I'm shocked that Miller likes my self portraits. I think he's right about the ptg. being less fulsome or whatever than the drawing. The ptg. was made 15 yrs. ago. The drawing was made 10 yrs. ago. when I made several pencil portraits at the same time and this one is the best likeness but maybe not the best drawing (but the collector who has that one says it is also a good likeness). I used to make a self-portrait every year plus drawings of my wife and kids but as my eyesight became troublesome, the constant glancing from subject to paper that not even bifocals could help -- I've tended to give it up. But I do draw every day. I've aged a lot in the past few years. Maybe I'd better try another s.p. drawing.
When I went to art school back in the middle of the last century, all the students were required to draw from the model every day, for 4 hrs. You either got quite good or you quit art school in despair. Actually I eventually did leave the prof. art school, not in despair but with bloated ego, to attend a university because in those days the art schools did not teach any academics and I liked academic stuff too. I didn't like dumb artists. I don't think there's a lot of difference between drawing the figure and drawing abstractly. Both, for me, require extreme attention to detail and fleeting nuance. In fact,I often regard my paintings to be surrogate figures - reaching, jumping embracing, dancing, etc. As for meaninglessness, the drawings are just as meaningless as the paintings since they contain no meaning but only evoke it from the viewers. I try to trigger as many evocations as I can, even contradictory ones (especially contradictory ones). Everything has to seem alive: lines, colors, shapes, surfaces. Only then does the art seem worthy of our projections of consciousness and all human sensibilities. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 10:20:27 AM Subject: Re: Contemporary Portraits Has anyone else received the images of William's self portraits? I admit that I was a bit surprised to find them so different from the abstract paintings I've seen at his exhibits. They not only look like William, but they feel like his personality - or actually, two sides of his personality since the drawing and the painting feel quite different. I could never mistake either one for a weasel or a whale, and do happily declare "Ah, that is he" in expressing that pleasure which Aristotle says comes from mimesis: "the most beautiful colors laid on confusedly will not give as much pleasure as the chalk outline of a portrait" But how does this jibe with William's pursuit of the meaningless? Are these paintings somehow less art-worthy because they seem more meaningful than his abstract works? Is that why they were not included in his career retrospective at the Cultural Center earlier this year? BTW - for what it's worth-- since I am not shy about expressing my aesthetic response -- I think that drawing is among the best I've seen - and not just among our contemporaries. It's got real power - and well expresses that noble seriousness of artistic purpose of which he often speaks. And.... I'm quite sure that Ayn Rand would have liked it , too. ____________________________________________________________ Diet Help Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=GBE0oedO1iK5q4s-RAu5zQAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=
