I know of John Arthur.  I know him as a strong advocate of realist painting.   
 He has written about James Valerio's work, among others, and James is my 
friend 
of more than 40 years --he even painted my portrait which is in the Union 
League 
of Chicago art collection, considered one of the best private collections in 
the 
US.  I know that realist art is often wrongly marginalized in contemporary 
culture yet there is an elite market and museum support for it.  I am also a 
keen admirer of good realist art and I recognize its continuing  importance in 
the panorama of modernist art.  I have even written favorable reviews of 
realist 
painting. 

What some critics fail to recognize is that good artists generally have an 
instinctive and appreciative  understanding of other good artist's work, 
regardless of style or genre, media, subject, etc.  I can recognize good 
realist 
art and the good realist artists can recognize good abstraction, or 
conceptualism, or what have you.  I've met a bunch of the top artists over the 
years and they are all, ALL, very insightful and fully conversant with the 
diverse artforms currently practiced.  Critics can be zealots. 

But I remain an impatient critic of those who mis-match art in order to abuse 
one aesthetic by the terms appropriate to another.  I admire Arthur's 
credentials but then I also have a similar, if not better, batch of them  -- 
 since 1970 -- and thus feel I am qualified to comment, too.
WC 

________________________________
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, January 6, 2013 9:44:58 PM
Subject: Re: "Too little is asked and too little is expected of artists,  
critics, and curators...."

John Arthur does a great deal of agreeable writing,almost always on
representational painting-he wrote a book or helped to write  one on
Edith Wharton too.  He has been doing this since 1970. I am not going
to defend him, but I am surprised that he came out with any such strong
opinions. He is usually very very nice and never says anything  bad
about the people he is writing about.  He gives a yearly lecture as
part of the MFA course Western Connecticut State University . He has
also:
He has served as an advisor to the national Endowment of the Arts,
Department of the Interior, National Science Foundation, GSA Art and
Architecture Program, and the Department of State.B  Since 1975 he has
advised private collectors, galleries, and museums in the U.S., Europe,
and Japan.B Mr. Arthur will discuss the landscape tradition in American painting
and his perspective on contemporary images of nature. (This lecture was
rescheduled from September, 2011)
I have been to the Upper Peninsula    once and admire  Abraham's
ability  to get so much out of the landscape there-but I suppose it's
all in what you're used to.

-----Original Message-----
From: William Conger <[email protected]>
To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Jan 6, 2013 6:17 pm
Subject: Re: "Too little is asked and too little is expected of
artists, critics, and curators...."

What's junk is to disparage one sort of art as a means to falsely
elevate
another.  If one wants to praise an artist's  naturalistic realism or
landscape
painting then it should be done in comparison with other works of the
same
genre.  It's very specious, downright stupid, to make a claim for one
sort of
art by discrediting what does not have anything to do with it.  Really,
it's
almost as bad as saying black person is inferior to a white person
because the
black person does not share the white person's ideals.  I have no
patience for
stupid journalism.  As for the Upper Peninsula, I am very familiar with
all of
it and agree that it's a beautiful area,  I go there every year.  The
locale,
any locale, of course, has nothing to do with validating aesthetic
standards in
art.
wc





________________________________
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, January 6, 2013 3:53:42 PM
Subject: Re: "Too little is asked and too little is expected of
artists,
critics, and curators...."

Junk which? The earnest John Arthur,worshipper of Estes etal  or the
unfortunate Richard Abraham  who was driven to landscape painting by
the beauties of Michigan's Upper Peninsula?
Kate Sullivan

-----Original Message-----
From: William Conger <[email protected]>
To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Jan 6, 2013 9:57 am
Subject: Re: "Too little is asked and too little is expected of
artists, critics, and curators...."

Junk.
wc



________________________________
From: joseph berg <[email protected]>
To: aesthetics-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, January 6, 2013 2:53:29 AM
Subject: "Too little is asked and too little is expected of artists,
critics,
and curators...."

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog/jcontursi/art-richard-abraham

Reply via email to