Order your ARC 2012-2013 Salon Catalogue

Click here to become a sponsor

   
Nymphs and Satyr, by William Bouguereau (Detail)
click to learn more click to learn more click to learn more
click to learn more click to learn more click to learn more
click to see upcoming exhibition information Click to visit the Living Masters Gallery Click to see the winners of the 2011-2012 ARC Salon click to see the winners of the 2012 ARC Scholarship

Categories
  • [1 post]
    •
  • Academia and Modernism [26 posts]
    •
  • Advice to Artists [16 posts]
    •
  • Aesthetics [55 posts]
    •
  • ARC Living Master Gallery Testimonials [6 posts]
    •
  • Architecture [1 post]
    •
  • Art and Politics [13 posts]
    •
  • Art as a Profession [1 post]
    •
  • Art Criticism [9 posts]
    •
  • Art History Anecdotes [5 posts]
    •
  • Art History Timeline [3 posts]
    •
  • Art Practice [9 posts]
    •
  • Art's Place in Society [27 posts]
    •
  • Artspeak 101 [6 posts]
    •
  • Ateliers [10 posts]
    •
  • Bad Philosophy [1 post]
    •
  • Book Reviews [1 post]
    •
  • Canvas Priming or Preparation [1 post]
    •
  • College Activism: Return to Realism [52 posts]
    •
  • College Curricula [9 posts]
    •
  • Commentary on Specific Artists [33 posts]
    •
  • Definitions of Art [8 posts]
    •
  • Digital Art [20 posts]
    •
  • Discussion: William Bouguereau [3 posts]
    •
  • Exhibitions [5 posts]
    •
  • Fine Art and Photography [4 posts]
    •
  • Freedom of Expression [6 posts]
    •
  • Frequently Asked Questions [30 posts]
    •
  • Funding for the Arts [1 post]
    •
  • Good Art Versus Traditionalism [1 post]
    •
  • Hockney Completely Refuted [53 posts]
    •
  • Illustration as a Fine Art [27 posts]
    •
  • Impressionism vs Academism [5 posts]
    •
  • Juries and Competitions [1 post]
    •
  • Letters to ARC [458 posts]
    •
  • Life of an Artist [7 posts]
    •
  • Modernist Heroes Reconsidered [62 posts]
    •
  • Modernist Orthodoxy on Campus [4 posts]
    •
  • Moral Relativism [1 post]
    •
  • Music and Art [1 post]
    •
  • Myth & Religion in Art [7 posts]
    •
  • Nudity [1 post]
    •
  • Paint Pigments [8 posts]
    •
  • Perspective [2 posts]
    •
  • Picasso: Discussion by experts [14 posts]
    •
  • Places to See [1 post]
    •
  • Post of the Week [2 posts]
    •
  • Realism on the Rise [2 posts]
    •
  • Regarding GoodArt and ARC [10 posts]
    •
  • Renaissance Art [1 post]
    •
  • Responses to ARC [4 posts]
    •
  • Scholarship [1 post]
    •
  • Sculpture [1 post]
    •
  • Setting up the Studio [6 posts]
    •
  • Students at non-ARC Approved schools [1 post]
    •
  • Technical questions discussed and answered [6 posts]
    •
  • Techniques: Art Manuals [1 post]
    •
  • Techniques: Draughtsmanship [33 posts]
    •
  • Techniques: Oil Painting [80 posts]
    •
  • Techniques: Sculpture [2 posts]
    •
  • The Case of Pete Panse [4 posts]
    •
  • The Marketplace [19 posts]
    •
  • The Origins of Modernism [6 posts]
    •
  • What is Art? [24 posts]
    •


    Objectivity

    by Virgil Elliott

    Rubik Kocharian wrote:
    I don't agree with the half-educated viewer (or less than half), who looks at the art work and rejects it because it's above his/her brainwashing or understandings about how "art should be." It's the "accurate execution" mingled with some basic understanding of few principles used by artists in the past, that makes these viewers feel like "judges" on art. These art-specialists need serious training. They should look more (every day) into classical art of the past. Only then they will come to understand that copies from photographs (corrected by Photoshop) require very little skill. It's a shame to consider it as artistic skill. It's a magazine cover taste. The king is naked again!

    Rubik,

    I think we ought to stay aware of who will be the audience looking at our work. It will not be looked at by people of the 19th century, 18th century, 17th century, or 16th century. It will be people of the 21st century and into the future, some of whom will remember the 20th century, but not any farther back than we ourselves can remember, and most of them not as far. Art itself can perform an educational function, so if, as you say, the audience needs educating, artists will need to connect with them first, in a way that will interest them. I maintain that this will require highly convincing imagery. Not necessarily accurate, but convincing in its realistic aspect, whatever else it might be. I doubt that anything else will make much of an impression on them, inured as they are to photographic images, television and movies. That does not mean that nothing else is important, of course, but only that imagery of the kinds that once inspired awe in people of the past, who had not seen more realistic imagery, is not necessarily going to produce the same result in the viewers of today and tomorrow. This is a pictorially jaded audience, but one that is at the same time deprived, in large measure, of highly artistic imagery. We have our work cut out for us. I recognize the need for a high degree of realism, i.e., convincing aspect, in painting which also incorporates all the qualities of high art, in the interest of bringing to our viewers an awareness of true Quality. If it is done well, it can indeed be educational, to a greater extent than I feel is possible with verbal treatises, at least as regards matters of visual aesthetics.

    Virgil





    Home