<p>“But it isn’t fine art.” Re: the elephant on a car
Okay woodwinds are you telling me that if your daughter or someone who was terribly proficient in your old masters favorite style of realism painted an elephant on a car and just for realism’s sake let’s say it’s a toy elephant (more realistic scale) and it was beautifully done in the old masters style, are you telling me you wouldn’t call it art. I think it’s the style you prefer not the subject matter. You’re imagining something Hirst would do when you say it wouldn’t be art, aren’t you? </p>
<p>At any rate, let’s also remember that the old masters going back to Italy circa Titian, Da Vinci et al had huge studios and large numbers of apprentices who actually often did all the underpainting. This concept of hands on the artist doing all the work, being the only one touching the canvas isn’t exactly one of tradition. And in fact most contemporary artists have assistants if they can afford it. Which is why I asked the question about how personally involved in the actual creation must an artist be before the line has been crossed and it isn’t their piece anymore. </p>
<p>I’m glad you acknowledge the imitative aspect of the studio system a la Florence. The problem I saw when I attended a similar type of school briefly many years ago was that not all the students were able to move away from the imitative aspect of the work. So they continued to do technically proficient works that were rather bland in choice of subject matter. A rehash of an old masters still life just done with contemporary objects can be pretty dull also. And that’s why a lot of contemporary art schools and university art department are now stressing concept so much. But I just think they went too far in the other direction. </p>
<p>At any rate I did want to comment on this
“Many representational artists, including my daughter, do not need galleries to help them sell their work; their work basically sells itself.”
I didn’t think this comment was really necessary. Most artist representational or not are stepping away from the old gallery method way of selling, web sites etc. But whlle I can see that you’re very proud of your daughter, I really find this smacking a bit of self-promotion and in a dismissive way.</p>
<p>“their work basically sells itself”.
Well, that may be true but I suppose it’s always been true that portraiture sells. Historically most have resorted to portraiture as a way to make a living. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good art. Not every portrait is a Singer but yes, there’s a market out there for realistic portraiture. Always has been, probably always will. But it simply doesn’t mean it’s better art because it sells. The public tends to be more readily acceptable of realistic traditional olds masters styles of still lifes and portraits.</p>
<p>I agree with your original comment about the need perhaps for more traditional types of instruction being available in art schools and art department. However I appreciate and applaud those who are brave enough to forgo the temptation of guaranteed sales and push the envelope into new directions. I may not be drawn to some of the work personally but it sure would be boring if everyone did traditional representative paintings and we didn’t have people around who challenge the status quo.</p>