Panel Discussion
Just found this this Youtube video shot during a panel discussion at last year's edition of Weekend with the Masters
Moderated by Richard Schmid , they addressed the following question:
Are all these wonderful new digital tools going to help us or present a danger to the spiritual growth of this movement (realism)
Panelists included (left to right) :
Carolyn Anderson
Daniel Gerhartz
Rose Frantzen
Scott Burdick
Richard Schmid
Quang Ho
Sherrie McGraw
Jeremy Lipking
These are all exceptionally bright, successful, handsome, creative people, and if you watch all seven segments, you'll find the Palette and Chisel mentioned at least twice.
It's fun to watch them speak and then look at their paintings, although, usually, for me, there's a disconnect and as one internet curmudgeon has written:
"Panel discussions aren't a means to any real end, they are just a PR ploy --another opportunity to find new students and sell DVD's ---This panel was also conspicuously inbred. They forgot to invite any real opposition ---They had started out as classicists or idealists of some sort, and had tried to define themselves in opposition to the main line of current thought in art. But Modernism got them anyway."
More of my own comments are found here .
posted by chris miller at 6:54 PM
3 Comments:
Chris Miles Mathis is a complete crackpot. See:
http://mileswmathis.com/strike.pdf
As a fan of both Nazi and Soviet art, I must maintain an impermeable firewall between aesthetic judgment and political opinion.
Which doesn't mean that Miles might not well be considered a crack pot anyway.
But I do think he raises issues about the ideals of contemporary realism that belong in
a discussion of why some paintings/artists are preferable to others.
Talk has never made a bad painting any better -- but it has made good paintings get ignored, and that's why realists should talk about the things they like just as much as the art theorists who validate the blank canvas or pickled shark.
And I share Miles' frustration that when a distinguished panel, like this one, does, finally, get together, it's discussion is so fluffy.
Mathis is jealous and bitter and tries to be both art critic and artist. He loves to publicly criticize the work of other artists while at the same time offering his own work for sale in the same general market. Even ostensibly praising an artist's work Mathis often seeds his commentary with negatives. For example he once wrote exactly eighty-five words of appreciation for a painting and immediately followed it with forty-five words berating the artist's signature.
I think Mathis is a negative voice in art and he's no great friend to the kind of art I happen to like as exemplified by Quang Ho and Scott Burdick, both of whom Mathis has said have been "destroyed".
Post a Comment
<< Home