Avila

"A while back, I remember hearing that there was a political ad going around in his state basically saying that he has to choose between Ayn Rand and Jesus. He can't have both." That is certainly true, but it does not necessarily follow that such an either/or choice IS the only possible outcome. It's not a necessary choice. Perhaps Ryan (like myself) finds some aspects of Rand's philosophy appealing and reasonable, but not all of it. Certainly her novels point out some essential truths (it is wrong to forcibly take from productive Peter to give to mediocre Paul, for example), but I don't see why one is compelled to accept the concepts lock, stock, and barrel. To admire parts of her philosophy, parts that do not conflict with one's whole worldview, while rejecting those that do not -- I don't see that as impossible.

This is very interesting -- I happened to see your earlier posts and see your earlier work, and I was going to advise you to look into an atelier for some solid training, as you needed improvement in a number of areas, but especially in the areas of figure work and values. And now that I finally got to your last entry, I see your work has improved dramatically -- because you are going to an atelier! Congratulations....I have my own atelier, and it is always enjoyable to see how students improve in leaps and bounds when given the proper kind of instruction.

"Avila, when you give your critique, please identify the standards that you'll be using to judge the art, and explain how and why you chose those standards, and why they should apply to my art." I'll apply the standards I employ when evaluating the work of prospective and current students. And I'll send my critique to DonAthos via private message, as I've grown tired of your ignorant remarks regarding atelier teaching methods and your childish personal flings. You'll just have to imagine....

"@Avila: what do you find specifically lacking in this painting, which you attribute to Jonathan's use of (or rather, reliance on) photography? What changes do you desire made, and how would those changes make this work better?" DonAthos, We have guests visiting this weekend and staying overnight, so I won't be able to answer until Sunday evening or Monday. But I would be glad to give a critique of Jonathan's piece -- I will approach it as I would any student's work, pointing out the good as well as the not so good. I think it would be best if I can compare and contrast this with artwork that has a similar theme, but is better executed. I really am a bit of a Luddite, so I doubt I can post images of the pieces I have in mind that can best illustrate the deficiences I see in Jonathan's work -- I might be reduced to posting the URL of particular images. Bear with me...

"Well, "dependency" is kind of a scary word, because it suggests that the artist would be limited in his means of expression." That is exactly what I am suggesting. The dominance of modernism in art schools has led to poor training, leaving otherwise talnted individuals lacking in basic skills. To draw an analogy from music: if a person aspires to become a professional pianist playing classical music in concert halls, then one spends years -- often doing fairly boring repetive exercises -- to acquire basic skills. If, however, the dominant culture in music held that such training was stifling, and unnecessary anyway, as whatever a musician produced on the piano was going to be music no matter what it sounded like, then that person would likely find it difficult to find the necessary training to achieve his goals. "But then I take it that you see nothing wrong with an artist choosing to base a work off of a photograph for some select reason? (As opposed to doing so because he isn't skilled otherwise; feels that he has no choice.)" Yes, there's nothing inherently "wrong" about that. "Because it occurs to me that we're not necessarily interested with the impact of a scene on the artist, are we? We're primarily interested in that which the artist can convey through his own art." The two are inextricably connected -- when you admire a well-done landscape or some other subject (including those drawn entirely from the artist's imagination), you are seeing what inspired the artist in the first place. Even when trying to render a figure exactly as an exercise, the individuality of the artist comes through -- for example, when my students are working from the nude, I can tell who drew which drawing, despite their only trying to render the figure accurately (it's an exercise in rendering accurately, not in creativity). If you give the same students a photograph of a nude and ask them to render it exactly, the drawings will lose much (not all....) of their individuality. Why? I'm not entirely sure -- I suspect it has to do with the role of the mind in selectively interpreting a three-dimensional figure versus a two-dimensional photograph. "if your goal was to learn to play that Requiem, would we insist that you listened to it exclusively in a concert setting? Would there be key information lost, for the purpose of your learning to play it, if you chose to study the recording instead?" That I don't know -- I was speaking about the experience of "the real thing" versus a reproduction of it. "Your charge, then, is that Jonathan not only uses photography, but that he is dependent on it?" Yes -- I can see the effects on his work. "What are these "certain qualities" that can only be attained thus?" Again, it depends upon what one's objectives are, but here are a few: Sensitivity to edges (lost and found edges), which is particularly important in still-life and figure work. Sensitivity to color -- this goes across the board, but is especially noticeable in landscape work and in flesh tones (although in the case of the latter, many artists in the past employed conventions as opposed to actual color. The impressionists of the late 1800s were concerned with actual color). Sensitivity to values -- one of the characteristics of artists who rely too heavily upon photography is the flattening out of values, with a preponderance of mid-tones. "I can't imagine anyone arguing that an artist wouldn't want to have sound training in rendering figures." Yes, but it is hard to find serious training in modern colleges and art academies. It's not entirely absent -- when I went to the Mpls. College of Art and DEsign, there was some figure drawing -- but it is not very intensive, and often there is little or no real instruction or correction. I have had students who received degrees in art from a variety of colleges who felt they learned nothing of value -- lots of horror stories there. "Though I'm unsure that every artist in fulfilling his vision, even of portraying ancient literature, will necessarily wish to render his figures in an anatomically faithful way, if that is partly your implication." I agree with you, and would emphatically NOT imply anything to the contrary. But the basic training is necessary to do anything: if a pianist wishes to improvise on a theme from Beethoven, he's not going to be able to do it very well if he is unable to play Beethoven -- or anyone else -- faithfully to begin with. If, in his formative years, he had nothing but music teachers who did not correct his playing when he played the wrong notes for fear of stifling his creativity, or out of contempt for old-fashioned ideas of teaching, he wouldn't likely progress very far. I have to run -- I will answer the rest of your post later.

"But okay. Is Avila's contention that photography is a lesser visual medium than painting?" No, not at all. I know quite a few artist photographers (Jim Brandenburg, for example -- I have spent time with him at Ravenwood). But they don't pretend to be painters, which is the subject here. "Or is it that a painter cannot make a good painting based on a photograph?" That depends.....photography is a legitimate tool for painters. The difficulty arises when the artist is too dependent upon photography, which shows in the artist's work. "If we're discussing painting from a photograph, then doesn't the painter still need to... look at the photograph? And at that point, can't he make any artistic determinations he needs as though he were still on site?" Yes, of course the artist is looking at the photograph. But when recording the emotional response of the human brain to the beauty of the visual world, I ask you, what has more impact? The immediate experience, or a mechanical recording of it? Not that a skilled artist can't use both to express his response to visual beauty -- but it does take skill. Let me make an analogy: I have twice heard Mozart's Requiem Mass played in concert, in a church. The music seemed to float down from above -- it was glorious. I purchased a recording of the one of the performances I attended. It is wondeful to hear, but it is a pale shadow of the actual experience. "I guess I don't understand how using a photograph for reference is supposed to be limiting." It doesn't have to be. It can be a useful tool: the problem arises when it becomes a crutch. "In any event, I don't see how it would necessarily make paintings based on sight better than those based on photography, or vice-versa, whichever happens to provide the most information. Is the quality of a painting simply down to its fidelity to a real-life scene? I wouldn't think so." Yes and no -- first of all, it depends upon what one's objectives are -- there are certain qualities that can only be attained by painting from life, but those might not be important to the artist's objectives. What Jonathan seems to be unable to grasp is that the atelier is NOT a "system" that determines subject or method, but rather is a proven training ground wherein the artist develops the necessary skills that will help him express his artistic vision, whatever that might be. If one is portraying a theme from ancient literature (something from the Iliad, for example, or Dante), then obviously it's not a question of "fidelity to a real-life scene". However, a sound training in rendering figures will be invaluable. "I guess, given the premise that photography routinely limits certain detail/information in a predictable fashion, that a person could begin to see similarities in paintings based on photos (in that they would characteristically lack those same sets of details)... but like most stereotyping, I'd still be careful when judging a given work." I agree with your caveats, but over the course of many years I have come to see the distinctive mark of being overly dependent upon photography. Jonathan can sneer at this and attribute it to my lack of skill as a photographer (since I have never posited myself as a photographer, and photography isn't a big factor in my own work, I really don't care), but it has been clear enough to see in the work of prospective students. Jonathan's blusters about the capabilities of photography is meaningless -- as a teacher, I have seen the result of would-be artists relying too heavily upon photographs, with some prospective students who could work from a photograph fairly well being completely at sea when trying to draw what was in front of them. What can I say -- the marks are there. Let me put it this way: whom would you recognize more as a master of chess -- the man who has it all in his head, or the man who has found a cool computer program (which he did not invent) that has it all? What requires more skill -- to trace a photograph, or work on location, the editing done by one's brain?. " I mean, how would you know for certain that detail X being left out of the painting was on account of detail X's not being visible (due to working form a photograph) as opposed to being a conscious choice of representation on the part of the painter, whether working from real life, a photo, or from the imagination?" Your confusion is one result of modernism - after all, if everything an artist spits is art, then who can one possibly say that this particular inept rendering of the human form is deliberate, or intentional?

"You left out C. -- is clearly ignorant of subjects on which he poses as an authority." OK, so let me get this straight -- an artistic movement that is concerned with standards of craftsmanship and excellence, which employs teaching methods that have been proven of value to aspiring artists over hundreds of years, is reduced by you down to people whom, you claim, are ignorant of subjects that they claim to be authorities on, who attended an atelier, and who disagree with the tenets of modernism (they "drank the hand-squeezed lemonade", as you put it.) You also claim that this movement is dead, despite the contrary -- the movement is clearly growing, with ever-increasing numbers of aspiring artists wanting to learn methods and tools that will help them realize their artistic vision. More ateliers open each year. On what basis would you call that dead? You simply disagree with them, that's all. I don't consider myself a "Classical Realist" -- I don't like the term, frankly -- but I am encouraged to see so many people reject the laughable pretensions of the modernist crowd. If you and others like it and see value on it, hey, it's no skin off my back -- you go right ahead. But at least the stranglehold that modernism has had over the last several decades is beginning to loosen. More freedom for all, I say... By the way, I did answer your other post but the moderator rejected it.

"The normativity of Oist conception of art is still being missed here. The "what might be and OUGHT to be". It's the OUGHT to be that motivates Mrs Rands claims." "What might be and what ought to be" is valid as an expression of Ms Rand's personal tastes and preferences. But it is incomplete and too narrow to serve as a "conception of art".

"Your point was that there are "limitations of the camera in regard to values and color" The camera does not record information in the same way that the human eye/mind combination does. This is going to affect values and color, regardless of the capabilities of the camera to record the same or more colors and values than the human eye can. And that is a limitation if an artist relies too heavily upon photography. Nothing you have said about your expertise in photography or the capabilities of the camera negates that -- a machine is a machine, not a human mind, and is incapable of duplicating the myriad and entirely personal processes by which we are moved by the visual world. This is not to say that photographers cannot be excellent artists in photography -- but a painter who relies heavily upon photography, whether taken by professionals or by amateurs, is shortchanging his work. "So, your new uninformed-expert theory is that humans cannot selectively use photography to capture and/or express emotion?" Obviously they can and they do. My comments have to do with a PAINTER relying heavily upon photography as his main source of reference, not with the work of photographers. "Have you never heard the quite common criticism of artists who paint only from life that their figures look posed, staged and lifeless in comparison to photos? Are you not aware of the fact that posing a model for hours on end and painting only what one sees is the reason that so many life paintings have dour or expressionless faces?" First off, painting "only from life" can be a valid technique if one is so inclined, though certainly other methods have always been used by the great artists. As for "dour and expressionless faces" -- like those of Velasquez? John Singer Sargent? William McGregor Paxton? Renoir? Bouguereau?

"On this thread, I've generally been using the term "Classical Realist" to mean those who have attended Classical Realist ateliers and have drank the hand-squeezed lemonade (remember, Kool-Aid is just too damned shockingly modernist for such ateliers)." So, in other words, a "Classical Realist" is someone who: A. -- attended an atelier; and B. -- disagrees with you. Yet I know of many realist painters who didn't attend an atelier (some actually endured the modern art school), but who nevertheless reject modernism and its tenets. So, would they be considered "clasical realists", even though some might not have even heard the term? "I mean the people who have largely been motivated by their own personal limitations and biases, as well as the absolute certainty of their own brilliance, to avoid learning anything that they don't already know and agree with." But since you've never attended an atelier, how do you claim to know about any self-described "classical realist's" motivations, self-confidence, or openness to learning? Do you think you're omniscient, knowing the thoughts and aspirations of people you haven't even met? You don't like to think that there are artists out there (whether "Classical Realists" or not) who reject the tenets of modernism, who laugh at its pretensions.

"Seriously, are you not aware of the fact that cameras have controls that are adjustable, and that people with human minds can use these adjustable controls to selectively limit or increase the amount of light that enters the camera? Might I suggest that you read about high dynamic range imaging, including its history prior to digital cameras? Personally, I think that I first used non-digital HDR techniques in about 1984 or 1985, combining the use of bracketed slide film with sets of orthochromatic negatives and positives for tone mapping. And here we are in 2012 and you've never heard of any of this?!!!" None of the technological advances in photography negate my main point: the human eye/mind combination cannot be duplicated by a mere machine. There is no emotion, no subconscious selection, etc.. An image can be manipulated by a human, but nevertheless it is a machine recording visual data, not a human being experiencing the visual world. "No, photography does not have limitations in comparison to the eye." Are you claiming, then, that the camera is emotionally moved and inspired by the visual world?? "As I've said repeatedly, it can capture more than the human eye can see!" And a hawk can see greater detail at greater distances than the human eye -- so what? It doesn't experience visual phenomena like a human being, nor can a mere machine like the camera. "No, I think what you're seeing is artwork created by someone who has much more knowledge of visual arts techniques than you do, perhaps including perspective techniques that you may have never been taugh, and who therefore has a visual vocabulary that is more informed and selective than yours." You go ahead and think that, if it helps your self-esteem. But you STILL haven't answered some basic questions -- are you avoiding them? Here they are again: define "Classical Realism" -- this would make the fourth or fifth time I've asked. And tell me, again, why a painting of yours would be superior, or more sophisticated, than one painted by someone calling themselves a "Classical Realist"? If "everything an artist spits is art", according to a famous modern artist, then on what basis would you condemn Classical Realists? Are they not artists? (By the way, I don't consider myself a "Classical Realist".)

"Sorry if you find the truth to be insulting, but your inabilities as a photographer are not universal. My telling you that I and others can capture on film what the eyes sees, where you admit that you can't, is not intended as an insult." The camera is a machine, not a human mind. It cannot record information in the same manner as the human eye/mind combination. It has limitations -- perhaps an analogy would be the comparison between human thinking and computer "thinking" : there are functions that the computer can do more quickly and easily than the human mind. But it is not human, and its "thinking" is not merely a mechanized human mind. "Despite what I've said on this thread, you still believe that your personal limitations when using a camera are the medium's limitations, don't you?" Despite what you've said on this thread, I can recognize the marks of someone relying heavily on photography for their painting. And no, I have never said -- or believe -- that my "personal limitations when using a camera are the medium's limitations" -- my personal limitations regarding photography aren't involved. " I haven't attended any Classical Realist ateliers, but I get the impression that many who have attended them might see the plotting-out of a scene in proper perspective as something akin to a sin." Hardly -- your impression is inaccurate. Ateliers merely train the eye via methods that have been successful for hundreds of years. What any individual artist does with that training (consider it a tool box that the artist can draw upon) is dependent upon his inclinations and aspirations. Plotting out a painting is simply a good idea, no matter what the subject. The "acceptable," "valid" and "pure" way to paint appears to be sight-size only, even if it results in inferior art." Sight-size is merely one method. It does not result in "inferior art" -- inferior art is the result of infoerior artists, no matter what particular method or tool they are using. Obviously if an artist is inclined to paint pictures from his imagination, then sight-size isn't used at all. You really don't know what you're talking about. "So, I ask again, is it common at Classical Realist ateliers to look down one's nose at plotting out a painting in true perspective rather than sight-sizing it? Is it considered "cheating" or otherwise beneath the aesthetic purity of painting directly from life?" Nope. Let me ask you again: define "Classical Realism" -- this would make the third or fourth time I've asked. And tell me, again, why a painting of yours would be superior, or more sophisticated, than one painted by someone calling themselves a "Classical Realist"? If "everything an artist spits is art", according to a famous modern artist, then on what basis would you condemn Classical Realists? Are they not artists?

"You're still assuming that I must be as inept at photography as you are, and therefore I'm lying and being "defensive" when I tell you that I did not copy a photograph? Hilarious." There's no need to be insulting -- really, calm down. Clearly I touched a nerve, but since you are favorably disposed to modernism, I can't see why: if, as a famous modern artist asserted, that everything an artist spits is art, then I don't see why you should care whether you use spit or copy a photograph. " And I do think that you probably have reason to be defensive about my speculations. As I said earlier, if you're who I think you are, I understand why you won't post samples of your work." If it makes you feel better to imagine that I am an inferior artist, you just go ahead -- somehow I'll find a way to live despite it. But your comments about Classical Realism are as equally revealing: you choose to deride the movement, declare it dead (despite it thriving), make snide comparisons to an Amish community, or declare there are errors in perspective by some of the artists (I'm sure there are -- not all artists are equal. And it's easier to get perspective right by copying a photograph than it is by sight-size.). Feeling a bit defensive, aren't you? Nor have you defined "Classical Realism", or explained why a painting of yours would be superior, or more sophisticated (non-Amish). Since, according to modernism, everything an artist spits is art, then on what basis would you condemn those artists? Are they not artists?

"Hi Avila, I had responded to your post above by borrowing something that you had said to me in this post, but the moderators deleted my post. For some reason I'm not allowed to say to you exactly what you've said to me. Apparently it's perfectly reasonable when you call me a liar by claiming to know better than I do which techniques I used when painting an image that you did not see me paint, but it's viciously insulting when I take the same approach to your assertions about who you are or are not." There's a difference: you might have reason to be defensive about relying on photography for your paintings (again, not inherently a problem, as long as the artist knows the differences between how the eye and how the camera views things, otherwise there are characteristics that appear -- which I see in your work). I have no reason to be defensive about your speculation about my work -- I am only pointing out that you have the wrong guy, as I don't have photos of the kind you mention anywhere online. Since I have no idea who it was that you thought I was, I have no reason to be defensive. So the moderators correctly saw your response as unnecessarily hostile.

"I didn't say that any of the pictures that I saw were on that site." There aren't any pictures such as you describe -- my work next to what I'm working from -- on any site.

"And that's also true of what I've seen of Avila's work (I'm now 99% sure that I know who he is)." Jonathan, you mentioned seeing my paintings next to what I am painting from. That isn't me --- there aren't any pictures like that of my work on that site. Scout's honor. So you've got the wrong guy. My atelier is listed on that site as well.

"An artist need not project the world "as it might and ought to be." That's only Rand's description of what Romanticism does, and art need not be Romantic to qualify as art by Objectivist criteria." "Naturalism is not just copying what one observes. That's only Rand's personal opinion of what Naturalism is. But, anyway, even if we accept the premise that Naturalism is just copying what one observes, it still would qualify as art according to Objectivism. Rand herself categorized Naturalism as a type of art." "But you can't know what Larson saw if you haven't personally seen the setup that he staged, or a photo of it, and therefore you don't know how much he may have altered and enhanced in his paintings. I've never seen an artist who did not enhance what he saw in one way or another." Good heavens, Jonathan -- I'm actually going to agree with you 100% here. Unless someone copies a photo verbatim, I don't think it's even possible for an artist's personal interpretation to not play a role. Case in point: when my students draw from the nude, they are trying to draw the figure as accurately as possible. They aren't trying to produce a work of art -- they are doing an exercise to train their eyes to "see", and that is the sole purpose. They aren't trying to be creative or self-expressive, as the exercise is just that -- an exercise -- a means, not an end. But every drawing is entirely unique. I can go into the studio after they are finished, and without having seen who was sitting where in relation to the model, I can tell whose drawing I'm looking at by the individual personal stamp that each student puts into his work -- and without even trying to. I saw the same thing time and time again in my own student days. "And that's also true of what I've seen of Avila's work (I'm now 99% sure that I know who he is)." Heh....my atelier is one of the ateliers shown at the ARC site -- have you guessed which one?

"I hate to agree with 13, given my views about him betraying art by siding with Kant and Pollock, but he is right about the relationship between art and the camera. An artist has to do much more than just copy reality verbatim -- he has to concretize an abstraction (an integration of multiple incidents of, say, seeing an apple) and he must project the world as it might be and ought to be." But I agree with that as well. I don't think highly of anyone copying a photo verbatim -- it takes some skill, yes, but is taking the artist away from the personal filter of his eyes. That's the point I was trying to make -- the mind does not record information the same way a camera does, but is selective. An artist who uses photos for reference needs to be aware of that. Romanticism is fine, too -- did you look at the Art Renewal Center site? I'm sure there are pieces there that you would appreciate, if that's what your personal taste prefers. Different artists are inclined and moved by different inspirations -- what Jeff Larson does is as legitimate as an equally talented Romanticist. "...he must project the world as it might be and ought to be. Copying just what one observes for one scene is naturalism, not romanticism, and I see that as one of the problems with Larson's still-lifes.They are very well done, especially the ones with the tea pot and how he expertly captured the reflection, giving solidity roundness to the painting. But if you noticed, most are as he saw it while painting them (because only his reflection is in it) and the bicycle and the tractor have rust spots on them, so it was probably a copy of what he was seeing at the time of painting." And I disagree emphatically that the artist must "project the world as it might be and ought to be". Still-life painting generally has, as its motivation, the artist loving the affect of light on different surfaces, showing how beautiful ordinary things are....those are legitimate inspirations for the artist who is inclined that way.

"I reckon Easter too was a way to piggyback on the Spring festival." No, it's scheduled according to the Jewish Passover.

"Guilt by association. The American revolution ended up with it's own holiday too, celebrating the 4th of July, and this place isn't some especially foul den of evil like those other things you mentioned." You're right....I was too hasty in my reply!! Upon further consideration, I retract my objection. "And how did the birth of Jesus come to be celebrated on December 25? And John the Baptist on June 24?" Primarily because of the symbolism: December 25 is close to the winter solstice. The days start to become longer, beginning a season of "light entering the world" -- Christ. The summer solstice falls near June 24, beginning a season of decreasing light, symbolizing John the Baptist, who said, "He must increase, but I must decrease". I have also seen some people link Christmas to December 25th by other means: counting nine months back from March 25th, the traditional date for the conception of Christ, and also by figuring out when Zacharias was serving in the Temple.

"Thinking about more than day-to-day trivialities is useful for disseminating good ideas. Making up holidays wouldn’t be so bad." This is exactly what the radicals of the French Revolution, the Soviets, and other Communist countries did and have done -- take the religious pattern of holidays and special events, and turn them into events that promoted their own dogmas. I have to say, there's a real queasiness I have in response to the suggestion that Objectivism follow that course. If the "good ideas" aren't appealing enough in themselves, then it's an elitist manipulation of the populace to "disseminate good ideas" by making holidays of them. Eioul, you and I actually agree more than we disagree on a lot of matters, but this is not one of them.

"Hmmm, let's see. I just did a search looking for the subjects on which you've been pontificating and pretending to be an expert. I think I've discovered who you are. And if you're who I think you are, I understand why you're not posting samples of your work." Good for you. And you will have no doubt noticed the number ateliers advertized on the site as well. So tell me, which atelier is mine? Surely you know...

Much of your response consists of stating how knowledgeable you are as a photographer -- curious, but OK. I'm a painter, not a photographer, and have never pretended otherwise. "Indeed, and there is quite a lot of artifice and kitsch there, along with some quite good art." Most of the work there is of a higher quality than what you have shown yourself capable of. But with some proper training, who knows? "It really is downright ridiculous that you believe that the lack of light and color in a painting could not possibly be intentional, but rather that it is proof of photographic copying." As an apologist for modernism, you can always state that anything in a painting (and especially any passages that appear clumsy or poorly composed or executed) is entirely intentional. Sweet. I can see the appeal of your position: you can happily paint from your photographs using realism, but at the same time reject any standards that one could use to criticize or correct any aspect, whether of color, form, or composition. Anyway, you haven't answered some basic questions that I asked above: how do you define "Classical Realism"? (And why do you declare it to be dead, when it is, in actuality, thriving -- with more ateliers opening every year? Wishful thinking, perhaps?) By what standard does one differentiate between Pollock at his best, and at his not-so-good? Can modern artists even have "good" or "bad" paintings? If, as a famous modern artist once asserted, "everything the artist spits out is art", then how does one determine "good" spit from "less good" spit? This has been fun, Jonathan. Why, you show just enough promise that you could apply to my atelier....I have some students that could show you what excellence really is. I'm sure you'd learn so much...

"Do you seriously not recognize that the painting is intended to present a combination of clarity and obscurity?!!!" Calm down -- you don't have to get so wound up. Of course I admire the combination of clarity and obcurity in any piece of well-executed art. However, there's a difference between "obscurity" and "don't know what to do here because the photograph isn't giving me the information I need". "Do you really not understand that artists intentionally avoid your rules and half-baked theories because they stifle creativity and expression, and because they tend to result in artifice and kitsch because the imposed rules are internally inconsistent with the thematic content of the microcosm within a work of art?" Again, if anyone wants to see what "rules" and "half-baked theories" produces, they can look at the "artifice and kitsch" here: http://www.artrenewal.org/ People can judge for themselves. "And if I'm bad at anatomy, why would you assume that I'd have to copy a photo? Wouldn't I draw just as poorly looking at reality as looking at a photo?" No. The difference in skill level required to draw well from a photograph and that required to draw well from life is huge. "You don't have any knowledge of modern composition, do you?" By which you mean to say, if one doesn't think there's much of value on a Pollock, one is ignorant. Well, that's handy for you, isn't it? It beats actually having to explain, for example, the difference between a "good" Pollock" and a "less good" Pollock. "....therefore you've never studied it, and that's why you can't recognize the unintentional modernist influence over your friend's work?" Actually, I have studied it. I spent time at the Mpls. College of Art and Design and had quite a regimen of it. Funny, though, my friend doesn't recognize the alleged "modernist influence" in his work either. " I noticed in your last post that you've stopped posing as an authority on photography because I called your bluff." I never posed as an authority of photography. To restate what I said earlier: I don't think one needs to be an authority on photography to be aware of the differences between how the eyes take in visual information and how a camera records it. I'm sure most people have had the experience of being moved by a particular scene, only to be disappointed at photographs taken of it. The human mind is selective: it takes in important details and ignores others. This is one reason why artists need to be careful when using photographs as reference. The same is true with focus -- with lost and found edges. Another reason is color -- there is usually a lot more color and light in shadow areas than what photographs show. " Is it because owning up to your complete lack of knowledge would be an admission that you've been obeying your masters and repeating the ridiculous misinformation that they had taught you out of their own ignorance?" "Obeying my masters"? Really, you're starting to sound hysterical. Calm down. Relax. No one is going to hurt you. "C'mon, have the guts to explicitly admit that you didn't know what you were talking about, and that you were expecting that I knew even less than you did, but that it didn't pan out for you." I think both your work and your comments here have told me volumes about your level of knowledge. "I'm not the one who is huffing and puffing about how great I am while refusing to show my work." I never huffed and puffed about how great I am. Nor have I refused to show my work -- you simply assumed that my lack of an on-line presence indicated refusal. But I appreciate your over-heated comments, because they show the readers here (that and the quality of the work at http://www.artrenewal.org/ -- by the way, some of my work would be there in the Salon catalogs) that modern art apologists are not a rational lot. "You've got kind of a Dunning-Kruger thing going: you assume yourself to be an authority on every subject about which you actually know nothing, and about which you intentionally and actively avoid learning anything." Wow, that's quite an over-heated statement. Guess I touched a nerve....

By the way, for those of you who wish to see some excellent work of the type that Jonathon describes as "dead", "formulaic", and "rarely anything new, either in style, composition or content" and which consists of "repainting what's been painted thousands and thousands of times before", go here: http://www.artrenewal.org/ If you wish to see the work of current painters, either click on "Living Masters Gallery" or on "Salon" to see past winners in this competition. It will give you some much-needed perspective on Jonathon's abilities (yes, he has talent, but not nearly as much as he thinks he does, especially when compared to these artists). If you have an interest in the philosophy that underlies the Art Renewal Center's efforts, click on "Philosophy" and read the articles (scroll down for a quick summary). You'll find that Jackson Pollock and the kind of relativistic garbage he represents aren't held in the same kind of awe that Jonathon accords them.