|
Please, Carl
You have taken my comments far more personally than was intended. My post was not addressed to you because it was in response to some of the comments made by you and others on this thread and it also reflects oft stated beliefs and assumptions that disparage artists and work not of our school of preference as well as questionable damage done by non-realists.
I also didn't feel compelled to limit my comments to previous posts knowing these discussions might be read or considered beyond the recent contributors to this thread.
If banging your head against a ceiling are your words for self improvement then why is it necessary to suggest in the same statement that it would be easier and more profitable to paint and sell "emotional blobs"?
You may have sucked me into a debate of words but I must say that whatever my abilities they were developed over many years. When my mother allowed me to take street cars to the Cleveland Museum of Art for Saturday morning children's art classes I started a long road of study through high school, The Cleveland Institute of Art, portrait workshops, life drawing study groups in every city where I lived or worked and never thought for one moment that I was "banging my head against a ceiling".
Every moment has been fun. I/we are the envy of every person in the world who appreciates that we are committed and/or employed in what we like to do most.
You noted the omission of Universities on my list of resources and wondered if that might have been an agreement with your thoughts that these schools negatively changed their programs at the expense of realism and while they may have recovered a little are still not adequate.
While there may be some agreement I want you to know that these schools are missing from the list for other reasons. In 1956 as I was looking for an art education I made a critical decision. I did not care as much about getting a degree as I did about getting the best possible training as an artist and I quickly ruled out Universities.
While it was possible that one of those many schools might have had a "good program" the advice of the art educators in my community led me to schools like the major "Art" schools and I reduced it down to Pratt and the Cleveland Institute of Art in my home town.
A university education provides many areas of study and designed to help the student better know who they are and how they fit in this world but I was more selfishly focused on learning to be the best that I could be at the thing I liked most. In other words why should we expect or seek the specialized training we need at a university?
Successful artists like Daniel Greene and Ray Kinstler tell wonderful stories about their hustle as commercial artists and boardwalk pastelists as their routes to success. Ray also found his way into the studio of some fine painters which was invaluable but I make the point that in many ways more is available today than fifty years ago. Nothing is more valuable than practice and I fail to see why anyone with skill and talent can't become the best that they are able with the resources of today.
Thanks for the last few paragraphs of your recent post. These are the important questions facing the fine artist. Whatever the new form(s) it will likely have to overcome ongoing mindsets and if it were predictable we might all be working on it. It would not surprise me if some of the classic painting skills are part of new directions.
It is also my guess that were there to be a similar thread on maturity of Modern Art we might find that it "matured" a long time ago. The excitement of Modern Art that existed fifty some years ago does not evidence the same level of work and does not evoke the same response today except for the most peculiar attention getting examples that make the news in a critical light.
|