Alice Neel: What do you think?

[Linda Brandon]

I like her because she uses line and exaggeration, the caricaturist's method of accentuating individuality to distinguish each human from the next. To me, line does this better than form, and it has more energy. Neal has her own language and isn't trying to copy a photo so I give her points for that. I'm in favor of as many styles of realism as there are artists out there with a creative vision.

To tell you the truth, this is giving me the urge to paint a big caricature of myself, though a nude would be very unlikely indeed.

[Enzie Shahmiri]

Her style reminds me of children books, in being very colorful and quirky. I can't say that I like it, but if she has done a good job capturing the essence of the subject she has portrayed, then good for her.

It is interesting to see that she chooses that raw depiction of "self", almost as if she wants the viewer to wonder "what's up with these people?".

[Andrea Kantrowitz]

Personally I don't see good taste in either of these pieces.

I thought Anthony made such an interesting comment to think about. What is good taste? Is it about what is beautiful?
Certainly an naked lady in her 80's would not generally be considered beautiful. For me, this brings up the relationship of truth to beauty. Like I said, I can personally attest to the fact that there is a great deal of truth in Neel's work. To me, personally, this makes it beautiful. But reasonable people can certainly disagree on whether or not that is so.

I am one of the legion of admirers of Lucian Freud's work, but I find a diffferent, more life-afirming truth in Neel's paintings

It's hard to put into words what I love about her work. First of all, the people just jump out at you. There's an emotional engagement with not only their faces but their whole body posture and shape. The characterization is so memorable I think I would recognize them if I saw them in person. So this must be realism, right?

I thought Alex put so well what more traditional portrait painters might have to learn from Neel's work. Its not about the style, that was Neel's. But the level of emotional engagement she had with her subjects, that could be something to strive for. As far as I know, she only painted from life, and it could be quite the experience for her sitters (especially the ones who were ordered to strip! She was a force of nature not to be argued with.)

I'm in favor of as many styles of realism as there are artists out there with a creative vision

I think Linda's saying something really important here. And there's a lot to learn from artists who are not necessarily to our personal taste. At another extreme of taste might be Bougereau, an artist I might not have learned about without this forum.

So what is the relationship between truth and beauty? (I've found this to be a hot issue when painting commissioned portraits) And how does this affect your response to Neel's work?

[Anthony Emmolo]

Andrea,

I hope my comment wasn't offensive. It was not meant to be.

It is a good question you ask, and I don't think I have an answer to it. Here's my feeling. Art touches the realm of emotions, and I don' think it is always going to be explainable by words. With that in mind, maybe he word 'taste' wasn't even he right word. I look at John Singer Sargeant's (I know I spelled it wrong) 'Tramp' , and it touches the emotions in a positive way. He wasn't trying to paint the man in a beautiful way. He painted the reality of life of a tramp. MAYBE, but I'm not sure, what hit me wrong was the fact that the three models in these two paintings stare the viewer right in the eye with no fear. It drives something home deeper. In this case something uncomfortable, but in the power of the artist to choose that message.

A thought completely unrelated to these paintings, but on the topic of 'Taste' is this: Have you ever looked at the album covers of today's rock stars? No more gentle Elvis smiles, or fun loving Beatle glances. Today's rock stars look angry. They look as if they want to fight with the viewer. It's not pleasant.

Or maybe it is just me..

Anthony

[Andrea Kantrowitz]

I'm not offended in the least, Anthony! I put this out because I was interested reading a variety of opinions about this work, especially after the discussion of Freud. You honestly made me think about what "taste" means. So thanks for taking the time to respond.!

[Brenda Ellis]

Well, hello Alice Neel, it's nice to meet you.
I've not heard of or seen any of Neel's work until now. Thank you, Andrea for bringing her to our attention (though most others are probably very familiar with her.)
I, as Linda, enjoy seeing fresh interpretations of what portraiture can be. And I appreciate the emotion and in-your-face humanity that these paintings have. There are other things there, too, that I percieve: a kind of struggle against or impatience with "beauty". Is it possible that women grapple with that word or that stigma more than men? By putting beauty in quotes, I am signalling that I'm referring to the social concept of beauty. Not the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" philosophy.
I get the feeling Alice wasn't all that keen on social concepts of beauty. Others may know how correct or incorrect I am.
'Beauty', like 'love' and 'truth' and 'bargain', will always be hard to definitively define.
So, now that I've taken that off the table for myself, , I will say that 'taste' is a made-up thing. Like curfew and taxes. It's a construct made by those who want to be in control. And I try not to buy into that. I won't wear black socks with shorts, but that's as far as my taste obedience goes.
I have a feeling Alice may have been bolder than me.
Or maybe not.
I find myself constantly wanting to know the artist that does any certain work. I can't just be content to see the work as something on it's own. It always, for me, is something created. And so I want to know the creator. Is it conceit to think that I can know the creator by just looking at what he/she created? Is it still art if one creates something gloriously beautiful and yet has put none of their soul into it? This could be a whole nother can of beans.

Alice Neel is okay in my book. She was expressing herself in what is obviously (to me) a true and honest way, and she found a language in visual media (not just lines or colors on a flat surface). Portraiture? People have discussed the point and meaning and measure of portraiture on this forum before, but I am beginning to see that "portrait" is a broad term, indeed.

[Henry Wienhold]

When I saw the self portrait I wanted to laugh, but then I asked myself, "should I be laughing." Then I realized
this is one bold lady, and to me boldness has merit. She reaches out with her work and makes you stop and think. Both of the portrait's draw you in and leave you wondering and contemplating her motive. Then I realized I would of liked to have met this lady, just to have a conversation with her. She's definately an artist who paints as she wishes and obviously she isn't a conventional crowd pleaser. I like that kind of attitude, be who you are is what I think she is saying. I like these two paintings.

[Tom Edgerton]

So what is the relationship between truth and beauty? (I've found this to be a hot issue when painting commissioned portraits) And how does this affect your response to Neel's work?

We've discussed this before here, but it's still interesting to me.

I honor my clients in my commissioned work. I think that's my job. I'm not ashamed to show them as they appear on a really good day. But I don't portray them in an untruthful way, and I don't accept direction to do so, and I don't accept the commissions in which I'm asked to.

My explanation for this is that I think people are perfect as they are, and don't need me to make them more so. So when I'm working on a commission, I try to be as straightforward in my depiction as I can, but to stay out of the way. When you look at my commissioned work, you should be aware of the subject and not of me.

If I begin to chafe under this, I do a personal work where I can experiment and paint anyway I please.

Some artists might think this is a pact with the devil, but any commission you accept is in some measure a collaboration, and if you don't believe so, you are free not to paint them. I don't worry about it a lot, because if I'm being paid to stand there and practice, it's purely heaven and I don't take this circumstance for granted.

Finally, stylistically speaking, I can see the boldness and force in Alice Neel's work, but it isn't my cup of choice. But ANYONE who picks up a brush and tries to make a picture has more guts than the average bear, and don't forget it.

Love to all--TE

[Michele Rushworth]

Tom, this is surely one of the most thoughtful and thought provoking posts in recent memory on this Forum. Thanks for posting your perspective on what we do!

[Alexandra Tyng]

It's true, Tom--artists who paint portraits run the gamut between those who think accepting commissioned work is equivalent to making a pact with the devil, and artists who do only commissioned work because it is deeply satisfying practically and artistically.

Don't think I'm wishy-washy, but I think the whole spectrum of viewpoints is valid. No one should feel defensive about the chioces they make. There is a lot to be learned from the cooperation that goes into commissioned work; it can challenge the artist to make things better and solve problems, and it can challenge the client to think in new ways, too. There is also a lot to be learned from having complete freedom to compose a portrait and solve problems without the parameters of the client steering the artist in one way or another. As Tom was saying, he does both at different times. I also do both, and in very much the same spirit that Tom works. Some people only do one or the other, and that's fine.

My impression from watching the documentary on Neel (Andrea, correct me if I am not right) is that she often asked people if they would sit for her. Her portraits were appreciated by some subjects, but not others. She was inspired to paint her version of truth, whether or not it was appreciated. She was okay with living more on the edge financially than some other people. I'm not saying that that is more admirable. What I'm saying is she was living the way she wanted to live. If we express ourselves the way we want to, if we are true to our particular kind of creative spark, then that is what is important in life.

Alex