names, I meekly succumbed to their judgment. The only cautionary voiced was, not all abstract artists were skilled in representational work.
Only after countless museum journeys and painting for decades, does one develop confidence in personal judgment. We quit listening to the critics ... we listen to our inner critic and admire some artists and totally dismiss others.
The problem with trying to evaluate abstract work is applying the same principles we judge representational work ... they don't necessarily correlate. Composition, negative and positive space, color, energy ... beyond those I'm at a total loss to come up with any sort of barometer that produces a valid judgment. I think that is why "artspeak" is so rampant describing contemporary work.
I am really looking forward to the commentary by abstract artists.

From: Hale -- Feb 12, 2013

If, for whatever reason, a work does not communicate feeling, emotion, empathy, meaning, making an emotional connection with others, that work thereby falls within a much narrower range of human expression than is possible.

It is not surprising that a more limited range of expression would be accorded a more limited range of appreciation.

If you have to "explain" the power of the work, then that power isn't in the work, it's just an idea that the artist--for whatever reason--could not, or did not, incorporate. Whatever the reason, when the balance tips too much toward abstraction, the offering seems paltry. It's not very generous, often appearing narcisstic or self-indulgent.

It's hard to get any particular feeling from something if you don't know what it represents. That is the context that cues the feeling. With that established, greater understanding and skill enable the artist to heighten the perception around that feeling and give the audience something like a window into a strange and wonderful consciousness.

Looked at Mike Barr's work on his blog. Mike uses more abstraction than some people, but it's never out of control. Nice work, especially the pieces with really warm light. I can feel it on my skin.

From: Dwight -- Feb 12, 2013

After painting for most of my 80 years and doing it for our living for well over half of that, my mostly agreeable reaction to the two Roberts above (G and S) is that I have tried so-called abstracts from time-to-time and find them much more difficult in finding any final satisfaction. That is, I need to work and rework much more on an abstract to be satisfied that I have done anything worth keeping. I can invent subjects, if I want, that depict the world I have seen for all those decades. But obviously I'm using images stored somewhere in my mind from a lifetime of not only looking but trying to really see what's out there. Pure abstract is pure invention and, for me, tougher. In any type of work I don't agree with Robt. G that we ourselves are the easiest to fool. I find just the opposite. I only have a few paintings, out of thousands, that are totally satisfactory to me...realism or otherwise.

From: Suzette Fram -- Feb 12, 2013

When I walk into an exhibition of works, what catches my breath and makes my heart beat faster, are the colourful abstract pieces with strong and visually pleasing contrasts. I find those are the 2 elements that I love. Colour, contrast, sharp lines perhaps and some elements that are painterly, artistic, spontaneous, impulsive, uninhibited, but all forming a whole that is beautiful. Not all abstract art achieves that. And I find it a lot of harder to find this kind of excitement in representational work.

That is why I paint abstracts, those are the qualities that I try to achieve, and believe me, it is not easy to achieve. Abstract work is subject to the same criteria for quality such as composition, values, contrast, balance, etc. etc. except that there are no guidelines telling you where to go next, as in representational work; it all has to come from your imagination. Representational work follows a plan, a scene, a photo; abstract work does not, you have to make it up, pull it from your mind, your heart, your subconscious. Yes sure, some might say: 'my 2-year-old could have done that', but that's probably because they've never tried to produce a work that is both successful and beautiful.

Or it could just be a matter of personal taste. Or it could be that some people just cannot appreciate a work unless there's something in there that they can recognize and identify with. With abstract art, it's not about recognition that brings about memory and emotion, it's about the impact of the colours and contrasts, and how they speak to you visually and subconsciously, and how they make your heart sing. I am in total agreement that much of the work today does not achieve this kind of impact, representational or not.

From: Robert Sesco -- Feb 12, 2013

Suzette, for what it is worth to you, I took a look at your work, both abstract and semi-abstract, and I could see/feel the beauty of your paintings, albeit from the monitor of a computer. Your work exhibits the thought processes and time investment that prevents comments about how easy it would be to duplicate. I take the time to share this because I was surprised to feel what I felt when entering your online gallery. You have succinctly stated your objective, and I think you are achieving it. Your colors are soothing, and I sense the moods and contrasts with which you wrestle. But in my case, I think you may be right, I look for that which I can recognize and identify with. I cannot identify with elements that you pull from your unique subconscious, your unique imagination. Although I realize the therapeutic attributes of color, I, for some reason, do not find comfort in allowing myself to react to color, or contrasts, or textures, for the pure sake of reacting to it. I suppose I like to recognize something that an artist like yourself has changed, or expressed, in a new way. You know, there is art like Kinkade's that people stare into and imagine themselves inside the painting; and there is art whose purpose is to manipulate your emotions without engaging your imagination. I remember how excited I was to witness prints of computer generated radial art, that reminded me of photos of the cosmos and yet was like something I had never seen before. I think the distinction I am making is between art that is well-considered, and art that is ill-conceived. I can appreciate the former easily, but I am flummoxed at the success of the latter.

From: PeterRandall-Kent -- Feb 12, 2013

Surely ALL Art (Music, Dance, Painting/Drawing, Sculpture, Acting &c)
is "In the eye/ear of the beholder !" I have to decide for myself what I wish to experience with any or all of my senses. To me it is absurd to presume to adjudicate over the work of a subject or genre in which I have no interest whatsoever. In my opinion GOOD art is anything that succeeds in stimulating the senses of the observer/listener in the manner in which the artist intended.

From: Anon -- Feb 12, 2013

I agree with Peter, although in the realm of art shows I was required to jury paintings of a genre in which I did not have interest. I think that's what Mike Barr’s question was referring to. I feel that it is a disservice to jury art without being fairly and evenly engaged in all entries. I have broken cold sweat one time too many when presented with semi-abstract and abstract art which I didn't know how to evaluate. I feel that using only the traditional criteria isn't adequate because abstract and semi-abstract artists seem to attempt to communicate something else which I am unable to grasp to the extent that would allow me to evaluate it against representational art which I understand well. If I only apply the traditional criteria, most of the abstract entries would score very low. However, those low-scorers get rave reviews from other jury members, which tells me that I am wasting my time. I am either unqualified for the task, or overruled by jurors who can’t explain their criteria, so why bother. I now only jury purely representational shows because I feel I contribute most to that genre. I would like to think that artists who are not interested in representational art also abstain from jurying representational shows. But, I am curious and would like to learn about criteria for evaluating abstract art. All I have heard so far is to use the same traditional criteria. But that doesn’t work in practice. The most respected abstract art doesn’t fit…and really I don’t see why it should. New art should have new criteria. But what is it? Can’t be just innovation or shock because scientific discoveries would then qualify…what makes it art? Maybe if it’s innovative and doesn’t serve any practical purpose, then it’s art? What makes it more or less successful? Engagement of universal thought or feelings? Am I on the right track?

From: Otto Leon -- Feb 13, 2013

If you were thinking about creating a "fake." that is, copying an extant work, which do you think would give you the least trouble--a Rembrandt or a Rothko?

From: Willem Salles -- Feb 13, 2013

Painters do not get their satisfaction by looking around and comparing themselves to others, or, indeed, trying to find out which side of the fence they are on, or which style they are purveying. They simply go in their own direction and explore their own inclinations. The talk and the judgment is the work of others.

From: Julius Smet -- Feb 13, 2013

I consider myself an 'advanced' artist and it's pretty obvious that the traditional so called basics are not relevant anymore. I'm into issues and feelings and mind bending concepts, a field where traditional values may actually get in the way.

From: Kathryn -- Feb 13, 2013

"The artists of the New York art scene at the time--Warhol, de Kooning, Pollock, etc., were guilty, according to Wolfe, of bashing out substandard work that served the purpose of giving "the Bergs" something to talk and write about."

I was surprised to learn that Quang Ho shares most of my favorite artist including DeKooning. Take a look as his work; can you see the influence? I can. People will continue to bash many abstract and abstract expressionist artist, but they bring a unique vision to the world and I am grateful for it.

From: Suzette Fram -- Feb 13, 2013

To Robert Sesco. Thank you for your kind comments. There is really room in this world for different points of view, and it is possible to appreciate work even if we do not understand it. We just need to feel it.

From: PeggySu -- Feb 14, 2013

I don't think any of us know for sure why one piece of art makes our heart leap up and another doesn't. It can't just be perceived effort or we'd all prefer Eiffel Tower replicas constructed out of toothpicks to most anything else.

It's interesting the question is from an Australian. It was an Australian researcher who discovered that the appeal of Jackson Pollock's drip paintings is likely due to the fractal dimension of these works:
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/9_18_99/mathland.htm

I happen to like Pollock but agree with someone who wrote earlier that it is generally more difficult to appreciate abstract art than realistic art in reproduction since the size and the painted surface of the abstract art are often essential to the experience.

From: Julie Arnott -- Feb 14, 2013

I am organising an Easter Art Exhibition with the local parrish and only yesterday in discussion with the pastor who is also an artist, we bemoaned having to insure work when you are an emerging artist with no income. The most horrible thought for him was what if all the artwork was stolen and they only left his.

From: Russ Hogger -- Feb 14, 2013

There was a time when the early impressionists were bashing realism, then cubists were bashing impressionists then abstractionists came along and bashed everyone else in between. Art it seems has come full circle, we have realists bashing everything that aint. So now we all have to paint chocolate box tops again otherwise it's not art, and we all live happily ever after.

From: Bruce Doxey -- Feb 15, 2013

I have created artworks in many media. The pieces that I think are the best are those that invoke a response from the viewers. Whether the response is positive or negative is not important. The fact the the work had enough impact on the viewer to show that it affected them is what I look for. Kiss me or curse me, I don't care. The only works that I consider poor are those that are mostly ignored.

From: DM -- Feb 18, 2013

Some of us just do what we do, and don't care what anyone else thinks. Or even whether anyone does.

From: Susan Avishai -- Feb 22, 2013

Many brick-and-mortar galleries in Toronto are closing down, 3 in the past year alone who have carried my work. But they aren't going under. The owners are changing their business model, holding onto their artists, and spending more time consulting to individuals and corporations. This brings up an interesting issue. Without their former expenses (rent, utilities, advertising, staff) to pay, and me storing all my work in my studio until the sale is made (I send .jpgs for client presentations), should the consultant still be getting 50%? I posed the question to my MBA daughter who says, "Mom, the consultant is still doing the same service for you, i.e. selling art. For that she should get her fee." How far do you reckon our expenses factor into our fee?




top of page | « Generic versus specific :::  Theft »



BOOK OF THE TWICE-WEEKLY LETTERS--10 YEARS OF MORE THAN A THOUSAND UNABRIDGED LETTERS

$35.00(USD or CAD) plus $25.00 shipping in Canada, $35 in the USA, or $40.00 to anywhere else in the world.

TWL Letters

    To purchase with a credit card or PayPal, please choose your location from the list below and click Buy Online.

    |

    Here's a quote from Robert's letter on first publication, November 27, 2009: "It's my sincere wish that you get real and lasting value from it. It's your book, really, and I'd like to thank everyone in our Painter's Keys Community for the inspiration that makes these Twice-Weekly letters happen."

The Robert Genn Twice-Weekly Letters, 960 pages--ten years of over a thousand unabridged letters including an 82 page index. Six by nine inches and more than two inches thick, this beautiful book is hardbound Red Cayenne with a separate dust-jacket, a red ribbon, and shipped in a custom protective book-box.

To correspond regarding your book order, please write: sarah@saraphina.com


Robert's worldwide gift that artists love to get.

Absolutely free, no strings. You'll get the valuable twice-weekly letter and be joining the world's most active art community.

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE FREE

Last modified: Oct, 21, 2014