Van Gogh Landscape

January 10th, 2010

Van Gogh, Ink Pen on Paper, 18.5 x 24.4 inch. Reference Image

Rothko

I stumbled upon this image on a blog post at making a mark, which has a terrific section on Van Gogh landscape, in particular the sketches done in pencil or ink pen. This particular image reminded me of the Van Gogh painting I used as a reference when I did Pennsyltucky.

More Rothko Comments

January 8th, 2010

Oil on Canvas, 8 feet tall. Reference Image

Rothko

Comments below are from the FAQ page of goodart.org, published and maintained by the pundit Brian Yoder.

Brian Yoder

Question: How can you say bad things about Picasso, Pollock, and Rothko? They were great artistic geniuses!

Answer: I can say bad things about them because they were not geniuses and because they didn't create good art. In fact, they made their fortunes based on the idea of producing things that were not even close to being good art, or art at all. Instead, they one way or another produced poor or non-art and "got away with it". There are objective ways of measuring the value of art (as I outlined above) and none of these "geniuses" came close to creating good art. The fact that they were famous and that many people have said and written nice things about them is no proof that they were geniuses or even artists. Objective truth is the proper measure of genius, not fame.

Robert Hughes

Here is one more, source = Robert Hughes (Time Magazine) from his book/video: American Visions – The Epic History of Art in America

The belief in the production of sublime awe that puffed up so much of the writing about abstract expressionism. The very definition of bullshit: empty depth.

Joseph Chinnici

January 6th, 2010

Crayon on Xerox Paper, 8.5 x 11 inches. Dec, 2009. Reference Image

Joseph Chinnici

My good friend and fellow artist Joseph Chinnici did this in response to my 2009 Christmas card. It was the very best Christmas present I got this year. Thanks very much Joe - it means a lot to me.

Christmas Card 2009

January 1st, 2010

Oil on Cardstock, 4 x 6 inches. Dec, 2009. Reference Image

Christmas card

I wish you a Merry Christmas, happy holidays, and a prosperous new year.

This year I decided to try something new and different for my Christmas cards. Instead of a Hallmark card with a pre-printed image, I chose to create an original oil painting, which is what you see on the front of this card.

I started with 5 coats of acrylic gesso, then painted with high quality artist oil colors, and finished it off with a top coat of dammar varnish to preserve and protect. Please accept and enjoy my personal statement of Merry Christmas.

I began this project in September of 2009. I decided to do a tribute to the Rothko Painting “White Center”. The events that led up to that decision are:

I had come to realize that with all good art – there is a story. Earlier this year I read about a painting by Mark Rothko which sold at auction in 2007 for $70 million dollars. I was interested, so I did some Internet research and looked at some (many) of Rothko’s paintings, and I thought to myself – I don’t get it. There must be one heck of a story to make this painting – or any of his paintings worth that kind of money.

So I researched the story.

Rothko painted in a style called Abstract Expressionism (AbEx). Also called: Colorism, Color Field Painting, Action painting, Gesture painting, The New York School. The big 4 of Abstract Expressionism are:

  1. Mark Rothko
  2. Clyfford Still
  3. Willem de Kooning
  4. Jackson Pollock

The $70M painting is called “White Center” or “White Center Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose”.

Sheikh Hamad bin Kalifa Al-Thani and his wife (The Al-Thani ruling family of Qatar) purchased Rothko’s White Center for $72.8 million from 91-year-old philanthropist David Rockefeller.

Mr. Rockefeller owned the painting since 1960, when he bought it for $8,500 from Eliza Bliss Parkinson, the niece of Lillie P. Bliss, one of the three founders of the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art (MoMA). Mrs. Parkinson had bought the painting from Rothko in 1960 through the artist’s dealer, Sidney Janis.

Back then, abstract paintings were not particularly Mr. Rockefeller’s cup of tea. He gravitated toward more conventional works, particularly Impressionist and Post-Impressionist paintings. But he said that Dorothy C. Miller, the first curator hired by MoMA (in 1934), urged him to acquire the Rothko, with its luminous horizontal bands of color.

Mr. Rockefeller was a vice president of Chase Bank in 1960 and had played a role in forming its art committee. While Chase was one of the first institutions to form an important corporate art collection, he said, most of his fellow bankers were too conservative even to consider something as adventurous as a Rothko.

So with Ms. Miller’s endorsement, Mr. Rockefeller scooped it up for himself, and since then it has always hung in his office, enjoying pride of place as his first Abstract Expressionist painting. At age 91 Rockefeller offered to give the painting to MoMA. They declined. So Rockefeller decided to auction off the painting, with the proceeds donated to charity. The rest is history.

About Rothko:

Rothko's work is characterized by rigorous attention to formal elements such as color, shape, balance, depth, composition, and scale; yet, he refused to consider his paintings solely in these terms. He explained: “It is a widely accepted notion among painters that it does not matter what one paints as long as it is well painted. This is the essence of academicism. There is no such thing as good painting about nothing."

Rothko: “Color is all there is, but I am not against line. I don’t use it because it would detract from the clarity of what I have to say.” Rothko defined his objective as the creation of “inner light”.

“The people who weep before my paintings are having the same religious experience I had when I painted them.” – Mark Rothko, 1965

Rothko adamantly insisted on keeping his paintings unframed, with their edges exposed.

October, 1962. Nathan Pusey, Harvard’s president paid a visit to Rothko. He looked at five canvases which he remembered as “eggplant colored”. Rothko asked what he thought, and Pusey said he found the paintings “rather sad”. Bingo, he had said the right thing. Rothko approvingly engaged him in a long conversation in which he explained the paintings as an evocation of Christ’s suffering.

deliberately inferior Christmas card

Clyfford Still made replicas (more or less identical copies) of some of his own paintings. He refers to one of his (replica) paintings owned by the Museum of Modern Art as “deliberately inferior”.

Selected comments from the pundits and/or critics:

We face an austere image. That something has been declared is beyond doubt. The glowing silence and suddenness of it all seem to dare us to blink. We blink. Pungent minor notes of lime have emerged in an erstwhile clear yellow.

Do the paintings still carry this spiritual charge? Maybe for some viewers. But Rothko's status has slipped since his suicide in 1970. The dark martyr of American art doesn't seem dark at all in White Center. And the light emanating from the stacked rectangles suggests a nice sunset, the kind you find in American landscape paintings of the Gilded Age. Our simple sensual pleasure in a luscious, candy-colored picture like White Center is always a little guilty, given the Nietzschean angst and agony that supposedly went into its making. "We are always a little embarrassed," as John Ashbery once wrote, "at esteeming his work for wrong reasons that he foresaw and continually warned against."

Herman Melville: Early in Moby-Dick, Ishmael arrives at the Spouter –Inn and sees a large picture in the gloom. Peering, he can just make out:

A long, limber, portentous, black mass of something hovering in the centre of the picture over three blue, dim, perpendicular lines floating in a nameless yeast. A boggy, soggy, squitchy picture truly, enough to drive a nervous man distracted. Yet was there a sort of indefinite, half-attained, unimaginable sublimity about it that fairly froze you to it, till you involuntarily took an oath with yourself to find out what that marvelous painting meant.

Other Pundits:

Abstract expressionism is for the lobbies of big insurance companies. (Garrison Keillor, 11/21/09)

His mature paintings could be ravishingly beautiful, in their depth and relationships of color, in their trust that Rothko’s own abandonment to feeling could evoke an equal letting-go in the viewer, in their sensitivity to the feathered and frayed edges of big shapes, and in the solemn light that they emanate. Their emotional range is wide, from foreboding and sadness (rather sad) to an exquisite and joyous luminosity.

The mind is so entirely filled with its object that it cannot entertain any other, and the work of art becomes self-sufficient.

So with all that in mind, I established my goal for the 2009 Christmas Card Project. Produce 1 copy plus 19 replicas (20 total) of the Rothko “White Center”. Two of the replicas are deliberately inferior.

The design goal(s):

  1. Unframed
  2. Soft edges (feathered & frayed)
  3. Evoking “rather sad”, and/or “letting go”, and/or “exquisite and joyous luminosity”
  4. Boggy, soggy, squitchy
  5. Nietzschean
  6. About something. Because there is no such thing as a good painting about nothing. My painting is definitely about something.
  7. Eggplant, with pungent minor notes of lime (sounds like something you might find on the menu at an expensive French restaurant)

I encourage you to do a Google search on:

Rothko “White Center”

This will lead you to many Internet images of the Rothko painting. Pick one, and compare it to your Christmas Card. Are you weeping? Are you rather sad? Are you like me and thinking, I don’t get it?

If for any reason you just don’t like the card, perhaps you can pass it along to a big insurance company with a lobby. It is my sincere hope that this card will in some small way contribute to your enjoyment of this holiday season.

Merry Christmas.

Tom 03

July 18th, 2009

Pencil Sketch, 8.5 x 11 inches. June, 2009. Reference Photo

pencil sketch

This is the third of my 3 part series on my brother Tom. I had a good quality photo, but I don't really like this sketch very much.

The key learning - the "just right" photograph may be non-existent.

Tom 02

July 17th, 2009

Pencil Sketch, 8.5 x 11 inches. June, 2009. Reference Photo

pencil sketch

This is my most recent, and favorite sketch of my brother Tom. I had a better (high resolution) photo to work from compared to Tom 01.

The key learning - the "just right" photograph is an elusive thing.

Tom 01

July 13th, 2009

Pencil Sketch, 5.5 x 7 inches. April, 2009. Reference Photo

pencil sketch

I grew up in a family of 3 brothers, no sisters. I am #2 son, Tom is #4.

I now have sketch(es) of Mom, Dad, Dave #1 son, myself, and Tom. I am only missing Jim - #3 son. Of this group, Dave and Dad are the most sketch worthy because they have a distinctive look. Mom is sort-of distinctive. Phil, Tom and Jim are harder to sketch because they are less distinctive. This (of course) matters most if you have met the person and know what they are supposed to look like.

For Tom, I am only sort-of satisfied with any of the 3 sketches. My point of view (subject to change) is – what I really need to make a good sketch of Tom is the “just right” photo to work from. Sketch #3 of Tom was made from a low resolution photo. Sketch #1 and #2 are from high resolution photos – so I can’t use that as an excuse. For all three of these photos, I was not the photographer. In about 3 weeks time I will have a chance to spend some time with my parents and all 3 brothers. I plan to take lots and lots of photos.

The key learning - the "just right" photograph is a wonderful thing.

Dave

June 19th, 2009

Pencil Sketch, 7.25 x 11 inches. March, 2009. Reference Photo

pencil sketch

This is one of my very first pencil sketches. And my number one favorite.

The reference photo is dated July of 2008 and includes myself and older brother Dave at the famous bull statue on Wall Street.

So what is it about this sketch that makes it my #1 favorite?

The summary is - when I look at this sketch, it causes an emotional response (in me). This is because I know the subject and have strong feelings about him. So when I look at the sketch, it gives me pleasure - in a subtle but strangely satisfying way.

It begins with a model with a distinctive look. As an artist, I'm not worried about trying to duplicate the photo. I know there are some artists out there capable of amazing things - but I am not one of them. And that is perfectly fine with me. My goal is to create an image that evokes the essence of the subject. If the viewer looks at the sketch and thinks about Dave the person, as opposed to the photo of Dave - I fell like I hit a home run as the artist. The fact that I am both the artist and then the viewer does not in any way detract from my enjoyment of the sketch - in fact it just makes it all the better.

I see a lot of symbolism and irony in this particular photo. I have some vague plans to use this same photo to produce a large scale oil painting - but that is off in the fuzzy future.

The key learning - good art is not the same thing as photography.

Reagan

June 18th, 2009

Pencil Sketch, 7.25 x 11 inches. March, 2009. Reference Photo

pencil sketch

This is one of my very first pencil sketches. And one of my favorites.

The reference photo is dated July of 2008 and includes myself, older brother Dave, cousin Pam, and my father. We asked a stranger to operate the camera, and he did a nice job.

We were about to board a boat (Zephyr) to go see the waterfall art in New York City. Our journey took us into (or near) the area where the jet plane landed in the Hudson. So when I heard the news story several months later about the Hudson River plane landing, I was sure thinking what if that plane had come in when we were out there?

If you look closely, you will see that my brother Dave (the ham) has managed to work his hand into this portrait.

The key learning - take lots of pictures.

Marge

June 17th, 2009

Pencil Sketch, 7.5 x 10.5 inches. June, 2009. Reference Photo

pencil sketch

This is a recent project. A pencil sketch of my mom.

I like this sketch for several reasons and on several levels. I had several photos to choose from (thank you Tom!). I selected this particular photo because I wanted to include the hand(s).

I have come to believe that a good sketch will capture the uniqueness of the subject - and therefore, the best subjects have a distinct look. Good examples from my family are my father and older brother Dave (both subjects of future posts). A difficult subject is someone with a non-distinct look, and I put myself in this category.

For the difficult subjects, the photo is very important. This is a learning process for me. I get smarter as I go. A good example is my brother Tom. I've done 3 sketches of Tom, none of which seem really good. I explain this by saying I need to find just the right photo. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

The key learning - just like a house needs a good foundation, I need a good photo of a good subject to produce a good sketch.