Well said, Michael. Just because I'm an abstract painter I've been accused of being unable to draw but in fact I had a solid academic training in life drawing and was skilled well before I attended art school. My recent (2000) "realist" self portrait appears in a well known drawing text, Enstice and Peters, Prentice-Hall, 2003. Drawing is crucial to my work but the additional skills required for painting are many, diverse, and demanding. Anybody who paints is deeply involved in skill -- except for the trendy fools nowadays who are trying to debase their skills in order to appear authentic, uncorrupted by cultural manners. The new, deskilled rule is, to be good, be clumsy, abject, indifferent.
WC --- Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mar 29, 2008, at 10:10 AM, William Conger wrote: > > > I think skill is greatly undervalued. Enormous > skill > > is usually evident in great artworks in any > medium. > > Obviously, there are many different kinds of > skill. > > As for Derek's favorite artists to hate, they > indeed > > were skillful, but so was Van Gogh, or Matisse, or > > thousands of others. > > As H.L. Mencken observed after reviewing badly > written newspaper copy > in the newswroom, "The older I get the more I admire > and crave > competence, just simple competence, in any field > from adultery to > zoology." <g> > > > Somehow, in the past 100 years > > (blame Duchamp) skill of whatever type was > > distinguished from honesty of expression (no one > knows > > what that is but it's broadly assumed) and thus > any > > artist who demonstrates high skill is regarded by > some > > hipsters to be dishonest, inexpressive, and > > unoriginal, etc. This is a very false > > distinction/separation. > > Duchamp might have catalyzed the detaching of the > trained and skilled > artist from the artwork, but I'd look to Breton and > the Surrealists > for elevating and incorporating randomness into art > production. And > it's precisely that fact, that randomness, that many > perceive as the > sine qua non of anti-skill in modern art. Many > people assume that an > abstract painter "can't draw," i.e., has no artistic > skill, and they > conflate artistic skills, such as draftsmanship, > with artistic > **discipline**. > > Now, to most people, "discipline" means [pace, > Cheerskep: it provokes > the notion of] rigor and adherence to rules and > principles. It's > useful to look behind that word to its root, > "disciple," a follower, > an adherent, and understand that one who practices > the discipline of > art strives to follow its norms ... even when some > of those norms have > been breached or overturned. The Surrealists > introduced randomness by > means of hallucinatory states, "automatic" > practices, or uncontrolled > events (drippings or splatters). Later artists > adopted some of those > strategies and techniques as good and proper, meet > indeed for making > art. > > > Skill is deeply interwoven > > with all other (mysterious) features of genuine > > artworks. Examining it is a good place to start > > (perhaps the only place to start) in experiencing > art. > > > Consider how varied are the cityscapes of different > artists with > different "skill sets": the hillsides of Wayne > Thiebaud, the Bay views > of Diebenkorn, the pools of Hockney, and the vistas > and train yards of > Rackstraw Downes. No Bierstadts or Poussins, there, > but wonderful > landscapes nonetheless. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
