Back in the 70's I was being told that my paintings were too photographic. I switched from egg tempera to pastel and studied Monet in an effort to loosen up. Now I'm being told that I don't have enough modeling in my work. If you look at many of the masters like Rembrandt, Vermeer, Velasquez, etc. they are really quite Impressionistic in their style. It's not tight photographic realism , but the essence of the idea that they have painted. Bouguerreau, Ingres, and others, of the 19th century,are more tightly photographic. Zorn is quite loose, as is Klimt , of course. On and on we go.
I have always dismissed the idea that paintings must address a current politic issue. This is total nonsense and any painting that is made for that purpose will be forgotten in ten years. People will look at it and wonder what in the world the artist was thinking, unless they read the history books to find out what political issue was popular at the time that the painting was painted. If you want your painting to retain worth throughout history it must come from your soul, not the newspapers. We all have taken this trip here to earth to experience life. True art is when one person communicates visually with another , saying ," look , this is what I see here". It makes us feel less alone. It's all in the way one "describes" his visual experience to others. We are , in a sense , talking to the viewers about how we are experiencing life. Our verbal communications severely limit the expression of our visual experiences. Art fills in that gap.
This is just my opinion.
|
Hybrid Mode
