There was an article recently about the two most influential modern artists. It got me thinking about the nature of art’s current influence. Art has become specialized. People still flock to museums but the casual viewer is there because of the totem they have made of any given artist, the mythos as it applies to them.
Picasso was important to his peers because of how he freed them up to pursue their own North Stars. The appeal now? He has become a sort of shorthand for being able to do whatever you want, seemingly effortlessly and make money, scribble on a napkin to pay for a roomful of people’s dinner at a four star restaurant, grab a collector/gallerist or peer’s wife by the breast and have everyone laugh and clap. It holds great appeal for people who aspire to become famous from nothing more than becoming an influencer or reality television star.
Picasso was an ass for sure. But credit where credit is due, he spent the majority of his day working in front of an easel and when not directly applying brush to canvas it was one of the things foremost on his mind.
People now admire Picasso not for what he did, nor what he freed up in others but because in their minds he was sort of proto reality start/influencer. They think of all they could do if they could be Picasso-like, not realizing that you can’t wish to be sui generis and still live the life you live now as you live it. That is the wish though and artists have become a totem divorced from what their reality was.
Painting has suffered the same divorce from reality. People have grown used to looking at art online often the artist’s hand/brushstroke is not as apparent and sometimes digitally smoothed out. A.I has made it worse, images made to look “real” quoting if not outright reproducing famous paintings & images do not even attempt to appear made by human hands.
These factors combined with the fact that everyone has a cellphone with which to photograph the minutia of their lives and how to look at and enjoy a painting is forgotten.
The casual viewer does not want to see the artist’s hand, they want machine like perfection as seen on their screens or phones. A painting is judged “good” now by how close to hyper realism it is. If a painting of a face can’t be mistaken for a photo then it is not good. (to me 99% of the hyper realism stuff is all technique and no soul. You forget it a soon as it it not in front of your face).
The only exception to all this seems to be some of the well known paintings, Van Gough, Monet’s waterlilies et al. With those though appeal is artificial story the viewer has told that they insert themselves into.
I was at a museum in Paris looking at one of these well known paintings and a twenty something woman stood next to me with the corners of her mouth turned down. I had to ask what was wrong. She showed me the image of the painting we stood before on her phone. She looked down at it then up. She showed me the image on the phone then waved her hand as if swatting away an insect at the painting;
“What’s all that?”
It was the impasto strokes of the brush on canvas.
For my works, I want my pieces to look like the subject but to also capture the truth of the moment before me. I am not afraid for a painting or drawing to look like painting or drawing. This is simple but important advice I would give any painter.
Spaghetti Night 9×12 inches Rembrandt cold pressed fine grain
Tongue my ever present Talen Art Creations Multi Media pocket Pad 4×4 inches
Paper Life Painting 