Created and Presented by Kate Anderson

I’m  not here to scrutinize you, criticize you, analyze you or God forbid bore you. But I am here to challenge you and prick you.  We ask ourselves what is art? What is good art? Why do we even paint or write or sculpt etc?? 

This past year I began to utilize a muse of choice whose words and idiom provided me imagery, and fuel to deal with  the personal traumas surrounding me. As such, I realized that my art was veering into less chartered waters often using visual metaphors for the realities of today. The results  are not always conventionally beautiful and can be misinterpreted. It is the risk of painting or speaking what is usually cloaked in a form of double speak or entrenched in pain and fear that we collectively dare not own because it certifies the reality of that pain and fear we dare not name. Or maybe it is the other way around.  

Thus if a work is not interpreted as “happy” (whatever that is)  it may be considered ugly and if interpreted as not uplifting  it may be considered  degenerative. And, of course, any piece that is “thought provoking” may be considered bad art or even evil.  

History repeats itself. Yes, modern art has committed abuses in the name of shock value “art” with little form, content, or craft. However, to denounce abstract, contemporary, expressionist, or surreal art as evil, ugly, and unworthy is provincial, pedantic, and dangerous.  

Conventionally beautiful landscapes and portraits will always be in demand. They will always grace our homes. They will almost always trigger happy memories and reverie. But life is also about challenge and forces beyond our individual control. We grapple to make sense of inequities, and horrors. Artists and poets, especially, paint and write about the events that shape the human condition within their time. They struggle to decipher meaning and project the collective despair, concern, grief, joy, passion, and  indignation of their time.  

This struggle also has ageless value. We see, we feel, we begin to understand something about each of us and all us, and we find compassion and redemption. Art becomes a form of  prayer, an offering. It comes out of the ashes, this struggle to re-invent ourselves clean and whole. 

Now to regress just a bit to make my point, if you do not think that reactionary thinking still occurs in our very  “liberal” atmosphere you have only to read the publisher’s  letters of August and September 20005 in Plein Air art magazine and subsequent rebuttals and affirmations on to the present issue. It is true, not all contemporary art is digestible but to categorically denounce all avant–garde art as ugly, vulgar, and evil  (A Reign of Terror)  is truly frightening.  

In earlier times,  plein air painters were snubbed by the established New York avant-garde. However, outdoor painters,  and impressionists in general, have enjoyed wide acceptance by the general public and museums for decades now. Neither side needs to exclude the other. We are all in the same battle to express ourselves and reap acknowledgement. God forbid, we should all paint alike. Isn’t  that a foolish thought? 

When one ponders such a foolish thought one immediately understands how reactionary behavior fosters tunnel vision thereby impeding creative growth and supplanting it with  the cloudy atmosphere of fear, frustration, and anger. The resultant alienation of a segment of our very own is an abomination. Remember, your way of creating may be next on the chopping block. You never know.  History does repeat itself.  And worse, if healthy competition is seemingly unattainable, at best risky  to ones mental and creative well being many artists drop out of the art scene altogether;  a terrible loss for all of us. We not only lose their input we also lose means to another measure of ourselves. When put on a time line, a much greater loss for we all learn from those who have gone before us. 

I’d like to talk about and show you some examples now.  Of course, these are just a few examples of the many artists that have provided fodder. These artists are also of my prejudice in choosing them. But then, I am not writing a novel. So forgive me if one of your favs is not included. I hold that these artists shook the establishment of their time and changed the measures of ourselves. Their art gave us new vision, pushed parameters, challenged our social mores and allowed us to think big and beyond our little safe boxes. These artists are linked by common threads in their thinking processes. They all professed that art like science is truly about possibilities. It is alchemy. It is about ideas. And it is problem solving (yours and mine and the next guy).  How exciting is that! 

The first example is Jean-Auguste-Dominque Ingres, a French painter living from 1780-1867. He was a painter of contradictions. His technique was smooth and unimpeachable. He held to classical rules. Very safe this way and then, surprise----he purposely distorts proportions to create sweeping directional lines and focus on his primary interest in his compositions. In those day, this expressiveness was considered a weakness; a hallmark of inferior work. He lost potential students and apprentices in a day when an artist could starve without that kind of monetary assurance. Today, we know he took big risks probably because of a deeply sensuous nature that over-rode precaution. We now marvel at his great calligraphic genius. Degas and  Picasso, and Cezanne took notes from Ingres. Not too shabby company.

Pictorial example: “La Grande Odalisque” , she has three extra vertebrae to elongate and create her elegant sweeping curve.

 

Second: Manet (1832-1883)

Again, we read about a man whose persona was a force of contradictions.  Manet spent his life seeking acceptance by and recognition from the Paris Salon, the only public gallery existing in the region in the 1850’s. Yet, Manet continually submitted “progressive” paintings subjecting him to rejection and ridicule. Early in his career his paintings often posed unpopular subject matter, loose handling of paint and few or none of the half tones considered in top form in academia. Three times he endured severe public ridicule. The first episode was over his painting, “Music in the Tuileries”.  This painting is now considered to be one of the first modern paintings of its time. There is no central focal point; instead there is use of symmetry as a device to prevent lingering on a central image. The second time he really set people off with his painting, “Luncheon on the Grass”. He translated classical paintings by Raphael and Titian to create a modern version of presenting a classical theme. There was nudity everywhere in those “old” paintings, but since the since none of the bodies were attired in modern dress with an unexplained nude in their midst that was kosher.  No one objected to pure nudity. What they objected to was Manet’s daring juxtaposition of reality and art. His idea:  Since painting is not reality an artist should be able to grab that idea and paint art for arts sake and fly with broken rules. Manet’s modern eye played with proportion and distortion of space to make his point that art is not about reality per se as we are mere copyists of nature and to go beyond that we then have to say something about our perception of our world that bears our individual print.

The third “scandal” was a real corker. His infamous “Olympia”. Her reclining position painted basically as Titian’s   “Venus of Urbino”  in 1538. We are treated to a safe, classical pose. So why all the fuss?  What sets “Olympia” apart is her direct gaze. The painter and the model do not cover what she portrays, a courtesan, with romantic coyness or passivity. Not done before. And note the ribbon around her neck. ( We’ll come back to that later). By the way, Manet continued to think and paint outside the box. There is much to Manet. It’s good to study his work.  

Pictorial examples: Titian’s  “Venus of Urbino”

Manet’s “Music in the Tuileries”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manet's “Luncheon on the Grass”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Olympia”
 

 

Monet and Impressionism

I think every one here knows this story so I’m skipping it, thank  you. If you are not familiar with the struggle Impressionists endured before their extraordinary acceptance go to your local library and read about it.

 

Van Gogh (1853-1890)

Many of you know his story well, too. But I am including his career to make a particular point about art.  He might have sold two paintings in his entire career. He endured rejection, rejection, rejection and still had the heart to paint. Van Gogh was a lonely soul, with only his brother Theo, and his own genius, compulsion, and conviction to sustain him. Of course, poverty and ill health took its toll. But his art remained vibrant; albeit violent.  Passion, violence, and love speak volumes in his paintings. He was a singular genius. But in his time, his work was considered crude, and given to garish, vulgar colors and false perspective. Today, most of us see those very same “faults” as extraordinary gifts. Myself, if there is an artists’ heaven I hope he knows how many fans he has, how much he is loved, and how much money his works now command.

 

Picasso (1881-1973)

Pure genius. And one that never copped to one style. He was simply too inquisitive and too restless. And he allowed himself this versatility so that he could say whatever he wished in whatever style he thought best for his intentions. He sought his own artistic language within a realistic framework. He painted always about the present, his feelings, and his interpretations of  his world.  Picasso knew and drew upon the fact that we use art to express the idea of what nature is not. That’s a quote. Think about it.  He certainly knew of  Manet. As Picasso often said in explaining his paintings: Nothing comes out of a black hole. It’s difficult, maybe impossible to do something completely new. By the way, he also said, “There is no  abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterwards, you can remove all traces of reality. There’s no danger then, anyway, because the idea of the object will have left  an indelible mark. It is what started the artist off, ------.  We can learn a lot from Picasso. He was an especially articulate artist.

Picasso's Three Musicians

Look at his art, read what he says. Then come to your own conclusions.  Reminds me of Bob Dylan.

 

Bob Dylan, born 1941

Most of you know something about Bob Dylan. At the height of his popularity his heart and energy shifted and he had to play not only the folk songs fans adored but the rhythm and blues and electric guitar that connected him full circle to even broader and richer resonances shouting in his being for an outlet. He had more to say and he required a broader, more sophisticated musical platform. He took the risk publicly playing half folk music and half blues with electric guitar.  He was booed, ridiculed, and canceled. He quit touring for eight years. But he did not abandon his convictions. He wrote songs, he recorded. He continued to expand his direction. Dylan has guts and vision and a deep belief in what is right for him and what will sustain him. He learned that public popularity is fickle and  not to his gage his direction by anyone’s compass but his own.  Again, note, belief in what is right for you, in what you have to say, and the manner in which you choose to say it is what will  give you your moorings.

 Dylan is still a musical force; his music is in the present tense. You know what happened to so many that stayed in the 60’s. They defined and narrowed themselves to one decade. What a laugh. 

Dylan, like most artists with a long-lived career, has hit some deep lows where Fear became The Wall. Nothing left in the well.  You struggle to breathe in a narrow chasm. You know, the old Blank Canvas.  Do you have something to say? Is it relevant?  Read Dylan’s book “Chronicles”.  You will really understand this fear. You will practically inhale it such is the talent of his words. By the way, did you know that he has written over 1000 songs?

 

Lucian Freud-Present day

Lucian is a British figurative painter with a decidedly riveting take on the human condition via form, design, and rough, unromantic skin tones. Not too long ago Queen Elizabeth agreed to sit for him. She had a limited time frame so Freund did a very small head portrait of the Queen. The result is not flattering. The portrait does look like her but every wart, deep chasm of skin, and discoloration is on display.  The British public, upon viewing, went ballistic. .Newspapers demanded that he apologize for belittling the Queen. The Queen, however, did not succumb to the hubbub. After all, she does know how “to rise above the crowd”.  Very wise of her. Since the two personages got along well, I doubt if Freud meant to personally belittle the Queen. However, he did paint her crown or tiara.  And somehow, a tiara on any head beside a 20 something sashaying the red carpet on Oscar night, appears silly and pretentious.  So in painting what was before him in his singular unremitting style he made a not so subtle swipe against the idea of this present day puppet monarchy that costs the British people tons of money to maintain. Of course, the lineage does provide their subjects with tourism industries and fodder for such mags as “Hello”.  Maybe, Freud intended nothing at all. Still to paint an unflattering image of a Queen is both brazen and brave. 

Remember the black ribbon on the courtesan in Manet's “Olympia”?  Ever taken a good look at Andrew Wyeth’s Helga paintings? You see the object of his obsession, desire, and love drawn and painted over a number of years and hidden.  The two principles together in a private world, a room , often devoid of anything else but his obsession. Two paintings in particular, Black Velvet and Night Shadow, attest to his beautiful obsession.  Rich darks surround her creamy form. A singular black ribbon around her neck to enhance the creaminess.  The ribbon perhaps a symbol of sexual power and favor.  You can almost sense the artist  holding his breath and caressing her with his brush. Nothing may have been consummated except by his loving brush. It is their secret. And we are privy only because the obsession waned and he then chose to publicize the paintings. He did, however, arrange to sell the Helga paintings to one collector with the proviso that the museum be able to publish the collection as a book.  Still very brave. Why? Because you see his nudity too. Wyeth is at heart an actor. It all there.

Pictorial examples:  Wyeth’s  “Black Velvet”

Wyeth’s “Night Shadow”

We’ve come full circle. What is art? What is good art?  One could say art, or good art, occurs when a sufficient amount of technique produces a desired effect. Given this scenario there must be thousands of good art pieces produced daily by artists around the globe. But history shows us that technical virtuosity is only one component. It is a fact that when you, the artist, decides to step out of your safe zone, something real, magical, and true can happen. Taking the risk of painting  your own heartfelt uncensored piece of truth on the canvas  will convey your voice. Your voice may be subject to change just as the times change. Good. The secret is to listen to that voice, your voice, and then find a way to convey what you want to say Give yourself permission not to judge what you want to do as good or bad. Allow yourself the possibilities of failures as they are steps to knowing your strengths. That is rich. That is real. That is art.