Artworld Recognition

[Jonathan]

I was reading a couple of articles today about contemporary realist artists who believe that they're not receiving due recognition and respect from the artworld. They claim that great realists like themselves are ignored in today's world while talentless modernists and postmodernists are celebrated. Their opponents argue that the artworld is very wide and inclusive, but that an artist must be great within his genre to receive recognition.

So, take a look at these paintings by Stephen Gjertson:

http://www.gandygallery.com/art/Masters/Gj...es/Metanoia.htm

http://www.gandygallery.com/art/Masters/Gj...Four_Oclock.htm

http://www.gandygallery.com/art/Masters/Gj..._of_Garment.htm

http://www.gandygallery.com/art/Masters/Gj...of_the_West.htm

http://www.gandygallery.com/art/Masters/Gj...ost_Parable.htm

http://www.gandygallery.com/art/Masters/Gj.../Admiration.htm

http://www.gandygallery.com/art/Masters/Gj...r_of_Daniel.htm

http://www.gandygallery.com/art/Masters/Gj...ld_the_Lamb.htm

Do you think it would be unfair for someone to say that Gjertson is “a master of exquisite drawing and modeling,” but that his work is “simply kitsch," especially his biblical figures, which resemble "B-movie gangsters dressed in biblical robes”?

Would you say that Gjertson's work should be displayed in major museums? Would you call it serious, significant art, on the level of Rembrandt, David, Delacroix or Rubens? In the future, should it be remembered as among the greatest art that was created during our time?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

It does look a lot like 1940's/1950's Hollywood.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

No like.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

If you paint like a photograph than you better offer more than the photograph. Art is not about skill alone. These pictures do not offer much more than their picture.

--Dustan

[PalePower]

If you paint like a photograph than you better offer more than the photograph. Art is not about skill alone. These pictures do not offer much more than their picture.

--Dustan

I second that. This guy is talented, but so are so many other people. What has he got that they haven't? Let us see the world reinvented through his eyes - let us experience something new. If your art doesn't offer that, well, bluntly, then it's worthless.

~Elizabeth

Edited June 16, 2007 by ENonemaker

[Kat]

I like his paintings, especially the ones of the children. The young cowboy reminds me of my son when he went through his cowboy phase. I don't care for the religious stuff much and as an atheist, I really can't relate to it, although I do appreciate how he brought so much symbolism into one of his works. It shows creativity.

I personally like photorealism. IMHO it is so much more than a photograph and takes a lot more skill. These paintings can be every bit as imaginative as works done with far less technical skill. Paintings have more richness than photographs and take a hell of a lot more skill than taking pictures. Although people often take issue with the fact that they sometimes look like photos, you can generally tell that they are not.

I've seen the artist, Shannon, create airbrush paintings in a couple hours and it is truly amazing. She has a very unique style and although they are photorealistic, you can tell they are her paintings. She is now creating all the artworks in a Beatle themed hotel in Liverpool called Hard Days Night. Unfortunately, it is opening in the fall and I will be in Liverpool in August so I will just miss seeing the place.

Kat

[Jonathan]

Thanks for your replies.

First a minor, nitpickety technical point: Gjertson's work is not "photorealism," and his goal is definitely not to "paint like a photograph." He and other artists associated with the Lack Atelier call themselves "classical realists" and pride themselves on following classical traditions of painting from life.

Anyway, the reason I started this thread is that it irritates me when artists spend a lot of time complaining that they're not getting the attention, respect, fame or money that they think they deserve. I look through quite a lot of art books and magazines each month, visit galleries and museums, and try to keep up on internet arts sources, and I see a lot of contemporary realism that earns attention, respect, fame and money. I think that Gjertson and others are not getting what they want because their art isn't seriously connecting with people, and not because there's a bias against great realism. If visual art were music, to me a lot of Gjertson's work would be something along the lines of Christian-inspired marches or polkas, and hearing his complaints that major museums aren't displaying his work is like hearing a group called, say, The 37 Fat Marching Gospel Dutchmen griping that MTV, the Kennedy Center, and satellite radio aren't playing their stuff.

When I first looked at Gjertson's work, I kept thinking that it felt forced and rigid. But why? Most of the figures aren't lifeless, and even though I don't like religious subjects, other artists have created religious art that is very alive and powerful to me. Then it occurred to me: it's the lighting. Almost every scene that Gjertson paints is lit from about 5 or 7 o'clock high, with the same neutral white light at the same intensity, casting the same degree of hardness in the shadows. There's hardly any variation in choice of palette to establish mood and there's virtually no increase or decrease in global saturation. Gjertson has established a formula for what he apparently thinks is ideal "classical" lighting, and he very rarely -- almost never -- deviates from it.

I think his painting "The Late Show" is a good example of how formulaic lighting can severely limit expression. Nothing about the image says "late." Rather than using a cool palette to imply night, and using the television screen as the scene's source of illumination, Gjertson's "ideal" lighting scheme makes it look like a warm, sunny afternoon. Without knowing the painting's title, the visual information alone, especially the warm colors of the children's clothing, might even convey to the average viewer the sense that the children are all home from school with fevers.

J

Edited June 19, 2007 by Jonathan

[BaalChatzaf]

Would you say that Gjertson's work should be displayed in major museums? Would you call it serious, significant art, on the level of Rembrandt, David, Delacroix or Rubens? In the future, should it be remembered as among the greatest art that was created during our time?

J

If so, so should the works of Norman Rockwell.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

Would you say that Gjertson's work should be displayed in major museums? Would you call it serious, significant art, on the level of Rembrandt, David, Delacroix or Rubens? In the future, should it be remembered as among the greatest art that was created during our time?

J

If so, so should the works of Norman Rockwell.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think Rockwell is recognized as one of the greats of our time, as is Maxfield Parrish. I've read many essays in which critics rate Rockwell's work as great, including critics who don't like his work or the vision of America that it represents. I've seen paintings by both Rockwell and Parrish displayed in the "important museum" that is closest to the Lack Atelier, the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. In fact, a couple of Parrish's paintings have often been placed in very prominent areas in the museum.

J

Edited June 19, 2007 by Jonathan

[BAMF]

If you paint like a photograph than you better offer more than the photograph. Art is not about skill alone. These pictures do not offer much more than their picture.

--Dustan

You said it, brotha!

I think that Gjertson and others are not getting what they want because their art isn't seriously connecting with people, and not because there's a bias against great realism. If visual art were music, to me a lot of Gjertson's work would be something along the lines of Christian-inspired marches or polkas, and hearing his complaints that major museums aren't displaying his work is like hearing a group called, say, The 37 Fat Marching Gospel Dutchmen griping that MTV, the Kennedy Center, and satellite radio aren't playing their stuff.

This is exactly why I don't enjoy Gjertson's or Rockwell's kind of art. I can't really relate to having my daddy tuck me and my sis into bed whilst my mommy dearest watches with a concerned look on her face.

I can, however relate to Jackson Pollock. My, oh my! If his stuff isn't a selective recreation of reality, then I just don't know what is.

[Jonathan]

I think that Gjertson and others are not getting what they want because their art isn't seriously connecting with people, and not because there's a bias against great realism. If visual art were music, to me a lot of Gjertson's work would be something along the lines of Christian-inspired marches or polkas, and hearing his complaints that major museums aren't displaying his work is like hearing a group called, say, The 37 Fat Marching Gospel Dutchmen griping that MTV, the Kennedy Center, and satellite radio aren't playing their stuff.

This is exactly why I don't enjoy Gjertson's or Rockwell's kind of art. I can't really relate to having my daddy tuck me and my sis into bed whilst my mommy dearest watches with a concerned look on her face.

I can appreciate where you're coming from, Squirrelly Girl, but I can relate to some of Gjertson's and Rockwell's art, as well as to some Christian-inspired marches and polkas (I've attended several German festivals in Minnesota, and have enjoyed the music and the quality of skill with which it has been presented). I'm not against Gjertson's work, or disgusted by it or anything SOLOPsistic like that. I just don't think that Gjertson and others have an accurate view of why their work isn't going to go down in future art history books as the greatest art of its time, or why it's not being displayed in major museums.

J

[BAMF]

Squirrelly Girl? I rather like that nickname.

I am not disgusted either (not by a long shot). I'm not saying that somebody out there couldn't relate to it, but rather that many people will/do not relate to it. To me, Gjertson's work is just nothing new, ya know? It's like, "Okay, I've seen that before...what else ya got, eh?"

EDIT: Jonathan, who is that in your avatar? I've been curious for a long time.

Edited June 21, 2007 by Kori

[Jonathan]

Jonathan, who is that in your avatar? I've been curious for a long time.

It's a still frame from the film The Usual Suspects. It's the image of Keyser Soze that the viewer sees as Verbal Kint is relating the tale of Soze to Agent Kujan.

J

[BAMF]

Ah...never saw that movie. LOL. I'm so used to people having their pics up on OL that I think of that avatar as you and, well, you've got beautiful windblown hair, Jonathan.

[Jonathan]

Ah...never saw that movie. LOL. I'm so used to people having their pics up on OL that I think of that avatar as you and, well, you've got beautiful windblown hair, Jonathan.

Actually, it's more like fire-blown hair. That's some hellish destruction going on in the background.

J

[BAMF]

Ah, I see. Fire-blown makes it even cooler...I mean...hotter. :devil: Don't get heat damage, Jonathan. It's hell.

[Danneskjold]

Speaking of Jackson Pollock:

As it turns out, he was just the first prophet of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Edited June 22, 2007 by Jeff Kremer

[BAMF]

^I just crapped from laughing. All heil Jackson Pollock!

Not to derail this thread or anything, but this is hilarious: