What makes him/her a true artist?

[Mischa Milosevic]

Thank you Steven. Again you bring up some weary important points. There can be little doubt that the chaotic condition of art today has caused confusion in the minds of artists, young and old. We are all asking - by what qualities, according to present standards, can a painting be judged? Is there still a solid foundation on which to base the teaching of art? Is art deteriorating, or is it being revitalized by new concepts?

At the bottom of the national and political crisis today is the struggle for individual liberty and freedom of expression.It is therefore no coincidence that art has moved with the times and given the artist more freedom of expression than was ever known in the history of art.

There is always the danger that freedom can be abused. In art this means that the man/woman without knowledge or ability is granted the same freedom as the skilled technician. Freedom is based on the assumption that the individual is morally and socially responsible, and to grant it to irresponsibility is like opening toe doors to everyone who ever perpetrated a crime against society.

There are painters wielding the brush who do not possess one iota of the fundamentals of art. We, today, have "art" that would make the old masters jump back into their graves, where they to see it. The good seems almost hopelessly mixed with the bad.

Then again, to condemn the past because it is not of the present would be as short-sighted as to stick only to the past for the sake of tradition. Because certain forms of art can become passe, there is no reason to believe that basic knowledge is passe also.

There are two satisfying and basic concepts by which artists have always worked and probably always will. Two dimensional art, art rendered on a flat plane, which will survive as ornamentation of one kind or another. Three dimensional art,art that will seek beauty of form. If we concede that ornamentation is the process of beautifying, then we find that beauty is the basis of both concepts. Mankind has from the beginning sought beauty, and by degrees added it to create beauty, another the desire to seek it or own is, a desire which evidence itself every day in the selection of our possessions. Whether it is creative or possessive, there is an innate desire for perfection, which broadly speaking is the basis for all progress. We seek to improve upon the efforts, accomplishments and worldly goods of our neighbors. For the creative man there is instinctive pride in doing something better than others have done. On the possessive side, man wants the better product, the craftsmanship, the better home, the beautiful wife/husband. His/her desires in this direction seem to be limited only by the power to acquire, or the wherewithal to purchase. This drive toward creating beauty or possessing it is as basic to our lives as the air we breathe.

I think the great danger lies in allowing beauty to get bogged down in personal opinions, trends and isms, in narrowing our individual understanding to the dogmas prated by the few. Beauty must be free, belonging individually to you and me, as far as we are capable of grasping it. Beauty is all around us, waiting to be discovered and every artist interprets it on paper or canvas in his/her own particular way.

In our search for subjects to paint we may concentrate our attention merely on beauty of form, texture or color. There is beauty to be found in pure geometrical forms, in spacing, in creating surfaces, planes and abstract forms.

Realism can be creative, in the selection of the subject and in rendering that subject as it is seen and felt by you as an individual. You may paint an impression in broad terms or you may paint with great fidelity do detail and either way achieve a fine creative work of art. The subject is not the picture it is the way in which it is rendered that makes or breaks a work of art. Abstract art and realistic art are simply two different forms of approach and who is to say that one approach is any better than the other.

Today there seems to be a strong trend toward spontaneous, creative expression, without much regard for classical training. The creative urge is stronger than the will to study and acquire knowledge as the masters did in the past. Therefore we see paintings by men/women who have little or no academic knowledge, by men/women who are endeavoring to paint what they feel rather than what they see. We cannot deny them their right to express themselves in this manner, for it is entirely possible that a thing of beauty may be acheaved by working from an emotional standpoint. In fact, the lack of one element may be more than compensated for by another, for, as everyone knows, there are many academic and expertly painted pictures that express so little emotion that they fail altogether as creative works of art. They can be trite and stiff and lacking altogether in both spirit and originality.

It is true, however, that the abstractionist without a classical training works against greater odds than the experienced realist does. He/she is like a man/woman building a house without any knowledge of the carpenter's trade. All knowledge must come by way of experiment and innate craftsmanship, and he/she faces the extra hazard of being completely misunderstood. His/her creativeness must overshadow his technical faults and lack of technical knowledge is extremely difficult to conceal for long. Imagine the "pro artist" that has not attained and mastered is craft. He/she is asked to produce a work of art outside his/her studio. No photos, no copy machines, no tracing papers etc. Sure we can learn much by copying but without a structured education such a artist will be lost. Such an artist will resort to the gift of gab.

One style is usually the outcome or, one might say, the refinement of another as the artist gains in experience and dexterity.

In viewing gallery exhibitions today, we must understand that many canvases are hung without the remotest expectation of ever being sold. Many are exhibited for the sole purpose of educating the public to new concepts in art. But if the viewer bears in mind that many such works by modern artists are more in the nature of experiments than they are representations of an ideal, his/her attitude toward modern art is likely to be more lenient.

My own opinion is that the canvases that will stand the test of time will be only those with inherent beauty, those which stand on their own merits and can be appreciated without high-sounding literary explanations by the avant-guard reviewer.

[Steven Sweeney]

I

[Steven Sweeney]

Incidentally, the images you've posted are absolutely exquisite, but for purposes both of intellectual property rights and the greatest usefulness as references to the forum members and readers, please provide an attribution -- title of the piece, name of the artist, and any other pertinent information, such as the collection in which the piece resides, if you happen to know. If the image was scanned from a particular text or catalog or borrowed from a website, it would be appropriate to give credit to that source as well, as very often those publishers have done a lot of their own work on the image to maximize its appearance (and as such, have their own intellectual property rights in their enhancements, which should be acknowledged.)

[Mischa Milosevic]

I do apologize for not naming the attachments. I had thought that someone else would chime in with a comment regarding the images even to name them. Being that no one has:


The first is Bouguereau, zenobia. There is much to be said about this painting. It is so rich with information technically and historically.

Second is Ilja Repin

Third is Anschutz Thomas

Forth is a etching executed by Zorn and sent to me Grethe Angen.

I so weary much wish I had more of Zorns works. His color/value execution is exquisite. His brush work free and not tight at all.Anyone that has a chance to study his art is quite fortunate.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Misha, I love the painting by Anschutz Thomas. I find it so vibrant and alife. I will have to search out more works by this artist, whom I'm not familiar with. Thanks for bringing him to my attention.

[Marvin Mattelson]

To me, art is what I respond to visually in a positive way. I believe we all react to certain stimuli based on a variety of factors, which are directly tied to our experience. What we see is based on what we learn and this informs what we look for.

As my understanding evolves it's interesting to note which aspects remain strong and which dissipate. I see a great number of commonalities in the approaches of the artists that I favor, and these I try to incorporate in my working methodology. It's also the basis of what I teach.

My preferences are solely the function of my taste and not biased by what anyone else thinks is correct or what is commonly agreed upon to have merit. Time alters perception, and the general consensus always reverses itself. I believe that the more agreement there is, the less the likelihood of any real merit. My true path revealed itself when I became frustrated with the status quo and sought a different direction.

I always weigh the opinions of others and consider what they say. If I'm swayed and shift my position it's ultimately a function of my intuitive judgment responding to the revelation of a bigger truth. As a result my clarity is ever evolving. My path is dynamic, not static and the end is nowhere in sight. I'm closer now than ever before and that's very exciting. As a result I consider myself an artist in training.

[Mischa Milosevic]

Here is a few more masterful peaces bu Zorn and Anschuts Thomas.

[Mischa Milosevic]

Enzie it is my pleasure. I'm glad you like his work. In the second painting of his you can notice his approach the under-painting, drawing, massing and value. Notice that he did not bother covering the under-painting in its entirety. What grate lessons!

Marvin, I have learn't much from you in the past year or so, by being on this forum. One can benefit much from your wisdom.

Of course, we all see shining examples of technique, some of which we admire very much and which we attempt to copy for technique's sake alone. As a result technique actually gets in our way and we end up by not seeing the subject we are painting truly and often overlook many of the other ESSENTIAL elements of painting as well. When a person thinks in terms of technique he/she probably is not giving his/her best attention to VALUES, RELATIONSHIPS, or even COLOR. He/she thinks about the strokes he/she is making and not much else. Technique is a strong indication of individuality and if one allows, it will get into your work subconsciously. It is much like handwriting, of which no two specimens are alike.

[Mischa Milosevic]

One of my favorite women master portrait artists is the famous Vigee le Brun. If you search out her biography and you closely scrutinize her art you will notice why her portraits meant so much to many.

[Mischa Milosevic]

Here is a lady that valued and understood her love for art. Her dream of achieving excellence is recognized in every brush stroke.

One of my favorite paintings of hers is this one. Sorry, I do not have the name but would love to know and if someone has this painting in higher resolution please send it to me.

Thank you