Archived Comments
Enjoy the past comments below for Generic versus specific…
I believe that generic and specific portrayals serve different philosophical purposes in painting. With specific, individual portrayals, you are saying, “look at this specific thing, isn’t it interesting?” Generic portrayals say “all (whatevers) are/should be like this” and as such they can be political or social comments, when they aren’t simply the mark of a mediocre or lazy artist. That’s why portrayals of generically-beautiful, Barbie-doll people either attract or repel the viewer, depending on his or her world view.
Are you saying that to be a good painting, it must be obviously site specific? That a painting with people in it must depict Aunt Martha, Uncle Ed, all actual persons, nothing can be “understood” or emotionally interpreted? No, “that is a joyous painting”, no “that is like a concert of beautiful music”, etc. Must one depict “true to actual life” to have a good painting? That if I paint that tree out my window so anyone will know it is the tree I see and it in a good design, that is better than my interpretation of a feeling, a mood, or even a real place?
Once, in Philadelphia, I looked carefully at a Cezanne and realized that there were more color/tonal decisions made in one square inch that I make in one painting. I feel that way about these wonderful California painters…just having the nerve to tackle those grand vistas, then doing it with such control. Impressive in every way. Bischoff must be related to the Bischoff of the San Francisco school of the 60’s. Thanks for putting the paintings on line.
Wow, Juniper Ridge by John Berry is a great painting!
I have sold more plein air paintings than other type of work that I do. Even in plein air work however, I have sometimes fallen into the generic pool. Sometimes it happens when I am painting in the early morning or in the evening and I know the sun will be changing very quickly. Other times it happens, just because I want to do a painting based more on emotion and less on actually recording what I see. I try to stress these types of options we have as painters to my students. I don’t feel there is anything wrong with creating work based more on emotion or color, but I normally opt to do a more detailed accurate rendering of a place, just because that is how I am naturally wired.
I was at the Santa Barbara Museum of Art today (I live here) to see the plein air impressionist painters of the early 1900s. The week prior I attended the Los Angeles Art Show, where the California Impressionists were well represented by galleries, viewers, and red dots. In LA, I was struck by a painting of Edgar Payne of 4th Lake, in the Sierra Nevada mountains outside of Bishop, California. It was instantly recognizable specific authentic. I hiked and camped there 20-30 years ago and it was obvious that Edgar Payne painted what he saw when he was there 80 years prior. The connection made me lose a little breath. It also made me want to go back and paint there, too. One of my greatest joys is when someone is moved by a landscape Ive painted because they have a connection to the place. The very first painting I sold, more than a dozen years ago, was of an ocean bluff meadow which no longer exists. When I returned to paint the scene again a few years later, I found a brand new housing development in its place. The importance of authenticity in landscape painting may in part be due to the fact that we are documenting vanishing wild areas, which are more precious than anything I can think of. Generic landscapes as abstraction are fine with me, but some generic painting can be equated to the fast food of art. Ill stick with documenting the glorious landscape around me as authentically as I can.
Regarding old photos of painters, don’t forget that cameras in that day didn’t shoot fast, and smiles were not the look the camera could capture. Often the women painters were the models too….these were the bohemians of their day, and plenty frisky !!!
We have simply transitioned from a time when painters recorded the scene, to a time when painters put their own idiosyncrasies into the scene.
I think it’s really important to connect with your subject matter. whether it is a realistic representation or a symbolically abstracted one. What’s important is what drew you there to begin with. In one book I read it gave the advice to paint the adjective, not the noun. In other words, don’t paint the tree, paint what that tree was about. Were you drawn to the strength of the tree, the age of it, the gnarled texture of the bark, the way sunlight interplayed with the leaves? What about the tree drew you in? There is specificity in the purpose, not the subject. That is what is authentic in a piece.
Authenticity is a very hard thing to come by for painters. But it develops naturally after time and study. It also goes under the name originality or style. The artists mentions i.e. Payne, Redmond, et al didn’t paint “realistically”, they interpreted the scene often times using their paint in an abstract way. When viewed up close the strokes look very impressionistic in application. I believe viewers as well as buyers are looking for this “style”, if you will or an individual authenticity of the artist rather than a faithful rendition of a scene. They are looking for an interpretation- an artists impression of what was there, what he saw and felt. Often times the painted scene is recognizable but stylized or I should say individualized by the painter. This is what I believe to be “authenticity”. I don’t believe that these works are generic at all. These works, while being of similar subject matter all possess an individual slant or point of view, that make them very specific to the artist.
How about this…the more specific, the more universal? It is true in literature, probably in painting, too.
Those old photos show women almost but not quite breaking into the mans world. Considering it is only a short time ago, we have come a long way. Berlin
Regarding old photos, you might think of doing a letter on all the different contraptions painters have used to make their art. Artists are an inventive bunch.
I don’t think art should be rated by experts, particularly educated experts at all. Art is meant to give happiness to ordinary mortal, to make their passages here more joyful.
Whether you’re looking at good or bad art, it’s still art.
Wonderful paintings by Mike Barr. Thanks for sharing them.
Generic or specific, portraits often simply do not sell because they are poor. The mouth is off, the eyes cockeyed, the skin color livid. There is no one to blame but the artist and people just don’t want to live with that sort of thing.
Everything is art, but some art is obviously superior to others. But, as usual, people can become confused.
What a beautiful thought, thank you: “I don’t think art should be rated by experts, particularly educated experts at all. Art is meant to give happiness to ordinary mortal, to make their passages here more joyful.”
Color me cranky, but the idea that everyone’s opinion of art is equal is nonsense. Sure, everyone has an opinion, but some critics know a whole lot about art, and others have no knowledge–just look at the way people buy “cute” dogs and cats painted on black velvet.
I may be presently getting led into generic rather than specific realism in that I am learning Chinese calligraphy and painting. One cannot go forward into painting until one has done the characters, not all of course, but the skills of a calligrapher translate then into the skills of a painter. The composition of white space and where the chop and signature is placed, as well as the spiritualization of the subject matter all have an oriental flare which is different than the Western take on things. I’m appreciative of a new perspective and am taking to it.
Juniper Ridge oil painting, 19 x 24 inches by John Berry, Millville, UT, USA |
Thank you. Very well said. At this point in my career, I too paint what I feel, not what I see, and I agree there is great value in both the objective and subjective. We need … and can learn from both.