Strange things bother me. I learned about this artist on the net, Dana Levin, who describes herself as a "classical realist." I've encountered a bunch of similar artists over the years and I always have a problem with them. The painting illustrated here is lovely. There's no denying.
What bothers me is the insistence on reestablishing a very narrow 19th century form of art pedagogy and pretending that it's the center of the universe. What motivates these artists? While the flowers pictured here is lovely,not all her paintings are as strong as these flowers, though most are quite good. But she has eliminated innumerable areas of visual experience through her narrow approach. (You have to read about her procedures to understand the point.)
What is so magical about French 19th century academicism? My goodness, it directs one away from any consideration of Pierre Bonnard, the Rohan Master, Jean Fouquet, Joan Mitchell, or Edgas Degas (just to name a few). What gives?
It strikes me as a deep insecurity. Ms. Levin's form of instruction is so fastidious, as though just drawing a stray line would be the end of the world! But in fact one gets a better, more firm, more flexible sense of draughtsmanship by using other means.
Look at something, put the line where you think it should go. A very simple manner of looking and drawing is much preferable to the machinations that she teaches her students to use.
Don't know why this bothers me (it's a free country), it's just that you cannot paint some of the most amazing things using these means. Botticelli, I guarantee you, did nothing remotedly like this when he painted Primavera.
For more on decoration as a form of invention in art, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment