This might sound like a weird answer to some people but I usually don't have a message I'm trying to communicate through my art. I usually do a painting just for the joy of creating. While art is a great medium to make a statement, some great paintings were made just for the fun of it with no message underneath. I think a mistake some critics and connoisseurs of art make is to try and find a message or an underlying subtext in every painting created. It's like if you look hard enough at burnt toast you can eventually find the Virgin Mary.
The Art of the Portrait full-color newsletter is included with membership in the Portrait Society of America, as is a subscription to the magazine, International Artist. Later this year, the Portrait Society of America will be holding its 12th annual conference in Washington, D.C. from April 22 through the 25. These conferences are always a lot of fun, with presentations, vendor sales, portfolio reviews, and, of course, the portrait competition.
Later this year, Lipking will also be having another solo show at New York's Arcadia Gallery. The exhibition, to which I am looking very forward, will be held from June 10 through the 25.
30 comments:
Thanks for sharing this I really enjoyed reading it and I found it really inspiring.
I really agree with Jeremy's point and that's so true!
Those last two paintings are amazing.
I would say they are some of the best work I have seen from him for me.
The African American woman is suburb.
I agree with everything he said.
I went through an MFA program were we had to talk way to much about the "issues" in our work.
The attitude of the "stars" of the New Realism (like Jeremy Lipking) doesn't surprise me at all. I've noticed for a long time that this movement had been long on technique and short on content. The fact that the leaders in the movement see no problem with that at all tells me that this atelier-copy show will continue for the forseeable future.
If you were to compare the work of the New Realism to the work of the "icons" of late 19th century/early 20th century, this lack of content would be most apparent. Sargent, Zorn, Fechin, Sorolla, Bougereau, Gerome, Degas, Repin, Arkhipov, et al all had far more interest in the people and culture around them than the current crop of New Realists. These guys are already repeating their earlier themes, and they are still in their late 20's and early 30's! It's very boring work.
I suspect that the collectors and galleries favor this approach of content-less copyism because so many painters can master it, making it far easier to pick and promote certain "stars". We are only at the beginning of a flood of competent realists painters, now that ateliers, videos, and books outlining realistic technique are now so prevalent. Content-less "art" makes copyists a commodity. Without the barganing chip of creative talent, the painter becomes a plaything of the collectors and dealers. For a preview of the New Realism, look to the patterns of modernism.
This New Realism movement is nothing to get excited about for the true art lover.
Like Jeffrey, I went through a University program which was long on ideas, and short on technique, and sadly, it was only the most hackneyed ideas which received the attention. To me, this is the problem with Modern art- it is a philosophical stance which attempts to use a visual medium as its platform for debate, yet it tries to do so without the technical skills needed to raise the visual to a form of communication. The debates which arise are still verbal, and the art served only as catalyst (which is fine to some, I guess).
I think we do a disservice to art when we try to assign an irrefutable meaning to an artist's work in retrospect. The meaning intended is really up to the artist, and his success depends on his ability to have his work understood by his audience. Do I think all work has meaning beyond "art for arts sake?" No. And if every artist tried to used the visual medium to make a political statement, I'd find that very boring.
Sargent was mostly a technician, though a very skilled one. What was the content of his work? He painted an upper class that he didn't even care all that much for, but does that come across in his portraits?
Zorn may have been caught up in some of the Naturalist Movement going on in Sweden, and thus his paintings of nudes outdoors. So did he comment on a return to Nature? I guess so. Do his paintings give an opinion on the matter? Is industry portrayed as the anti-Nature?
Fechin was all about technique. Did he use his art to comment on the upheaval that happened around him in Russia before coming to the USA? No. He experimented with texture and color. He did like the American Natives he found out West and found a connection with them because they reminded him of the tribes back home, but he hated Western subjects (especially cowboys).
Sorolla was interested in the play of light on figures, especially under the bright sun of the beach.
Degas? He painted ballerinas. Does it come through in his paintings that ballet dancers were considered little better than prostitutes, and that he cared so little for them, that he would burn them with his cigarettes if they moved while they posed for him?
Gèrôme was a history painter and an Orientalist. Was he captivated by the new culture opening to Europe at that time? Sure. I'm not sure that he represented the East always as it was, though. He painted for the public spectacle.
Bouguereau and the Itinerant Russians did have a connection with the rural life (more so the Russians than Bouguereau), and perhaps an argument can be made that they were elevating the poor through their recognition in art.
I can easily agree that most art in historical terms has had a story to tell. Art has communicated religion and history, and documented individuals (portraiture). But what of still life and landscape? How often do they have "content" beyond beauty?
How much of art since Impressionism has been about beauty, and devoid of an additional meaning?
I understand you to a point, Tom. If all everyone did was a well rendered figure against a plain background it could get rather dull. I feel that way about the Photo-realists who paint close-ups of car fenders and chrome bumpers. I am amazed by their ability, but as a subject, it doesn't hold the right character for me.
As someone who is quite excited by this work, I am perhaps too biased to understand your perspective, Tom. Your dissatisfaction with the New Realism is clear, but I don't know what is the art which does excite you. What is the content you seek? Can you give me examples. I am very curious and would enjoy seeing those examples as a contrast to the work I tend to promote.
For me what i´m missing with todays most art is the story behind the creation of the painting. i dont think that a painting has to be political or has to show you a direct story/intention.
i mean every painter today invites models to his atelier and paints them. thats it. i would love to see more of painting strangers, as you get in contact with them, you have a conversation, maybe they tell you about their lifes and so on.
travel around (the world), meet people, paint with others (especiall landscape). that is what the whole "art has to communicate" means to me.
drawing alone (+ model) in a atelier is the most boring thing to me.
Also i would like to hear what Tom meant. You have to think about that a few centuries ago all painters painted mainly for the church, so saying that all they work had intention may be right, but it was more a predetermined one.
greetings from germany.
Greetings Raphael!
Have you looked at the paintings of Rose Frantzen and her Portrait of Maquoketa series? She invited people into her main street studio and painted them in the front window of her studio/gallery. She got to know them while she painted- got to know her neighbors- and I think in the best of her work, you see deeper into each model, and overall, the character of her mid-western, American town. I don't think you have to go far afield to find strangers with whom to connect.
Having said that, I am fascinated by the paintings of artists who do explore the world and return home with a personal artistic vision of a community foreign to me. Scott Burdick and Susan Lyon are the first two who come to mind who do such a thing, but I know there are many.
Obviously, you are an artist, because you are most fascinated with the process behind the work. I hope you have that community of fellow artists with you in Germany to help inspire each other to create!
Thanks for stopping by.
Best-
Matt
Hello,
thanks for the example. indeed when i look at her picture in the "bio" section of her homepage, thats the kind of art i like.
she is a great example of what i like and what i dont like. look at her "Allegorical Figures" and then at her "figurative"-ones, you see what i mean? you can really feel that the figurative ones are so full of life. thats why sargent always tried to make his paintings look like an alla prima. the kind of looseness is something which is really appealing to me. but thats a question of taste, isnt it? :)
talking about me, i am a hobby painter/drawer, going to an local art school with my girlfriend and good friends. its not an academic one, it is more like sitting together, talk about art, do art and so on. quite often a model sits for us. but also the model is a friend of the art school teacher.
i know that it can be very hard to find people to do art with you. its not that im totally against sitting at home and paint. but its not what i would like to do all the time either. when i paint at home, i mostly paint interior, especially when light comes through the window ( a subject i cant resist :) ).
i visit scott´s and susan´s site quite often. i like to read his travel stories, especially the mexican one (jeremy was there too) was the one where i got my opinion from.
thanks for having such a great blog to read, i discovered it about a half a year ago.
greetings
Matthew,
I'd simply respond the following way:
1) I don't know what you or other people wasting time in a university art program has to do with the vacuousness of the New Realists. I'm sorry you got snookered, but people need to look before they leap.
2) Saying that painting is about nothing in particular and saying that it should always be about ideas and opinions are just two extremeist views. I'm fine with superficial art, but not ad nauseum. You'd expect some of these guys to have some ideas. But they don't seem to have any.
3) Forget about modernism--throw it out for a minute. Just compare the New Realists to the examples of the late 19th/early 20th century realists--Zorn, Sargent, Sorolla, Degas, Lepage, Bougereau, Gerome, Leyendecker Cornwell, Brangwyn, Rockwell, Pyle, Dunn, Coll, Homer, etc. Their paintings are bristling with life and energy, showing a keen interest in the people and life around them. The New Realism lacks this energy and interest almost completely.
These people paint from life but they don't paint life.
These people paint every other culture and religion but their own.
If you put these paintings in a time capsule and pulled them out 100 years from now, you would have no idea what kind of life the people depicted in the paintings lived, nor would you know their culture, religion, daily routine, opinions, or anything else.
The work lacks any kind of feeling and compassion. I get nothing from it.
I am glad that you posted the quote from Lipking. I long suspected he had nothing to say, and now he has admitted it openly. If you find any similar quotes by Casey Baugh, or Todorovich, or Ignatov, or Burdick, or any of the other superficial painters, please post it, so I know to ignore their future work as well.
Tom-
Hey, I applaud you on you candor. We don't often, as a society, express our views for fear of offending, so I welcome your opinions though we don't see eye-to-eye. My opinions are soft-peddled here just in the manner of the items I choose to post.
In regards to point #1 of your response, I just wanted to point out that until the atelier programs so recently began to flourish, most art "training" involved concept without technique- the opposite of your criticism of the New Realists. At least we can agree this new crop has technical ability.
In regards to Point #2, there is not much I can say in response to that. The artists you allude to later tended to repeat themselves too, however.
Point #3...
I think you need to further separate the arts into fine art/portraiture and illustration. As much as I love illustration, the purposes of illustration art is far different from fine art- to speak of them would bring this back to technique (though, I understand that illustrators like Wyeth believed in method-acting his characters first, and bringing his life experience back into commercial art). So let's discard illustrators for now.
Certainly, Repin, Zorn, Sorolla, Degas, Bastien-Lepage, and, to a lesser extent, Sargent, painted the life around them. Bouguereau's vision seemed a bit more manufactured and I wold not say he had the same emotional connection to his models.
Interestingly (with the illustrators removed) the artists you mentioned were the recorders of society during the time. But with photographs and film, today's artists don't fill that same role.
Perhaps then in 100 years what will be seen in the art of this period will be the art, rather than the subject. Maybe that IS a reflection of today.
Burdick doesn't seem to fit in with the other artists you derided. The others choose models, set them in a pose of their own choosing, light them how they want, etc.. I see how you would consider their representation of today as artificial since it is all of their own design, rather than going out to the streets and painting the first person they find in situ.
Does Burdick make your list just because he paints foreign cultures?
How do you feel about these artists' plein air landscapes?
So, does any contemporary realist meet your criteria? How about any contemporary artist? A photographer, perhaps? I want to understand, in relation to today's culture, who passes muster with you. This isn't a challenge- I really am interested.
Matt
What a refreshing conversation.
As artists, we all have our reasons for creating. It will range from Idea to Technique, and yes, to Beauty. There is room for all of us here.
What I object to, are the self-appointed gurus of these Art Movements who apparently decide what "the right way" is. Then, everyone else follows them like drones, and decide this is The Way. Whether it be the "work only from life" people, or "make a statement on the state of the world" people. What's worse is, they then go around disparaging the other side, writing the New Gospel on High Art.
In my opinion, art is full of gray areas that are wonderful to explore, and behold. It is not a black or white world.
Follow your own path, and let the rest be. Art is only as strong as each individual artist's passion for their OWN mission is.
When I see a Lipking, a Michael Klein, or Baugh painting, the celebrated stars of the New Realist Movement, I see so much hard work. That is the first and most obvious thing i see. Is there effort not a political statement? And yet they are doing things not seen in ages. What other artist can exemplified their ability to capture air and subtlety, elegance and beauty? We are not the greeks, the romans, the church, or modernist whose beliefs affected their product. I think we fail to acknowledge and give emphasis to our canons or lack of set canons. And i think we fail to recognize that we will never again have set canons like the old masters because of the multi-culture we now live in. Lipking has been steadfast in showing us through his work canons that he himself has not been able to verbalize but which we all recognize him for. Its true that maybe sometimes he never intends to say anything but that doesnt prove he doesnt say anything. otherwise in those occasions his paintings would not look like his. Its about authority again...who here is really an artists or a copyst? what is art and what is not? I see them as people who were able to light a long burned out torched, its up to us to keep the fire alive, without doing what modernist did to the realist or what the realist did to modernist ( the salon).
Good words all around. Lipking is a fascination, the Tiger Woods of representational art. Immensely talented no doubt. The saying goes, to whom much is given much is expected in return, and that's the problem I think, it's sad to see the pornography. (Certainly, no need to put that message in words.) So, here's a question: Is it contemporary art just because it is painted in modern times? I say no. Just like polka or Mozart can never be contemporary music. It has its place. The Beatles are icons not by pure artistic ability. They felt the pulse of society and voiced it gloriously and artistically.
Dear Mr. Woodpecker, if that is indeed your real name, I'm going to disagree with you. Lipking, like other representational artists, is contemporary by definition of the word alone. He is also modern, though not Modern. (you might have me if you brought up forgers).
I could argue that The Beatles did nothing new since they played guitars and drums and sang, and others had done that before them. If that were our only criteria, then they were nothing special, and not contemporary when they were on the scene. However, you and I know that what they did with those instruments was brilliant and ahead of its time- they introduced aspects in their music which did not become a standard in popular music until decades later.
So let's now look at Lipking in terms of how he visually interprets his subjects. A century ago, were others painting like he does now? I'm not talking about subject; I'm talking style- where what he does with the brush is different from Gèrôme. As an example, I'll use the Impressionists who, though they painted the same subjects as the Naturalists, were considered revolutionary because of their technique. Lipking does have his influences, Schmid chief among them, but also Zorn, Sorolla, and the French Naturalists, to name a few, but Lipking is developing his own visual vocabulary. His work has been so striking that he has spawned followers and has developed a strong base of collectors (keep in mind, Lipking has achieved a success in his career usually reserved for artists 20 years older than himself so his work will keep evolving for quite some time).
The Beatles didn't create in a vacuum either.
I don't see why the subject matter of painters like Lipking, Todorovitch, and Baugh is not considered to represent today. Arguments can be made that their work represents everything from the Post-Modernist culture to the failure of American auto-makers to remain competitive in a global economy (and I am willing to defend the latter if I need to...). One hundred years from now, I'm sure some historian will have manufactured some more meanings to their work.
I also don't view Lipking's work as being pornographic. Oddly enough, some detractors have complained about his work because he (unconsciously) wasn't painting poses which exposed pubic hair! They turned that around into claiming his work promoted pedophilia! I guess this is the kind of thing he can expect for his success.
I prefer to think of polka as timeless.
Matt
All this drama over matters of opinion.
It is a fact that Mr. Lipking is a talented person.
For me, not an artist but an art appreciator and collector, his first painting here speaks volumes for me. I appreciate it more than the nudes. There is something he captured in the models eyes that makes me want to see more of from him. Typically, his models turn their heads or look blank and it disappoints to a degree. But I do appreciate what he does with his brush, nonetheless.
And yes, I do understand how his nudes can be portrayed as porno. To a point. His Who Killed the Music piece comes to mind as a questionable scenario that makes me a bit uncomfortable. A have a wife, and 2 daughters.
Whatever, a matter of opinion.
The other poster said it well in that there are a lot of camps out there touting their viewpoints to the point of fundamentalism. It gets old.
I just like what I like. Some more than others, even within a single artist's body of work.
When I do purchase art, it's based on what I personally respond to. Not what the gallery director is suggesting to me. They are just trying to line their own pockets.
Matt,
There were always schools which kept teaching traditional techniques--The American Academy of Art, the Art Students League, Lyme Academy, etc. It's really not true that those techniques died out (how did Richard Schmid learn?). They just weren't the fashion. The independent schools (ateliers) could have flourished a long time ago. It was just the students and the teachers chasing fashion and money. They got what they deserve.
People these days seem to be blinded by technique, maybe because it was unpopular for a long time. But if you look to the past, technique was taken for granted, and you were expected to say something with it, not just pass off academic-type studies as fully realized paintings.
These New Realist painters are not hard workers. They are lazy. They are culturally ignorant--little more than high school graduates with a technical trade. That's why they can only paint the superficial-people wearing funny costumes and pretty young girls. They pass off academic studies as finished paintings. Laziness.
The arts are not segregated. To say that painting has one role and movies and TV another is wrong. You may as well say the same for writing vis a vis the TV, and music vis a vis the TV. If you give the depiction of modern life to the TV, what is left for the painter? They get the leftovers? Static, vapid displays of academic study? Ridiculous. I reject that.
There is no separation of fine art and illustration. The same nonsense has been asserted for a century now. So many portraits are little momre than commercial, so many flower paintings, etc. Art is a comparative term, independent of subject matter or commission. The best is art. The rest pleasant at best, an eyesore at worst.
These painters are lauded for being copycats. They have nothing to say, or they would have tried already. They have no ideas, because they are ignorant or they don't care, or both.
They take no interest, and their buyers likewise. Empty paintings for empty people.
If any good thing is to become of the New Realism, it will be independent of this vapid copycat-ism. I don't say that all painting is to be superficial, but it is not to be only superficial.
I reject the denigration of my culture to emptiness and carnalism. Roll around in that if you want, watch the stupid TV if you want. The other arts should take away from the TV. The TV is garbage. Western civilization is not carnalism and buying things.
Out of all the artists of the New Realism, only Rose Frantzen and perhaps Richad Schmid actually give a darn about the people around them, and show it in their work. Ms. Frantzen took a big financial hit to go her own way (she has talked about it).
Mr. Lipking likes the dollar. He likes the Grammys and the adulation, but like so much of the carnalism, he likes nothing else and it shows.
Matt,
Out of all the New Realism, the landscape painters ar best. Some great work. Much copied photos.
Burdick paints every other culture but his own. I don't know why. maybe he hates it. America is not about american indians and chinese. Why is our culture ignored by the buyers? And the painters?
And for the last, I like very little of what I see in today's culture art-wise. This is not so unique. In many periods good art was rare. The top artists are bought off so as to not create a culture, to leave it to the TV and the 5 corporations that run the media. The goal is to shape the audience, to propagandize them. So the arts are controlled as well by the big money. That is my opinion.
That is why I turn to the past. At least Zorn and Kroyer,painted Sweden. Degas painted France. Sorolla painted Spain. boldinin and Mancini painted Italy. Sargent painted everywhere. Rockwell, Henri, Bellows, and Leyendecker painted America.
Do not tell me that all that work was commission. They painted for love of their countries and cultures, without money. That is the differnce probably. No love of country or people by these copyists. Only love of money and fame, love of self. Sad.
Tom-
I'm not saying that the arts are necessarily segregated, but what the visual arts served by necessity a century ago is no longer strictly applicable. The big Salon exhibitions drew crowds not so much because the average viewer was better educated about art, but because it was a form of entertainment. We have blockbuster movies; they had paintings (and with a similar ratio of good to bad studio output).
No, the training did not die out completely, and yes, it did fall very far out of favor. Illustrators were the ones who really carried the torch for technical training. Schmid's teacher, Mosby, was classically trained in Europe, and his successful students went on to become illustrators. Schmid took his training from Mosby and modified it with inspiration from earlier innovators such as Mancini to create his own look.
In the case of your argument illustrators need to be separated from fine artists, basically because illustrators are required to represent someone else's story ideas. That these illustrators were often required to portray contemporary society is more of a factor of the media industry and what people bought back then (McCalls, Post, etc.).
This next point is one on which I think you will agree with me. "Love of money and fame, love of self" do describe our current culture. If you feel that also applies to the New Realist art, then these artists are quite accurately portraying our time. Really, what IS our culture? As a society, we have gone to great lengths to subdue culture and just promote capitalism- that is our culture. I think you may be just as unhappy with the state of the state as you are with the state of the arts.
"They just weren't the fashion. The independent schools (ateliers) could have flourished a long time ago. It was just the students and the teachers chasing fashion and money. They got what they deserve." That is quite possible (maybe not "flourished," but at least continued). We also, as a whole, became sheep, accepting the idea that we must kowtow to so-called experts who knew more about art then we, and ignore our personal tastes in order to adopt theirs.
"But if you look to the past, technique was taken for granted, and you were expected to say something with it, not just pass off academic-type studies as fully realized paintings." True, but I think you are assigning too much meaning to the work of artists of the past (just as Lipking stated). The Newlyn Colony, the Skagen painters, Sorolla, Zorn did paint the world around them, and you feel that you feel the connection that some of these artists had with the people and country they painted. Could it also be that these artists loved to paint, and that is the connection you feel with these painters? Many of the images could be of any European community at the time. A party scene painted by Kroyer could easily be a party in Cornwall. What is the meaning behind a Zorn outdoor nude? Are they just academic figure studies painted under natural light?
All artists want money. We all want to sell our work, even if it is just to generate more cash to buy replacement tubes of paint. Much art today and in the past was created by people who came from wealthy families. Wealthy families can indulge in the arts, and afford to pay the way for someone to study and take risks without fear of financial ruin. That is not to take anything away from the talent and hard work of such artists, but there are many others of skill who were unable or unwilling to starve for their art. It is not uncommon for artists to capitalize on the popularity of their work by meeting the needs of the public (in bad case scenarios, they stop growing because the public refuses to accept change and invention in the artist's work). Not everyone can be a Bouguereau with a 100 client waiting list, and paintings sold before they were ever even painted.
That someone like Frantzen found a way to live frugally which enabled her to keep creating until the public began to pay attention is an all too infrequent story, and a testament to her character and talent. I'm sure that she always had hopes of making a better living from her art, though. The idea that artists shouldn't consider making a living when creating is absurd.
I don't think that someone like Lipking is guilty of painting for the public's tastes first. He paints what he wants to paint, and the public has connected to it.
But I think Frank said it best, when he indicated that this all boils down to opinion. Much of the "life" you feel from artists like Zorn, Sargent, Sorolla, etc. might not be felt by another person. It is a subjective quality, and obviously, many people have found a quality they like in Lipking's, Baugh's, Todorovitch's, etc. work which you do not. I have no plans of changing your mind, nor would I expect you to change mine.
Your vitriol in your comments on the New Realists did take me aback, though.
My best to you Tom, and I hope that a contemporary artist will grow out of this new crop of realists who will me your needs of good art (and then I hope to write about him/her too :) )
And yes, Frank, the painting for Who Killed the Music was a bit graphic and disturbing. When Jeremy posted it, however, someone made the comment that the implied rape and abuse of the girl was an interesting comment on the music industry, and what has become of non-commercial music. Perhaps that was his intention...
Matthew, I commend your graciousness and knowledge.
Tom, where can we find your work?
Matthew,
While acknowledging 90% of what I said, you sweep it all away with a hand later on.
The TV is not the new substitute for all the other arts. The other arts are just as valid as they ever were. People look to them the same way they did in the past. This is why people visit museums, or go to concerts, or read a book. that the mass is entranced by the telvision, should we abandon everything else? Why yes it seems. The boob tube shall rule.
But perhaps that is the new model--to impoverish the other arts so that the TV shall be the king. For the TV is highly controlled, and a promoter of trash. Rather than a thousand different voices, there is just one, as all the TV is the same. Keeping a tight lid, feeding the masses garbage, one gets accustomed, no?
What is Western culture? Did you go to a university? Perhaps you should get your money back. It is not carnalism and buying things.
A very short answer is that Western Civilization is built around the Bible. That man is created in the image of the Almighty God, and endowed with reason through Him to create and understand the rest of Creation. That government should be limited and that man should exercise freedom under a moral law, that man is endowed with inalienable rights established by God. That this world and man is fallen with sin and death, that we have salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. And it is this against the old pagan religion and slavery, the divine right of kings, all-powerful central government, of human sacrifice and witchcraft, of ignorance and war. Please say nothing of the Vatican. It was the Reformation and the Enlightenment and the printing press that changed the world and led us out of darkness of the Middle Ages.
It is not the greeks and their paganism and materialism and their democracy of the rich alone, ending in Plato' communist totalitarian Republic. It is the Bible.
This is only a part, you understand, but the center of it all.
But let us worship the pagan savage american indian, the pagan chinese, the roman Catholic mexican. This is America--so why did we come here?
Getting back to Lipking, Baugh, and all the rest. Let us look at his women, Mr. Lipking. They are all breasts, vaginas, and buttocks. But a real woman is far more than the breasts, vagina, and buttocks. She is an infant, a little girl, a young girl, a teenager, a woman, and old woman, a mother, a child, a sister, a grandmother, a friend, a wife. Lipking paints none of this, just the genitals. He is Peeping Jeremy, looking throught the hole in the wall. Come on my voyeuristic journey! I see Paris, I see France, I see my model out of her underpants!
He is a ridiculous painter. There is nothing to him. He is the model for these other hollow men. Mr. Baugh has his mannikins, Mr. Lipking his buttocks and breasts. They are geniuses! They are modernist realists! They are empty heads.
Oh, and yes, artist of the past painted for money, and that is all. They did not kill two birds with one stone. Or three or four. No, just the money. Yes, we all worship the money, that is why I say it must be outside the system. But it is best to pass over that.
Ms. Frantzen did indeed make a lot of money with the superficial painting, but gave it up for something deeper. She has more balls than the men! Alleluia!
Perhaps as tribute, Mr. Lipking can paint her with her underpants off, in his usual style. A fitting reward for one of such courage.
Best wishes on your promotional blog. Perhaps a frank discussion or unapproving words are too much. It is too bad, this descent into the carnal. At least it is called as such by one voice.
Stanka,
You miss the point of a general audience. I can boo, cheer, or yawn if I want. Who fills the concert halls? The sports stadiums? I have no right to an opinion in a free country! Only praise for the hollow men? Are they three year olds who learned not to poop their pants? Infants? Children? Or are they adults? Are you?
Censorship of the general audience--just like modern art! If you don't like it, we will exclude you! A group of dogmatists!
Yes. No debate. One opinion only, just like the TV for the children. Make nice. Worship the hollow men and their edges. How sad.
Thanks, Matthew. You are a very knowledgeable and gracious host. I feel we all have a passion that expresses a hope that art can somehow elevate our consciousness, give respite from our mundane existence, lessen human suffering, and move people to be better than we are. (No pressure on you artists.) I don't think I'm alone in wanting for the best-of-the-best to exemplify the ideal that, at it's core, art is a sacred commission. When it finds its true voice, it manifests the Beauty we see here in Lipking's portrait of his daughter. This is his masterpiece and a gift to the World.
Tom-
I feel you are an intelligent, though angry person. I've done my best to keep our discourse civil, but you insist on tossing in insults. Perhaps, if you went to etiquette classes, you can ask for your money back?
Thanks for stopping by my Vanity Project I call a blog. Like the TV you hate so much, you can always turn the channel if you don't like the same art as I.
Best-
Matt
Beautiful words, Walter. Thank you.
Another artist wrote directly to me with some thoughts she had on the subject and she has agreed to let me post this message:
Hi Matthew, I was going to post on that discussion board--I almost did several times--but each time I decided against it because I was afraid of re-igniting the problem you handled so well.
I think all know who the leaders are in this particular kind of "new realism." But the way some were talking as though these few men ARE the movement is surprising to me. Now, I think Jeremy is extremely talented and I especially like his portrait of his daughter but I have to admit that, in general, paintings of females in nude and semi-nude poses, or just young generic "beauties" or "types" don't especially interest me. I don't mind seeing a few, but they are so ubiquitous these days. (Of course I realize they sell extremely well, and the galleries are motivated by sales.) But as Burt Silverman said at the last PSA conference, "There is more to art than a woman's behind." I think this comment was a gentle but pointed reference to this kind of art.
From my viewpoint, the realism movement is made up of many, many artists who are indeed exploring figurative art in many different directions. Rose Frantzen is just ONE of many extremely talented women to do this. What about Stanka Kordic who wrote a very insightful comment in your blog? There's also Marina Dieul, Catherine Prescott, Gabriela Dellosso, Kate Sammons, Kate Lehmann, and many others. But this wasn't meant to be a comment about women only. There are many other men who were not mentioned in the discussion--what about Alex Kanevsky, David Shevlino, Robert Armetta, and David Kassan, who are exploring the same subject matter in different ways and also painting men, middle-aged women, children, etc. The artists I mentioned are painting the humanity and the individuality of people. All these artists have their own strong and original voices. Not that you are unaware of them, of course.
So many factors contribute to fame--not just talent, but also good PR (Jeremy has admitted to this himself), and having mentors who will invite you to participate in prestigious shows and say things like "He/she just might be the greatest figurative painter of our time," etc. Just think of the subliminal effect this has on people! I feel it's important for us all (and for you in this blog) to not jump on the bandwagon, but to use what influence and means we have to do some delving, and really think about which artists are really talented and original, and to give them more exposure by writing about them, reviewing their work, inviting them to participate in shows, or even creating shows to give them a chance to get their work out there in front of the public. We shouldn't just be giving attention to the ones that are already prominent, just because they are prominent.
And I agree. There are many talented artists out there who also deserve attention, and as I can, I try to post about them too.
Thank you for your comment.
This is a bunch of B.S. All of the artists that Tom listed were all technique. If Lipking paintings tons of nipples, vaginas, and asses then that is what he's painting, maybe that is his message. Who is to say there is something wrong with that? Leave the "meaning" behind art to college students and idiotic art critics who know nothing about what it means to be an artist. It is refreshing to look at some art that isn't forcing a message down my throat - it seems everywhere else I look I am being sold something or being told how to act or how to feel.
As for the artists who paint scenes of their travels and the people they see...who gives a crap? That is what they want to paint!!! End of story. Go look at some other art with meaning if you can't handle these asses and breasts.
I think the art should be left to artists, not critics like Tom. If Tom paints is into art, he is clearly not an artist, but a person who plays with paint. Open your eyes.
-LMH
Inspiring.
Jeremy Cushing
Post a Comment