New Old Masters

College Majors Visual Arts and Film Majors
21

<p>timkerdes, the examples you provided do not show any strong skills in representional drawing or painting. That doesn’t mean one or more of the students don’t have them; it’s just not demonstrated in those works. However, the representational skills shown are not strong; most any atelier student in their 2nd year would do a better job.</p>

<p>Here’s a link to work done by students at the Florence Academy of Art. Some of these students are 1st year students, or around 18 years old:</p>

<p>[Examples</a> of student drawings, paintings and sculpture from The Florence Academy of Art](<a href=“http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/gallery.php#Drawing]Examples”>http://www.florenceacademyofart.com/gallery.php#Drawing)</p>

<p>The students at these ateliers have real skills that can be transferred elsewhere, or used to work as full-time freelance artists. Many representational artists, including my daughter, do not need galleries to help them sell their work; their work basically sells itself. So you cannot just look at gallery sales to understand what kind of art is selling. </p>

<p>There is a parallel system of the teaching of art in the US. There are the university, degree-based arts schools, which teach modern art. Then there are the ateliers, which teach only representational art, born out of need because the teaching of basic art skills was largely or systematically cut out, or never developed, in the university system. 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, there were no ateliers in the US, or perhaps one (Lack). Today, there are about 60 ateliers in the USA. Interest in representational art is just exploding here.</p>

<p>There is also a parallel system of galleries. Here are some of the galleries which show primarily or only reaslistic art:</p>

<p>[Arcadia</a> Fine Art : New York City Contemporary Representational Art Gallery](<a href=“This domain name is registered with Netim”>http://arcadiafinearts.com/)
[John</a> Pence Gallery - Contemporary Painters](<a href=“http://www.johnpence.com/visuals/painters/]John”>John Pence Gallery - Contemporary Painters)
[Welcome</a> to Greenhouse Gallery of Fine Art](<a href=“http://www.greenhousegallery.com/]Welcome”>http://www.greenhousegallery.com/)</p>

<p>Greenhouse is a huge gallery in San Antonio, the size of a warehouse.</p>

22

<p>timkerdes, I don’t think of Damien Hirst as an artist. Putting a dead shark into a tank of formaldehyde is not fine art, although it may be a good work of engineering and a brilliant way of making a lot of money. I believe that this house of cards will fall however, and some investors are going to lose a lot of money.</p>

<p>Now I’m sure that some “artists” will do well in the future by putting giraffes on roofs and elephants on cars, etc., and calling it art. But they don’t need to spend four years of their parents’ money going to a university studying art to do that.</p>

<p>I’m about to send my 3rd child off for professional studies, this one in music, and university is expensive. I know a number of parents who are sending off their children to art schools. At least with music, I know that my daughter will be learning a skill in addition to getting a university education. I’m looking at this issue from the point of view of “what are most art students doing with their degree?”, rather than how much money a couple of people at the top are making with their art, or creations.</p>

23

<p>Thanks for all those sites timkerdes. Won’t have time to look at them for awhile but did check out the 15 richest. Now here’s something for you. Of those I know that 4 at least actually aren’t producing their own work that much at all. They’re sort of “idea” guys (I’m not including Sherman in this ) and they either work along the old time-honored studio idea where they have other people hired to do the actual production or they hire out some of the actual construction. </p>

<p>Now what do we do about all that talk of technical skill in these cases? Perhaps, at least if you’re looking at financial success, with contemporary technology and a combination of a return of the old masters style studio, well, is this acceptable. Does an artist actually have to produce their own work? </p>

<p>I’m a huge Chuck Close fan by the way and feel that he transcends representational and in some ways I think of him as beyond or removed from that definition. But that’s another long story. Anyway thanks for all those sites, this will be interesting to look at. Only one woman by the way on the “richest” site. Of course we probably both agree that rich doesn’t mean best, right?</p>

24

<p>Woodwinds,
Most of this generation’s students are struggling after graduation regardless of what field they studied. It’s a rough economy out there. Trying to second guess financial success is bit tricky.</p>

<p>Your sites are also very interesting. I’ve got a lot to look at when I get a moment. I must say that I saw a Hirst piece and found it sort of fascinating. But perhaps this is the problem with your discussion here with Timkerdes. The two of you are comparing apples and oranges. </p>

<p>And I’m pretty open to all types of work including the types of old master studio work you seem to prefer. I just don’t think one way of working is that preferable over another. You seem too readily dismissive of anything that doesn’t smack of “Florence.” I am in agreement about the general lack of training in traditional drawing skills but there are issues with a strictly traditional approach like Florences. While schools like Florence Academy definitely produce technically skilled artists the argument can and has been made that it is imitative work only. There are pitfalls with both approaches. I don’t think one type of training is necessarily better or worse just different. Just a thought. Personally I occasionally enjoy seeing an elephant on a car. Not all the time but once in awhile.</p>

25

<p>^LOL, artsmarts!</p>

<p>I’m popping in to say how much I’m enjoying this thread. I come from an entirely different (non-art) field and have limited education in art history–but you’ve now got me reading everything I can find about ateliers, academies, trends and controversies in art/art education. </p>

<p>Thanks to all of you for the fascinating discussion and thoughtfully reasoned points of view.</p>

26

<p>I’m glad more people have popped in. I started the thread because I thought the topic was a good discussion and worth having. Of course people have different preferences. I like representational work, but not all of it. I like the artists who take that technical skill and then do something with it. I personally do not like the nude drawings, because I find them dull. But I understand that they are a necessary part of learning technical skills.</p>

<p>I would also like to see an elephant on a car! Might be funny. But it isn’t fine art.</p>

<p>gladiatorbird, my D2 is talking about getting a masters in art history, specializing in textiles, in Glasgow. So yes, there is all kind of art.</p>

<p>artsmarts, the technical training is imitative–copying Bargue drawings, drawing and painting from life in the studio. But the students move beyond that, around their 3rd year, when they paint still life and must create their own compositions.</p>

27

<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>

28

<p>And might I just add that I’m not drawn to all representational work either. Some crosses over into just plain sugary schlock. Much of the work in that web site you posted for Greenhouse Gallery proves that bigger isn’t necessarily better.</p>

29

<p>artsmarts: re elephant on a car. I’m saying that putting an actual live or dead elephant on a car is not fine art. If someone painted it, that would probably be art. I’m not an artist. That’s just my opinion. And re your comment about most representational art being sold independently through artists and not in galleries–I see your point, but I was responding to timkerdes, who was comparing gallery sales of modern vs. realistic art. My point is that gallery sales only represent a small piece of overall art sales.</p>

<p>Something I find interesting is how in our area, buyers of both modern and representational work are rather conservative. In other areas, it’s quite different.</p>

30

<p>But Timkerdes was talking about gallery sales, not overall art sales with “art” being defined very broadly. And I think it’s quite possible Timkerdes is correct on this one.</p>

<p>There are many different “markets” for “art.” If the San Antonio gallery is representative of what sort of work you are discussing then I think Timkerdes and you are comparing apples and oranges and never the twain shall meet. Timkerdes could jump in here but I feel comfortable saying that he/she is referring to collectors on a different level. I’m at a loss as to how to explain this but let me posit that collectors in the New York or Los Angeles market at high end galleries are a very different animal than collectors at that gallery in San Antonio.</p>

<p>And while we’re still a little off topic and speaking of different animals, if there were a life size elephant on top of a Volvo sculptured a la Michaelangelo in marble would it then be art?
Is it possible that you are a “material guy” or rather “materials.”</p>

31

<p>“It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child.”</p>

<p>Pablo Picasso</p>

32

<p><a href=“How James Turrell Knocked the Art World Off Its Feet - The New York Times”>How James Turrell Knocked the Art World Off Its Feet - The New York Times;

33

<p>Ah Drae, a two-fer for me. I had the opportunity to see one of Turrell’s earlier works some 30 years ago at in LA. I’ve never forgotten the experience, it was absolutely mystical and magical. I image his pieces are even more amazing now. For anyone who’s never experienced seeing one his works you have to actually be there, it’s not to be experienced by seeing pictures or video images. He truly paints with light. And I don’t know if you noticed the by-line Drae but the image of Turrell is by Chuck Close, another personal favorite and someone else who I think has taken painting into another realm. Thanks.
Had to just skim the article but looks fascinating. Will read it thoroughly tonight.</p>

34

<p>Enjoy…this world can hold so much. I dream of going to Roden Crater someday.</p>

35

<p>I still am amazed at how that Turrell piece is still in my head after all these years. I think I should put that on my list of must dos also.</p>

36

<p>wow, there’s a lot to respond to. I’ll break this up in to multiple posts.</p>

<p>artsmarts</p>

<p>“I think this discussion about representational art being good or not is sort of a moot point.”</p>

<p>I haven’t made a single value judgement against representational art. While it might be an interesting discussion, I don’t think it would be particularly serviceable to the kind of person who goes to sites like these looking for help. I’m not trying to dismiss one kind of art for another. I’m saying it’s all valid, it’s all important. Yet, reacting o the first article, my point was and is that the author privileges one kind of art over all others and therefore misrepresents the notion of skills. I’m not making this up.</p>

<p>example: </p>

<p>“He gave me a syllabus that included stitching a rug, throwing a pot, and silk-screening a T-shirt.”</p>

<p>“Perhaps the art world at large wants nothing to do with skill or talent.” </p>

<p>I suppose stitching rugs, ceramics, and silk-screening have nothing to do with talent or skill? At least with drawing you can learn a great deal on your own with a group of peers. Yet to do ceramics or silkscreening you need facilities and technicians to teach you to operate equipment and understand the chemical processes that occur (I’m unsure about the process of rug making but I suspect that the circumstances required to produce a rug by hand would be similar).</p>

<p>“Now what do we do about all that talk of technical skill in these cases?”</p>

<p>Abandon them. There are two pints to consider. Firstly:Those conceptual art guys hire people to fill studios and produce work. That collective group produce works the kind which ranges from the hundred thousands to millions) have the same talent and technical ability found in mainstream Hollywood production crews. Even if the conceptual artist’s only function is to come up with ideas, the fact remains that the works wouldn’t be produced without a highly skilled group to fabricate the pieces. Though, there are conceptual artists who make or perform “work” that doesn’t require technical ability.</p>

<p>In which case point 2: Remember why I brought up that list (and the list of galleries, shows, fairs etc). I believe that woodwinds used it as a point that artists aren’t selling work because of a lack of representational skills. My response was that most artists who are financially successful are not representational painters and that the relationship between technical ability and financial success is typically arbitrary, let alone the relationship between representational skills and financial success in the gallery system in the art world or even representational painters and the discipline of painting. I won’t say that representational painters are a small niche in painting (as they are in the art world), but they are certainly not a dominant group anymore. </p>

<p>My point was that, by itself, representation skills were irrelevant since the most financially successful artists aren’t representational painters and because it is a niche area in the contemporary art world (with people still moaning the cliche exclamation “painting is dead”).</p>

<p>“I’m a huge Chuck Close fan by the way and feel that he transcends representational and in some ways I think of him as beyond or removed from that definition.”</p>

<p>Perhaps, but wouldn’t excluding Chuck Close mean that the are no strictly representational painters on that list?</p>

<p>“There are many different “markets” for “art.” If the San Antonio gallery is representative of what sort of work you are discussing then I think Timkerdes and you are comparing apples and oranges and never the twain shall meet.”</p>

<p>The armory show has large groups of artists who price their work from the tens of thousands to the millions. Tala Madani prices her small paintings at $10,000 and medium sized paintings to about $50,000 or more on average.</p>

<p>[tala</a> madani - Google Search](<a href=“http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=954&bih=539&q=tala+madani&oq=tala+madani&gs_l=img.1.0.0l2j0i24l8.1910.7914.0.9883.11.9.0.2.2.0.782.2353.1j3j4j6-1.9.0...0.0.0..1ac.1.17.img.imjbqHtfYyg]tala”>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=954&bih=539&q=tala+madani&oq=tala+madani&gs_l=img.1.0.0l2j0i24l8.1910.7914.0.9883.11.9.0.2.2.0.782.2353.1j3j4j6-1.9.0...0.0.0..1ac.1.17.img.imjbqHtfYyg)</p>

37

<p>Woodwinds </p>

<p>“timkerdes, I don’t think of Damien Hirst as an artist.”</p>

<p>I almost want to say “no comment”. Look, regardless of what either of us think of him, the fact is that he participates in and earns money through the same system that people you do consider artists earn money in. I’m only talking about Hirst’ finances and that’s all that matters as far as his name in this subject is concerned. I don’t really care for him myself, quite honestly.</p>

<p>“There are the university, degree-based arts schools, which teach modern art.”</p>

<p>That’s simply untrue. There’s no art school in the U.S that teaches you “modern art”. Art schools don’t teach styles. No one goes to art school to learn how to make a cubist painting. Art schools in the U.S are pluralist, meaning they don’t take hard stance on a single style of art but welcome all styles.</p>

<p>“but I was responding to timkerdes, who was comparing gallery sales of modern vs. realistic art. My point is that gallery sales only represent a small piece of overall art sales.”</p>

<p>I never made a comparison. I just supplied various bits of information from some of the largest visual art venues to support my statement that representational painting occupies a very small niche in the art world both financially and critically. I suppose when you supplied a list of galleries of representational painters a comparison could be inferred, but I never on my own supplied data for representational painting venues to make a comparison. More or less I was showing how (lame pun again) unrepresented representational painters are in the contemporary art world.</p>

<p>Now, I don’t see how you can either say or prove that most transactions that occur between artists and collectors occur outside of galleries or auctions. That’s really hard to back up, you know? It’s hard to talk about this objectively, and without discussing our own experiences. Essentially, your talking about completely off the record sales. As far as I have tried to find, there is no data set available on the subject of private - off the record - art purchases.</p>

<p>“I’m looking at this issue from the point of view of ‘what are most art students doing with their degree?’”</p>

<p>I suppose that’s fair, but I am looking at this issue purely from painting as a discipline, meaning in response to the question of how to innovate or advance that discipline. You might say that’s too idealistic, but I’d be quick to point out that hardly anyone who majors in art does so because of the earning potential</p>

<p>I suppose what it comes down to is the difference I see between my understanding of art education and music education. From what I understand, (and it is likely presumptuous on my part) music education values the classics - what came before. In Art education, what is valued is not the classics - not what came before - but what the new generation contributes. The difference between primarily valuing the classics vs valuing innovation is (if my observation on music education is true) a fundamental difference. It’s true that the structure of music education and art education are very similar, but in actuality art education is much closer to architectural education in that the latter two value innovation over the attempt to reproduce classics.</p>

<p>"…rather than how much money a couple of people at the top are making with their art, or creations."</p>

<p>Perhaps those 15 artists are a couple of people, but surely all those folks from the Whitney Biennial, Documenta, and the armory show are proportionally a more substantial group? The artists listed from those links comprise a significant portion of the contemporary art world.</p>

38

<p>“The students at these ateliers have real skills that can be transferred elsewhere, or used to work as full-time freelance artists.”</p>

<p>To be frank (regarding the second year students), they only have highly developed representational skills and they all are scarcely indistinguishable from one another. You could pass that off as the work of a single artist and few could tell them apart. The treatment and use of color is fairly consistent between each of those showcased artists. Furthermore (and this comment extends past second year students) the school doesn’t stress form-making, which are the elements of design and composition - invention. However, there are certainly notable exceptions from the alumni (Peter Van Dyck as an example) but in general compositional skills aren’t stressed so much. </p>

<p>Now, I won’t go on to say that this makes the work “good” or “bad” (different’s not deficient, right?). What I am saying, however, is that the development of representational drawing/painting skills appear to be developed quite extensively but at the expense of other skills that are just as fundamental. My stance is that developing one’s abilities in such a specialized way is a valid route, but it is certainly not the ONLY valid route and it doesn’t somehow put you ahead of other artists with who have skills developed in other areas nor does it make your skills somehow more “real”. Yet the first article overtly says otherwise.</p>

<p>developing compositional skills can make all the difference. Here’s an example of a representational painter who can take an assortment of mundane objects and make interesting arrangements of them.</p>

<p>[Interview</a> with Michael Tompkins : Painting Perceptions](<a href=“http://paintingperceptions.com/contemporary-realism/interview-with-michael-tompkins]Interview”>Interview with Michael Tompkins - Painting Perceptions)</p>

<p>By the way, this is a very good website about perceptually based painters (representational and figurative). It provides nice interviews and shows a good range of artists with different varieties of skills.</p>

<p>And as for an example of paintings that are highly technical without being in the slightest bit representational but instead are technical through material alteration and form-making. I’m curious to know if you consider these paintings to be not very technical at all.</p>

<p>[GIAN</a> BERTO VANNI - PAINTINGS](<a href=“http://www.gvanni.com/AvailableOL.html]GIAN”>http://www.gvanni.com/AvailableOL.html)</p>

<p>I almost want to apologize for how long all of this is.</p>

39

<p>"Perhaps, but wouldn’t excluding Chuck Close mean that the are no strictly representational painters on that list?
"
Actually I’m not even sure I consider Chuck Close a strictly representational painter. If you’ve ever seen his true paintings and not just book plates or slides, up close, describing them as representational isn’t quite accurate. They are representational but beyond that. Go to a gallery, stand back so you see the whole image and then very very slowly walk towards the painting until you are inches from it, or as close as the museum/gallery will allow.</p>

40

<p>Also Timkerdes re: the gallery question. Perhaps you misunderstood, I wasn’t making a value judgment necessarily between the gallerys/armory show. Just saying that they are world’s apart in focus, intent, and so different in concept that I’m not sure comparing them even makes any sense.</p>