Critiquing the Art Renewal Center
Monday April 17, 2006
I know there are a lot of fans of the Art Renewal Center out there but, while I agree with some of its aims, I've never liked the didactic tone that seems to prevail. That's probably why the Open Letter to the Art Renewal Center on Mark Vallen's blog Art for a Change caught my eye. This in turn led me back to his piece Art Renewal Center: A Return to the Past. Read them, check out the Art Renewal Center, and let me know how you feel by posting a comment on this blog. To me, debating issues, being open to the opinions of others, and not insisting that only one way is right, is fundamental.
Comments
I’m one of the founders of ARC and I find it amazing that you think that ARC is somehow opposed to debate just because we put forth a particular point of view on our site. I think debate is a great thing and I engage in it all the time. I just don’t think that being wishy-washy about what I think is either a good way to communicate or a good way to debate issues.
What’s all the more strange is that the stuff from Mark Valen is pretty one-sided and nasty in tone but without really having all that much to say in the way of direct refutation of what ARC’s positions and that seems to be what you are accusing ARC of.
He claims such as that we are “narrow”, “reactionary”, “not dialectical”, “restricted”, and “not allowing people to think for themselves” (how exactly could we stop people from doing that?), but where’s the actual argument? What’s the difference between being “narrow” and just having a particular point of view? What is the difference between being “reactionary” and “failing to adopt new points of view taht are erroneous”? If he would like to debate the particulars then by all means let him provide some good counter-arguments to what I and others on the ARC site have to say and I’d be happy to respond, but these vague insinuations aren’t really enough to respond to intelligently since they aren’t really complete arguments in the first place, and the more sinister implications (like the ones that we are somehow closet racists) are just implicit nastiness without an argument at all.
–Brian
What’s fascinating and poignant about ARC is, they’re convinced that civilization (that’s us) so desperately NEEDS their art.
They think that without their painstakingly executed images of us wandering in the woods in silken gowns, or without their prizewinning glimpses of our children lounging in luxurious folds of white linen, that we won’t know ourselves as human beings.. What claptrap! I admire your paintings, but I’ve got my own hue and chroma balanced just fine, thanks.
I can imagine how great it must feel to wake up every morning with such a sense of purpose and conviction—- to convert the world! To open the eyes of the blind! Know what that is?
Fundamentalism– ever heard of it? It’s all the rage these days….
Why all the words, anyway? Why can’t these artists’ paintings speak for themselves?
The art is great, everyone. Make more! Now, stop preening like demigods who think they’re saving the world! It’s unbecoming.
ARC is home to the true art,the art that have withstood the test of time,the art that would be here to stay and continue to inspire, and uplift man’s spirit, that have ennobled us.Yes it is here to stay whether these people that are biased against realist art and the academic tradition like it or not. All these so-called isms that have sprouted, these “art” that merely aims to be different, to be innovative would come and go but the traditional painting would remain.
Careful, Archie. When you speak of “uplift[ing] man’s spirit”, whose spirit are you referring to? Who exactly is in need of this “ennobling” influence? Hmmmm…. who could it be….. Why, it’s the teeming, unclean sea of humanity, of course!
This smacks of RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM and, although it is apalling, it is not suprising in that in the current political climate, even our most prodigiously gifted artists would find a way to work this drearily familiar theme, this Dies Irae, into their worldview.
Can we enjoy this art without being coerced into declaring it to be the only “true” (read: official) art? Can we bask in its exquisitely wrought beauty without joining in an obsessive, unseemly debate over whether it will withstand the “test of time”?
And, even as we revel in its sumptuous beauty, can we use it as a tool, to turn our eyes once again to the art of the 20th Century and understand anew why all that “art” simply had to be created, in all its dazzling, restless variety?
Permission please, O great Living Masters(tm) !
Art cannot be removed from its social context— that is the very lens through which we are able to discern its beauty. The lens is always there, whether you think it is or not.
It’s good to know as much as you can about the lens you are holding, why and how someone gave it to you, to question and understand your own worldview, before you decide that everyone else should be seeing art through the same lens as yourself.
I hope this glorious art does withstand the “test of time”, so that some future generation can appreciate it without the fundamentalist propaganda of ARC attached!
R Mutt, you have offered nothing but unfunder offensive remarks. I’m amazed at how many people can read minds. Offer why don’t you, some facts and maybe quotes from ARC. I think you will find on the website, for example many statements by the members that say they NEVER wish to convert or control anyone’s opinions. It is rather the defenders of modernism that sem to jump up in arms at what they feel is sensorship. Since 1915 90 percent of college art programs have producted art majors who cannot find work in the feild for which they hold a degree unless that degree allows them to teach the same worn out opinions that have been around since 1949. New visual concepts have looked a lot the same now for nearly 90 years.
ARC enjoys skill and traing that has survived the centuries. This concept rattles the spirits and minds of those millions of art majors working at a thousand non-art related jobs.
The king has always been naked…pretending you just love his new clothes doesn’t keep the rst of the seeing world from snickering at his small parts.
Yoder’s response which manufactures quotations that are nowhere in Vallen’s original article typifies the misleading writing and sloppy thinking that typifies his organization.
WR Brandt would be well advised to look at Vallen’s writing again which quoting from ARC extensively convincingly argues that the group consists of “Eurocentric demagogues who espouse a right-wing aesthetic populism.”
ARC’s heavily censored discussion boards which feature no dissenting pro-Modernist voices would certainly support the conclusion that “ARC is somehow opposed to debate.”
How do you know the ARC remarks are sensored? Isn’t this rather like mind reading? How can you know so much about what ARC thinks, means or edits? There are, by the way, numerous posts and responses by modernist who are treated with respect.
By the way, Vallens art looks like a good highschool painter with flat forms and bad color. His writings remind me of Walter Sickart’s snotty remarks about JSSargent. Ever see Walter Sickerts work?
There are millions of wordsmiths with as many opinions but when you see the artwork of theses authors the words ring hollow and sound like envy. There are open contests not only at ARC but numerous other associations around the world for graet artists who want to go head to head and display their powers side by side other painters. Vallen would do well to win some of these shows around the world which would give his remarks some credence.
College art dept and museums are full of people who can talk. The world has so few good painters.
Art still rings loudly when done well-see this winner form last years salon. See the symbolism? See the form? see the light? See the message?
http://timothyctyler.com/deconstructionist.html
This is one work that comes to mind on ARC. See also the first years winner.
I found Vallen’s open letter in turns silly and offensive. It accuses ARC of being closed-minded for rejecting modern art- but then he rejects 19th century academic art, as a whole, as some kind of bizarre political tool of the establishment. Must we reject all art if it comes from a society we disapprove of? Must I denigrate Roman or Greek sculpture because they were a slave society, or great religous renaissance art because I happen to be an atheist and thus disapprove of the motivations behind its creation?
Of course not. That’s silly.
He makes a noise about being British. Well, I’m British too, down at the bottom of the class system, but that doesn’t mean I can’t admire a bloody good painting.
I found this blog because I found ARC a couple of days ago; because I’d seen a Bouguereau and was blown away by this superlative painting and wondered who this guy was and why i’d never heard of him. But bluntly; it’s a disgrace that an artist of such calibre has been denigrated and ignored while not-art like Mondrian or Pollock is lionised.
I think it’s pretty certain that in the future, people will look back at the rubbish that the last 100 years has produced and wonder what the hell we were thinking. The multitude have always considered modern art to be pretentious nonsense. I’m glad ARC are proudly saying so.
As to Hockney’s absurd theory that because he can’t draw, nobody else can, it’s just sad.
I think the true dogmatists in the issue are those who uphold today’s anti-art. The ARC was a revelation to me. There are people who actually feel the way that I do on this issue. The real fundamentalists are those who have denigrated skill, talent and beauty in art for the anti-artistic, trite political screeds that stand for art these days. I find it interesting that those who call Ross and Yoder reactionaries have no real arguments – only insults and polemics. Perhaps if people took the time to examine the magnificent examples of art on display on the site they might change their minds about ARC.
There have been no updates of the Art Renewal Center since July. Does this mean that the site is now defunct and so the foregoing comments superfluous? I hope this is not the case but perhaps someone can enlighten me.
I´m not an art expert, I´m just a civil servant (and a housewife, mother, etc..)and of course an art lover. The discovery of the Art Renewal Center a few months ago has supposed an adiction to me. All I know is that this is the kind of art I like and that I have discovered dozens of wonderful painters unknown to me.
Regarding Bob’s question about updates to the site, there have actually been quite a lot of changes to the site since July including several new articles and the addition of a podcast to go along with the written content on the site. The focus of the “What’s New” has in the past tended to focus more on the addition of new paintings and drawings to the site and that has indeed been temporarily on hold while lots of other changes have been made to the site.
Regarding the claim that the GoodArt forum is “heavily censored” I can assure you that this is not the case since I’m the moderator of that list. I do on occasion ban people for obnoxious behavior but not for the positions they take on the issues. We do on occasion have pro-modernists show up on the list and they do get to have their say as long as they do so in a civil manner.
(First excuse my weak english)… What I like about ARC is that they preserve the pre-photograhy “Classic” figurative art that I, myself like and produce… For that I can’t complain. It is a great ressource for painters like me.
But I do not agree with the fact that Picasso, Pollock and other experimentations of the early 20th century are bad art as stated on ARC… When photography took over nature representation, artists wanted to see what else they could do on a canvas…
I understand that today, allot of pretentious abstract painters, for example, count more on the philosophical speeches around their color schemes than on the process of painting as stylism, innovation and artist’s own touch…
Pollock experimented and innovated, Picasso did as well, but today, all we see are superficial imitations of some 100 year old “modernism” (if we start with Impressionism that I like too)…
On the other hand, the same is hapening in figurative art of today. It seems cold and literal. A technical demonstration. The magic of the old Masters is no more present in todays figurative paintings…
Of course I admire photo realism but only as a technique. Yet I prefer the magic in the stylish figures of old masters… Between a highly detailed and impressive photo realistic painting of today and a Rembrandt or Velasquez (just to name these as examples) I musch prefer the old guys. They were magicians more than pure technicians…
Brian Yoder ARC’s very own Bill O’Reilly + Rush Limbaugh rolled into one. He’s a big spinner and nothing more.
I really appreciate the rich collection of quite good reproductions of nineteenth century art, which is not so easily accessible otherwise. In my opinion, there are quite a lot paintings, which are underestimated, although sometimes it is for me difficult to tell, if it is still art or already ‘Kitsch’.
On the other hand, I don’t like the attitude towards 20th century; I think, their arguments are shallow and short-sighted. I just cannot see realism as a quality by itself and if you look at the early works of most 20th century artists, they were quite able to do academic drawings.
In reading Fred Ross’s comments on the ARC website and the John Nutt “open letter,” it is difficult to avoid a distinct image brought to mind: that of two trains passing in the night. What is in dispute is not merely a question of technique but of first philosophical principles.
The result is that more often than not Ross and Nutt are not even speaking the same language.
Mr. Nutt makes this clear at the outset by disputing what he perceives as ARC’s “narrow definition of education” and, we must presume, of art as well. ARC seems to be guided by the classic, Aristotelian definition of both: art as imitation (mimesis) of reality (though this can be of action, not merely of persons), and education as the inculcation of virtue to enable man to realize his highest good. Nutt’s stance is clearly different: education is about “informing, enlightening, valuing and releasing the mind from the chains and restrictions of its environment.”
On its face this is somewhat nebulous even Aristotle might agree with this to the extent that he subscribed to (say) Plato’s parable of the cave as instructive of the role of education – but Nutt’s further exposition of art’s educational nature later on helps clarify just what he seems to mean by this. Art (like education) might well serve a political end for Aristotle; but in the end this is only a proximate virtue, always in service of a higher good and an ultimate truth. For Nutt, art, like education, is simply political. Man is shaped and in turn acts by group membership, and the ends of each group are assumed to be incompatible. One might even say “relative” save that there is clearly a privileging of the perspectives – and the goods – of some groups over others.
To take specific examples: Nutt rejects classical realist art as having “little practical use to a multicultural inner city art teacher.” Classicism is “elitist,” serving, presumably, the interests only (or mainly) of traditional power structures and groups. Realist art is bourgeois and patriarchal; modernist forms empower the Oppressed Other, be it ethnic, gendered, cultural, or class. It may well be that Nutt might allow some transcendence to modernist aesthetics, but it seems to be of a very limited degree, no matter how much exposition by the artist accompanies it. To the degree, of course, that art is not in fact presumed to be a container into which the observer pours his own meaning – meaning inevitably shaped by his social (and therefore political) formation.
All of this is well and good enough, if these positions really are irreconcilable, even for those who might concede (as I might) that ARC’s polemical position might compel a fighting position which might draw the boundaries of art – or certainly good art – too narrowly. Yet on his own terms, Nutt seems to evince little interest in his stated objective of dialectic. Realist academic art is rejected in strident terms and denied any value save a narrow and initial praxis of technique, such as Nutt learned at Slade. It’s elitist; patriarchal; classist; and (to borrow from Mark Vallen’s comments), Eurocentric. Black kids in the ‘hood can’t relate, you know. Before long Nutt is reduced to the disappointing but seemingly inevitable reductio ad Hitlerum – we are led to conclude that the path from Bougereau to the gas chambers is a fairly short one. Hitler, after all, hated Picasso as well.
In the end ARC stands convicted of adopting a philosophical position and defending it. That such might well be part of (or necessary premise for) any larger dialectic such as some might think is occurring in these exchanges seems lost on others, especially those refusing to concede anything but repulsive political ends to realist academic art. In other words, if there is narrow-minded dogmatism in the air, there does seem to be an awful lot of it going around.
In communications I’ve had with ARC and Brian Yoder, there is a typical argument made over and over again by them whehn challenged, which Mr. Yoder employs here. When faced with incontrovertable evidence for a validity and value of modern art, he responds by saying, “where is the argument” and acts like he doesn’t hear or read what is before him. Mr. Vallen makes perfectly simple and valid points, yet Mr. Yoder acts like the three blind mice, not seeing or hearing those simple points before him. It isn’t so bad to be narrow minded in their appreciation for art, so why can’t they just admit it? The work is of the highest artistic order in most cases, but be warned – discussions with ARC devotees go nowhere.
For those of you seeking a scholarly rebuttal of the Art Renewal’s claims, misdirections, and falsehoods, you might like to check my article at
http://www.gregscheckler.com/Texts/Questioning_CR.pdf
It’s long, footnoted, and contains a fairly full account of where Ross’s claims came from.
Many of the artists associated with the ARC are fantastic realist painters — in my opinion the ARC’s pitched diatribes do their art some harm.
I’ll admit it up front, or up top, that I’m a fan of the ARC, and have been for a couple of years when I first stumbled upon it. For many of us, it’s a breath of fresh art-air, after decades of laboring under the teachings and preachings of Modernism.
To all offended Moderns out there: look at it this way, your art-philosophy has “ruled the roost” for a hundred years or more; the ARC is a mere drop in the old Art-bucket; the anger and defensiveness some of you are feeling is a good thing – it means you finally recognize you’ve made it, that YOU are The [Art] Establishment, and that as such, are being challenged philosophically [sp-?] by a group of rebels who “aren’t going to take it [your definition of Art] any more!”
Hankering back to times past is hardly being a rebel, it’s more like recidivism.
Besides, it’s one of the fibs of the ARC that the traditional approach to art has been neglected and ignored; like everything, it depends where you look and where you study.
What I don’t understand about the ARC is their museum : since they refuse all forms of non-imitative art from post-impressionism onwards, based on the idea of a non-traditionnal technique, why then have works by Duccio or other Trecento painters? Why have works by El Greco, or by Frans Hals or even works by Monticelli? none of these painters worked in a “traditionnal” manner for their period. And then why on earth have paintings by Maurice Denis and not equivalent works by his contemporaries and colleagues like Bonnard, Vuillard or the Pont-Aven school who worked with the same ideals ? Why then have the late works by Turner? In that case why not show Picasso’s very classical Ingres-inspired paintings of the 20’s? Why have stylized romanesque Italian sculptures bu Bonnano da Pisa and not paintings by Chuck Close which correspond to very talented highly imitative painting?
Art can be both absolute glory and utter despair. We see both in these posts.
Regarding the subject of forum censorship, I was a participant in a forum discussion some time ago, in which Fred and Brian and other ARC administrators were also engaged. At one point, Fred inadvertently posted a note that he’d intended that only his ARC cohorts see, warning them to be vigilant because it appeared that a certain nefarious element (I don’t recall if it was impressionists or modernists — perhaps impressionable modernists) had infiltrated the forum. I responded, also by public post, that I wasn’t such a person but that I certainly would keep an eye out for them on his behalf. Fred was understandably embarrassed by his faux pas and wrote that he hadn’t intended his comments for public view.
I happen to have been trained at a 4-year atelier, dedicated to the tenets and practices of classical realism, so I was on the ARC bandwagon very early on. But that paranoid slip by Fred set off bells of warning and red lights flashing about the true agenda of the folks running the place. Seemingly less about art than protecting the investment value of privately-held works, ARC became irrelevant to me. I really hadn’t thought about it much until stumbling onto this site in a Google search for a related matter. It is little surprise to see that in the interim, ARC has apparently continued to use alienation as a form of education. It’s a real disappointment to me, as a practitioner in and champion of the kind of work the site is ostensibly about.
I think that there is enough room to have many forms of art much like music, it isn’t bad if someone likes it, I think the real debate should be about how to help artists in general; affordable housing, health insurance, lower tuition costs, more commissions for artists, better art programs in public schools…
Amen, Mike.
I’m not an artist, but my young daughter is studying to become a realist painter. What we need in the United States are more opportunities for artists–funding, support, and scholarship support for students. Because my daughter–a very bright student in high school–chose to study realism at an atelier in Italy instead of attending a university, she cannot get scholarships and other support through the US Dept. of Education. I would like to see this change. If a young artist is serious about becoming a realist painter, he or she should be eligible to receive US-based scholarships, and not be forced into the university system where he or she would most certainly receive a much watered-down version of the atelier training, if there was any encouragement at all in that area.
You know, I found truth to both sides of the argument. I do think, in general, that the visual arts has never really gotten the respect that is due. I actually wrote about this on my website (before even knowing about this controversy) http://www.kemal.ca if I could maybe get some feedback?
To be honest, I think both realist and modern artists deserve recognition for their works but there are reasons why both fall short of the expectations for each camp. It’s unreasonable to try and assume an imaginary throne for the visual arts. It has traditionally been difficult to be an artist and stamping your feet won’t really change anything. I think it is much more productive to find a common ground and recognize positive aspects rather than tearing another style or genre down.
I think once newer delivery systems take over, like digital, traditional styles always take a back seat. Just look at digital vs 35 mm photography. The times change, mediums change and so does taste. I think, perhaps, realist fanatics are mistaking changing trends as a personal attack upon them. I doubt realist art will EVER become obsolete and the victim of an alleged conspiracy. There are limitations to every art form and to pretend realism is boundless and perfect in the face of so many other styles is arrogant. Having said that, people should try to give realism it’s due. Even if visual arts have generally become a cheap commodity in our time.
You all talk like sible rivalries.Listen art is art, an expression of what you want other men to see as you see it. All art movements are an extension of one another. No two people see alike. Some men are meat eaters others are veggie eaters, yet still others eat meat and vegetables. Is anyone less healthy than another? Did not God give each nation a different mind and language? Can we say that the English language is the best and all others are not? What is the point? Is not lanuage for communicating so people can understand each other.
Lets appreciate the beauty of forms express through all eyes, whether it be described or suggested, real or abstract,full or color or monochrome. We should have a feeling for all art, but all art is not accepted among all cultures. Some have their native art and have not been exposed to the outside world as such. But when they do their eyes are opened to another beauty not previous known. How did we learn about African, Chinese, or Pacific Islander, art except we visited their native countries or saw the examples in our museums. We then learned to appreciate other cultures of art. Instead of arguing who is the greatest, lets learn from all art, there is something there for all. Nature is the guide,but for us to depart from her from time to time.
The true and best artist and movement is God and His Son Jesus Christ and to those who do not believe in them then let Nature be the one.
When all is over, and you are on your dying bed will it matter then?
There is enough hatred in this world already, lets not add to it with trivial matters. Love all humanity,that is the purpose of love. Did God create all a certain race? Is not there variety in our human existence? God was smart,He did not say one race was above another.It was man who caused divisions. Use wisdom my friends, neither is one art, or movement above another, its all diversified so all could enjoy. We live in a Democratic environment lets act like it, or at least approach it.
I copied this from the ARC faq:
Q: Aren’t you just advocating Nazism? After all, Hitler loved realist art.
No. Obviously. Hitler wore pants. Does that make anyone who wears pants is a Nazi too?
What Hitler knew (and Stalin too!) was that good art has the power to communicate with people in important ways and that what he called “degenerate art” didn’t. In that he was right about that even though he was horribly wrong about a host of other things. Hitler also used good artistic expression as a powerful tool to promote his Nazi viewpoint but it is the message, not the medium that was flawed.
________________________________________
I think this says it all about the so-called “art renewal center”
Many of the comments about my original letter to Fred Ross are based in misunderstanding of what I actually said – in the interests of clarity I would like to respond;
R Lender makes the point that myself and Fred Ross are talking two different languages, indeed we are. He uses the comparison between Plato and Aristotle to clarify the bases of the philosophical dispute, very interesting in its assumption but inaccurate in fact. The dispute is about the nature and scope of mimesis and its promotion as the foremost value in art education, not its actual existence in art.
ARC promotes realism (the depiction of nature) in art? I could never subscribe to the view that Bouguereau, Alma Tameda (et al) are realists, whose first concern is mimesis. Representational yes, realist no! They are propagandists for 19th century bourgeois Victorian values that have little relevance today. But their work is as artificial, contrived and as arty as Otto Dix or George Grosz. Similarly I would never argue that inner city students cannot relate to classicism or any other form of art, simply that many of their techniques are irrelevant to the use of photo-shop. I made an argument that anyone who presumes to prescribe the content of the art that I or anyone should regard as most significant is working to an agenda. Critics tell me what to think all the time precisely because they are paid to do so by the market. If art criticism was of no us, it would not exist. Anyone else who has an art agenda like ARC is bound to be suspect. Listen to the top link here ; http://www.friezeartfair.com/podcasts/
The statement that such a debate is dogmatism, to quote (if there is narrow minded dogmatism in the air, there does seem to be an awful lot of it going around). This is both disingenuous and irrelevant. The content of any national curriculum in art is crucial and in the UK Public (i.e. Private or fee paying schools) are not required by law to follow the state prescribed national curriculum – Why should this be so?). Precisely because the privileged class are capable of their own decisions about what constitutes art but the pupils in state schools have to be told what is and is not art. Art educators in the UK used to prescribe their own art history content, they no longer do so. Why? Because it is now prescribed in the National curriculum. Does R Lender believe that this was not a political decision? That art is not being used in the service of the state? My argument is with those who would wish to promote classicism as the key to all art education, and anyone who would use any other art content to the same ends e.g Hitler. This is not dogmatism. It’s an argument that was never allowed to happen in UK art education. To quote Wittgenstein; “ The words we call expressions of aesthetic judgment play a very complicated role, in what we call a culture or a period. To describe their use or what you mean by a cultured taste, you have to describe a culture. What we now call a cultured taste didn’t exist in the middle ages. An entirely different game is played in different ages.” My argument is that the game belongs to the players, teachers and students and not the agenda promoters like ARC.
The ARC is so polarizing. While I love the art it presents and the ease of looking up painters, I’ve gotten tired of the agenda. Why not just say, “Hey, we like this, you might too?” and leave it at that? Why does there always have to be politics?
I took your advise and read several of the articals and found that Mark Vallen’s comment is one sided but that is waht makes this a great country, Freedom of thought and speech. An old cliche’ is probably the best in this case,(Beauty is in the eye of the beholder). I was totally discusted by the lamb cut in half and even more discusted that someone bought it. I have to agree with Bougreau that some of the art I have seen is unfinished art, no more no less. Some of the art today is totally outstanding while some needs more work but again the old cliche’ works.
On fascism :- the Nazi party committed grave atrocities however they also were the first movement to campaign against smoking and promoted public health. overall their ideology was based on purity unfortunately they applied it to race.
So 19th century art supports the upper classes. I suppose the everyday person could afford a Picasso or now days a D hurst or T Emin although to be fair all of us can afford a pile of rubish (it occurs naturally if you don’t tidy up for a couple of weeks (student life)) or an unmade bed. If this is art for the common man why does the common man need convincing that this is art. On the other hand slavish adherence to strict forms locks art into stasis and to neglect the impressionist seems…. Much of modern art seems to require justification and explanation (or specific education)to achieve any form of acceptance for which like maths should provide a universal language.
P.S cynicism is often mistaken for cleverness
also i have only recently stumbled across the ARC and haven’t really had the chance to flick through all the rants and other materials.
Hmmm…
This conversation will never be over, and while I accept this, I feel relentlessly drawn to post my own view.
There are far too many standpoints to take in contemporary society: different people standing behind different ideas and belief systems. Hasn’t history shown that this doesn’t work? Two parties with opposing worldviews will never shake hands.
Perhaps the perception that has changed it is consideration of creativity and “uniqueness”. The early 1900s saw the beginning of both “the penny press” and photography and inevitably the progression towards mass communication and globalization. The individual begins to feel small, insignificant needing a voice, realism had been taken over by photography, so artists begin looking inwards, taking the role of philosopher rather than illustrator. We start looking for “personal voice” and subjective expression promoting content and context over depiction.
All movements of the 1900s were reactionary, competing against its predecessor, but ultimately relying on the past to propose a future. Realistic art has not left completely, just changed.
This said, there could be a million and one other reasons for the changes in art in the past century, but the standpoint of the ARC is doing quite the opposite than what it is proposing and then claiming no responsibility to its actions. The ARC is much like PETA, severely radical and catastrophic to its cause.
To say that the ARC is open to debate is ridiculous. If they were they would have a public forum for discussion. The most poignant indicator of their passive-aggressive one-sidedness is seen the titles of their articles: “Abstract Art: Not Abstract and Not Art”, “The Great 20th Century Art Scam”, etc.
The biggest fallacy to any media is what is said regarding the field of photography:
“A photographer can be more accurately said to ‘document’ something by showing the audience exactly what was there (when well done, he does this using some of the same techniques that an artist might such as composition, selecting contrast levels, etc.) rather than recreating what was there in light of an expressive goal which allows a great deal of freedom to adjust what is there and how it looks which is unavailable to the photographer. That being the case…”
There are different types of photography in the field – holy blanket statement. I would agree with this statement if it were referring to journalistic photography, but still only somewhat. Snap-snot photography is different, much like the doodle to drawing.
A fine-art photographer, or commercial photographer is very much about composition, contrast, light, colour, etc. And given the technology available and the use of studios photographers have the freedom to “adjust what is there and how it looks.” Please see Annie Leibovitz as point-and-case. Brian: if your position seems to be “consistently misunderstood” maybe you should listen and rethink your position.
“One common notion (spread throughout society in the 20th century) is that art cannot be defined, cannot be “limited” by definitions, and that anything that “expands the definition of art” is good. My perspective is directly contrary to this view, and I should point out that nobody has ever demonstrated that these strange notions about the definition of art are correct (or really even proposed a coherent argument to that effect). They have just repeated them billions of times with an air of authority that has beguiled many people into believing some very strange things. ” source
Common? How come I haven’t heard of this? Maybe include some third party references? Indeed, thanks for letting me know. The rest of the article is a great definition as it very true for both traditional and modernist art.
I don’t really have much else to say… This seems to be a battle initiated by ARC that would not normally have no opposition, but in the language used to put their philosophy forward they convince us there is.
Modernity may have rejected the idea of traditionalism, post-modernity does not, your argument is a bit late…
Peace, and Love.
The truth is, that the only reason the ARC exists to begin with, is that Fred Ross, the founder, wants his own personal collection of paintings to be worth more money. So he created the ARC in order to promote Bouguereau and some other artists. Thats the whole story.
There was a certain legitimate anxiety about the suppression of realistic art over the last sixty years or more. Certainly as a young man I felt the restraint within the art community to avoid realistic painting.
But Fred Ross , with the help of Brian Yoder have simply turned into the very same monster facing the other way. But art is not their motivation. Neither of them are artists, and know very little of what drives an artist to make art.
I have nothing against Fred Ross jumping up and down about how much he loves Bouguereau’s paint. Great, have at it. But guys like Fred Ross and Brian Yoder are ideologues who’s tactics have more in common with fascism than anything else.
It reminds me of The National Socialist policies on culture and race going back to 1929, when Alfred Rosenberg, a leading Nazi spokesperson on art and culture formed the Combat League for German Culture to protect the beauty ideal of the Aryan race.
As a realist painter who finds great value and influence from the avant garde movement, I’m extremely saddened by the idea that after all these years of fighting to legitimize representational art within the greater art community, people like Fred Ross and Brian Yoder start throwing out the baby with the bath water.
A very sad state of affairs !
Hello all,
Our company had a 18 months working relationship with the ARC and Fred Ross. We are now preparing a report detailing this experience, a report which we will publish here and elsewhere within the next few weeks.
Has the ARC ever heard of Alexandra Nechita? She is an abstract cubist painting prodigy, a truly amazing artist. She began painting abstract cubism without being influenced by anything or anyone: it came from within her. She rejected realism from the start because she said realism was unable to allow her to truly express herself.
Her work is absolutely amazing and most of what you can find online were completed before she turned 20.
How would the ARC respond to Miss Nechita? Is she really simply talentless, a production of the great 20th century art scam even though she began painting abstract cubism spontaneously?
I love both classical realism and modern works. I am able to paint both but prefer to paint modern art for the same reasons as Miss Nechita.
SLK
in your view, Alexandra Nechita’s work is amazing. In my view, errr… I don’t like it.
Whenever I visit the ARC website I feel like I’m inside a Lennie Riefenstahl film from the 30’s.
Did you notice that Fred Ross’ company is called “Allied Old English” ? It reminds me the name of a local far right movement in my state.
Alexandra Nechita is definitely overmarketed but that doesn’t make her any less talented. Thomas Kinkande is overmarketed but he is still talented.
I find it strange that you state that all she did was copy art she saw in books onto huge canvases when that isn’t the case at all. Technically, all realist painting is copied from somewhere, such as photographs and books, so I can say that all of my realist paintings are something I’ve simply copied from a book, which is definitely true; my realist paintings are more like photographs that take me months to complete. I find her paintings to be imaginative and they definitely have a childlike charm to them since she started so young.
If I could paint realism like I do today at age 9 I would’ve been considered a “prodigy,” I suppose. I really don’t buy the excuse that any 9 year old could paint like she did. I have yet to see a good example…I definitely think that “abstract art prodigies” are a complete scam, but Nechita is a different breed.
Are “Akaine” or other such realist painters more of a “prodigy” to you than Nechita? Or do you think all prodigies are a marketing scam? I know a musical prodigy and she is definitely not a scam and her parents never “pushed” her; she has genuine passion. All she does is play complicated piano pieces better than most college students at age 8 and she has musicality.
I’ve read Nechita’s writing about her art and it doesn’t sound fake, although it definitely could be. She sounds like she has vision and passion. Maybe it’s all a marketing plot.
Nevertheless, I, and many others, still enjoy her art. And I still prefer making modern art over realism.
TK’s “paintings” are computer generated. I think that in the dictionary, next to the definition of Kitch, there is a photo of him.
Personally I’m boycotting any artist or company which is related to the ARC. I know at least ten others who are doing the same, including a friend who canceled his participation in a masterclass after he discovered that it was advertised on their website.
SKL – to me a true child prodigy is one who shows a remarkable ability to think aesthetically and reflectively about what they create on a level that would be expected of a seasoned adult – Alexandra Nechita aint one of those artists. And I find your loose definition of a good realist artist interesting. I don’t consider anyone who simply apes what they find in books or photos a dynamic artist and certainly not a child prodigy unless for instance they were completing perfect copies of artworks at age 3 or 5, that would demonstrate a tremendous grasp of “technique” for a very young underdeveloped person but pass that age I’d expect some form of deeper thinking and originality.
As to Alexandra Nechita’s “vision and passion” now, she’s an adult so …meh. The work to me as it has always been, is unremarkable. Not because its abstract (I am a Rothko, Motherworth fan) but because it just really isn’t that dynamic.
Guess I just don’t throw the prodigy label around loosely.
As for Kinkade, he’s a crafty business man and I’ll leave that over-beaten horse at that.
Guy – I’m with you. I will not patronize any artist or organization that closely aligns itself with Ross and his ilk (no more Oil Painters of America for me). Broke my heart to learn that several particular artists who I had long admired including an African American (make sure you read how lowly Ross and Brian regard any form of none-white culture on ARC’s philosophy pages)had participated in the arc annual salon. To me it just shows how thirsty the realism community is for a strong annual competition that provides purses that reflect the level of skill and time that is dedicated to their work.
I just examined the ARC website and found it to be very interesting.
It is refreshing to see realist painting get the respect it deserves.
Dear Naomi,
Most Realist artists understand that Fred Ross is a liability. It is just that until recently no other person or group of people would step up to the challenge and create a new home for us Realists. But as I understand this is now changing, I hear talks of a new organization which will be announced soon. Either Fred Ross will step down, or most of us will break off and join the new organization.
I, too, have very strong, very mixed reactions to ARC. I appreciate ARC’s emphasis on strong drawing and painting skills. My work is realistic and I was trained in classical drawing via my first art class at a community college. This classical training is, to me, the core or foundation of my work. Nevertheless, I found that while the artists promoted at the ARC site were technically near flawless, stylistically the work is very homogeneous. It looks as if the artists are interchangeable, or that the same handful of artists are generating all the work. I find that all the various artist ’society’ and ‘workshop’ driven type work tends to be characterized by this kind of inbrededness and homogeneity. ARC work generally tends to a lack individual technical interpretation. Much of the work looks oddly frozen, the painted figures look like statuary, the portraits are too often emotionless and mask-like, and there is little feel for the beauty and sensitivity of expressive toolmarks. I also find the written material at the ARC to border on polemic, and I don’t think fostering an ‘us vs. them’ mentality is helpful in the long run. There is room in the world for a full spectrum of art.
I always thought that ARC is a huge satire, because most of the ‘art’ is obviously kitchy and a bit inane.
Especially the academic ‘masters’ in the 19th century were enslaved to there canvas in there locked ateliers with no contact to the real world. When you try this now in the information an media age it will happen again.
I love irony.
By the way, i will join a small Basquiat show this evening. What a great painter.
Cheers to the ARC!
I have no problem with ARC, as long as there is truth in advertizing. They are Bouguereau. They are Nelson Shanks.
They are not Michelangelo, Raphael, El Greco, Titian, Degas or even Sargent. As an author and instructor at the Smithsonian, I am far more interested in the creative (and more advanced) classical realist techniques. Still, Bouguereau is not the problem with ARC. His pictures are very pretty. The problem is the sight-size drawing method worshiped by ARC members. They appear to just prefer the laborious copying of what they see, closing their minds to growth in other directions.
(one more Vallen fan)
Trink Margua Simons: “…The problem is the sight-size drawing method worshiped by ARC members. They appear to just prefer the laborious copying of what they see, closing their minds to growth in other directions…”
I have to agree. I see few indications that there is an appreciation for the “voice of the materials,” or realization that you don’t have to tell the whole ’story,’ and if you’re taking months to do a painting or a drawing, you are as Whistler believed, taking a given medium well beyond where it should go. I still think a good classical foundation is where students should begin, but it shouldn’t be the destination.
Albert – what is the name of this soon to be announced organization? do tell.
I wanted to mention that the International Guild of Realism and Beinart International Surreal Art Collective are two decent art clubs worth investigating (though the work on Bein may scare some of you more traditional folks).
–”Most Realist artists understand that Fred Ross is a liability. It is just that until recently no other person or group of people would step up to the challenge and create a new home for us Realists”–
…Sort of how the Taliban, Neo-Nazis and Bloods and Crips recruit – lack of availability of healthier alternatives?
Me, I rather just not be bothered than to toss my moral convictions on the pyre of convenience. Really, anyone that views this ARC with any form of affection should read and reread the philosophy pages and then seriously ask yourself if you are willing to support these peoples’ agenda. Personally I felt sick to my stomach after reading that anachronistic vitriol. Its as if Yoder, Ross and Co. stepped out of a colonial-era time warp.
Naomi – eloquently stated.
Beinart International Surreal Art Collective is interesting, although it would be nice to see artists expressive message vary a bit more. Still, I like many of them.
International Guild – ug. As with so many others,I see talented artists doing superficial academic technique. Too much accuracy, too much David, too much Bouguereau, too much American naïve. Not enough Renaissance, not enough Rubens, not enough Vermeer, not enough creativity in the realism, not enough high end technique. It is as if the only techniques worth learning came after the 1600’s. As if the finest figurative painter to ever live was Poussin, and he really wasn’t all that good.
I am not pyre tossing, but after one final (and probably futile) attempt to bury sight-size, I am out. The ARC empire is too big for me. My head hurts, the wall is bloody and the sand looks nice and cool. If anyone wants to move past accurate realism, read the book.
I think we can all agree that Fred Ross is a bit of a nutter, and he comes across as very extreme through many of his writings/speeches.
However, he pretty much needs to be a nutter, considering how important his cause is and how badly the Modernists treated classical art, particularly the Victorian academic artists like Bouguereau. The stronger the opression, the stronger the reaction, really.
And for all those who keep saying that the subject matters of these paintings are irrelevant to modern society/unrealistic/silly sentimentalism etc…
We don’t like much of modern society. That’s the point, really.
tamchronic, the real problem with ARC is that much of the art *is just not that good.*
In order to understand the ARC message, one needs to be familiar with the so-called Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand and those who promote it as their adopted world view. It’s basically her/their “philosophy of art” including the familiar dogmatic tone, phrases, key words, etc. A renewal of realism seems very significant to me, but the Randroids may be more hindrance than help.
The bottom line–for me, anyway: I put no art through a philosophical ‘litmus test.’ The only criterion that matters: the results. Art of all styles or philosophies sometimes fail and sometimes pass on this measure.