The thing about Weyth is that his work is steeped in sentimentality. Otherwise he did some excellent painting. He did big egg tempera paintings in a sort of washy manner back in the 50s. I saw a big show of his at the Whitney in the 60s. His compositions are super. His color is narrow but very finely tuned. There's a lot more serious art and content in his work than there is in Norman Rockwell's. If he had lived a hundred years earlier he might have been Eakins.
My thanks to Chris Miller for visiting my Chicago opening last evening. We talked a bit about some "traditional stuff, like drawing from life". I admitted my indefensible bias that favors artists who can draw from life with high skill even if, especially if, they work in diverse, untraditional modes. WC --- On Sat, 1/17/09, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > From: joseph berg <[email protected]> > Subject: "Art critics mostly heaped abuse on his work, saying he gave > realism a bad name." > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, January 17, 2009, 7:30 PM > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/arts/design/17wyeth.html?_r=1&em
