I, too, have struggled with that issue of abstraction versus realism (my background way back when was photography) and always try to loosen up in painting reality, at least. I respect and appreciate how you have been working that sweet spot of truth and beauty rendered while never forgetting that it is a painting beneath your hands. Love your work. Thanks for the inspiration. Susan Viemeister
I'm with you on adhering to reality in my paintings. Try as I might, I can't escape keeping it real, though I can readily admire the work of those who are able to veer into a more impressionist take.
I don't care which platform you use to send your communications, just as long as I keep on getting them!
I also love your work and am sorry to miss watching your live Art Chat today w/ Winslow Art Center, however I will catch the recording. Best of everything!!
"There is a lot of chat and writing out there about how we should break out of our shell and do something new, stop painting things that look like things." Yes, there is a lot of chat about that. I grew up in the '60s-'70s with an artist mother who painted realistically but who was assured that at some point she would get bored with realism and then move onto abstraction, in which case she would finally be a Real Painter. These experiments I'm seeing artists do today with stylization, flattening, patterning, extreme simplification, etc., I used to see all the time in '70s illustration. I did these experiments back in my teens. So the stylized figuration I see everywhere I don't think of as shiny and new, it's just another flashback to styles that were disparaged as "illustrative" back in the day, when Real Artists never ever drew anything representative. If novelty is the most important criterion, I don't see much difference between realistic work that people disparage as "it could have been painted in 1870" and realistic work that would be disparaged as "it could have been painted in 1970" if the people looking at it had been alive back then to see it everywhere in printed media.
Really the bottom line — and you make this point — is that any artist has to paint the way they see and think. What you want to say should be the most critical thing and the style should be chosen to serve that end. You are a brilliant painter. Your style serves the way you think.
The people chasing novelty, if they don't like what you do, well they're not your people.
Your writing is beautiful Marc! I also find nature itself too impressive not to use as a muse. I’ve always enjoyed abstract art, of a kind, but now I see so much of it that is amateurish and trendy. (Luckily trends are temporary!)
Biology major that I am, I too need to force myself to use more adverbs and adjectives. It helps to be married to an English teacher. Always enjoy your posts.
I, too, have struggled with that issue of abstraction versus realism (my background way back when was photography) and always try to loosen up in painting reality, at least. I respect and appreciate how you have been working that sweet spot of truth and beauty rendered while never forgetting that it is a painting beneath your hands. Love your work. Thanks for the inspiration. Susan Viemeister
I'm with you on adhering to reality in my paintings. Try as I might, I can't escape keeping it real, though I can readily admire the work of those who are able to veer into a more impressionist take.
I don't care which platform you use to send your communications, just as long as I keep on getting them!
And I am trying to stay out of the studio so I don’t confuse you!! 😁
Beautifully said, Marc!
I like the way you paint and appreciate your love of nature ❤️
Can’t wait to get your painting. Thanks for offering them the way you did so some of us can get a piece of your world!
I also love your work and am sorry to miss watching your live Art Chat today w/ Winslow Art Center, however I will catch the recording. Best of everything!!
Kathy Kuryla
Congratulations on your recent sales!
"There is a lot of chat and writing out there about how we should break out of our shell and do something new, stop painting things that look like things." Yes, there is a lot of chat about that. I grew up in the '60s-'70s with an artist mother who painted realistically but who was assured that at some point she would get bored with realism and then move onto abstraction, in which case she would finally be a Real Painter. These experiments I'm seeing artists do today with stylization, flattening, patterning, extreme simplification, etc., I used to see all the time in '70s illustration. I did these experiments back in my teens. So the stylized figuration I see everywhere I don't think of as shiny and new, it's just another flashback to styles that were disparaged as "illustrative" back in the day, when Real Artists never ever drew anything representative. If novelty is the most important criterion, I don't see much difference between realistic work that people disparage as "it could have been painted in 1870" and realistic work that would be disparaged as "it could have been painted in 1970" if the people looking at it had been alive back then to see it everywhere in printed media.
Really the bottom line — and you make this point — is that any artist has to paint the way they see and think. What you want to say should be the most critical thing and the style should be chosen to serve that end. You are a brilliant painter. Your style serves the way you think.
The people chasing novelty, if they don't like what you do, well they're not your people.
Your writing is beautiful Marc! I also find nature itself too impressive not to use as a muse. I’ve always enjoyed abstract art, of a kind, but now I see so much of it that is amateurish and trendy. (Luckily trends are temporary!)
Biology major that I am, I too need to force myself to use more adverbs and adjectives. It helps to be married to an English teacher. Always enjoy your posts.