This week, as more and more painters sent me examples of their recent works I couldn't help noticing the tremendous range of approaches being taken by representational painters. The contrasts brought to mind the cartoon above -- which I show to my art history students -- depicting the aesthetic "duel" between the French Romantics and Neo-Classicists.
Left: A 19th century cartoon depicting a duel between the painters Delacroix and Ingres
The Romantics -- represented by the painter Delacroix, who does battle with a broad brush -- made paintings that emphasized color, emotion and visible brushstrokes. The academician Ingres -- who is shown on the other side of the duel, representing the Neo-Classical approach -- holds a pen to remind his opponent of the importance of line and drawing. Ingres thought that visible brushwork was "vulgar." The Romantics thought Ingres was a prig.
I see them as the Yin and Yang of representational painting.
We know now that both were great artists, but the clash of their sensibilities still resonates for contemporary representational painters. Some of the painters I admire -- including some that base their work on photographic sources -- value precision and finely tuned technique. Others load their brushes with paint and lean towards spontaneous effects and expressive gestures.
This week I found myself admiring both the bravura brushwork of Raegan Russell's "Not in Time," and the measured clarity of Leonard Koscianski's "Angry Bird." Seeing them side by side is exhilarating: the contrasts, both of technique and meaning, are jarring and stimulating.
Raegan Russell's "Not in Time" (left); Leonard Koscianski's "Angry Bird" (right)
For this week's slideshow, I am going to let the paintings duel it out. I have tried to create some interesting juxtapositions where I could, and hope you will find the contrasts enlightening. Please, post some comments and rate the slides so that I can learn more about the taste of my readers. Do you take a side in this ongoing artistic conflict? Or are you like me: you like it all? Liking it all may be the reason I let this slideshow go a bit overboard and included 20 artists.
I should also mention that most of the artists this week have provided studio shots, and some insights into their studio practices. Artist Kyle Staver, whose work appears near the end of the slide-show wanted to present only her painting as she values the privacy of her studio. I also inserted one of my own paintings, since when I have a paintbrush in my hand I tend to take sides.
Leading off for the painterly painters: Karen Azarnia...
|
Vanquished
Victor
|
Follow John Seed on Twitter: www.twitter.com/seedhuffpost
|
Post a Comment
It makes me realize that the studio visits during some art walks is an opportunity not to be missed.
I can certainly see which are more precise and perhaps beholden to the use of photography -
others - in particular Neil Brooks #9 and Ruprecht von Kaufmann #31seem to be able to paint from life in a more "painterly" fashion, as if more in debt to their brushes - rather then a photo . So I suppose I am impartial - that is not to take anything away from the other work - thank goodness we all have different tastes - or the art would all look the same - so thank you all.
it's great to see all this work together. i'm wondering if you think my painting self-portrait 20 fits somewhere between the precise and the painterly?
You do seem to be somewhere in between. I really like the emotional depth of your work.
This was a really well-considered article, and I'm glad to have been pointed towards it as it crystallized for me my feeling that weighing the merits of two styles of painting against each other is a distraction. It avoids the essence of our experience of art. If one's appreciation of a worthy object is hampered or adversely affected by the manner in which it was created, then (in my not-so-humble opinion), one has missed the point.
On the whole, any time I look at a work and have to look twice to determine whether it is a photograph or a painting, I have to ask myself, "What was the point?" The ability to accurately re-create a photograph in paint is an amazing talent, but it's too often merely a matter of technical skill rather than a matter of composition, color, line and emotional content. Take Castellanos' Blue Nude. Nice, but not an amazing image. A semi-vernacular photo, either staged or carefully edited, rendered in oils. Why? What do I gain, as a viewer, by your ability to render so precisely in oils? What does the painting add to the equation that wasn't there in the photo?
I'll take Renoir, Vermeer, Hammershoi, Degas, Bacon, Pollock, Hopper, Wyeth, Liotard, Van Gogh, Cezanne and a host of others over mere technical skill any day.
I used to use Goya's Fifth of May and David's Horatii to show very opposing views with very similar themes and symmetry. Its pretty easy to figure out someone's politics from their art preferences.
Thanks for sharing your work and your studio. It is comforting to know I don't have the only "busy" looking work space.
I like Brenda Goodman's work a lot. She's actually going to be in a book I am doing about contemporary artists that will be published in a couple months. I have many other artists involved who you might want to check out.
These really make me want to take up painting (but I know I have absolutely no talent). I'm actually pretty good at representational drawings. But I lack an artistic eye. I've tried my hand at photography, with only roll after roll of crapola to show for it. The only things I've ever done that were worth while were doodles while talking on the phone.
Thanks again for this article. We need this kind of beauty in our lives. thanks to the author and the artists.
This message has been brought to you by the homophone police.