Just because I haven't sent my congratulations to Fred for his great presentation to the American society of Portrait Artists does not mean that I am not deeply appreciative of his efforts. God, if you only know how long I have waited to hear such clarity and comprehensiveness in a talk about art in my time. Great job Fred. The world will eventually hear you. On that note, I would suggest a movie or documentary would be the logical step in expanding the audience for this message. I've seen enough reviews of bad art on TV and in the movies to realize that fine art has great potential for entertainment and persuasion. ARC is a marvelous tool in our fight against the dark forces of modernism, but a Video with the common sense message Fred delivers in his speech couldn't help but be a winner.
My efforts to fight for truth and apple pie may be a bit less powerful and comprehensive, but I still enjoy sending letters to the editors about some stupidity on the part of their art experts. I've attached a scan of a small article which appeared in the Washington Post. I seem to have read that such a thing is possible with the new system. I hope this works for I have also included a copy of the letter I wrote to the editor.
The name of the art critic is Paul Richards. His approach to real art is typical of the indoctrinated. I doubt if it will be published, but I had to say it.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Paul Richards, who champions the flat canvases of Gene Davis, is incapable of appreciating art that deals with reality and human emotions. His analysis of Jennie Augusta’s Love’s Young Dream (Washington Post - June 24, 2001) is as shallow as a gold crazed conquistador in the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan. Of course his purpose is not to enlighten a less astute public, but to make points with the art elite - the museums, the universities, the New York avant-garde, the European degenerates, and all those who want to be "with it."
"Today this canvas generates a predictable response: Up the Revolution" Paul writes after giving us a simplistic description of the obvious visual narrative in the work. Who needs such condescending tripe from a bias newspaper reporter? When I see a portrayal of a women "yearning" I’m not that interested in what she is yearning for as how the hell an artist can communicate such an emotion with paint and canvas and how convincing it is.
I never wondered how Gene Davis painted his stripes or what Clifford Still was trying to say, but as I copy the old masters at the National Gallery of Art, (10 years as a copyist) I am constantly amazed by these artist’s ability to express in visual terms an array of human emotions never even imagined by today’s monocular art experts. If Paul Richards could get over his sterile objections to Victorian sentiments and view all art as individual human accomplishment, he may realize that making a canvas look flat is no big deal. Nor has it ever been "Revolutionary."
Gerald King
Paul Richards, who champions the flat canvases of Gene Davis, is incapable of appreciating art that deals with reality and human emotions. His analysis of Jennie Augusta’s Love’s Young Dream (Washington Post - June 24, 2001) is as shallow as a gold crazed conquistador in the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan. Of course his purpose is not to enlighten a less astute public, but to make points with the art elite - the museums, the universities, the New York avant-garde, the European degenerates, and all those who want to be "with it."
"Today this canvas generates a predictable response: Up the Revolution" Paul writes after giving us a simplistic description of the obvious visual narrative in the work. Who needs such condescending tripe from a bias newspaper reporter? When I see a portrayal of a women "yearning" I’m not that interested in what she is yearning for as how the hell an artist can communicate such an emotion with paint and canvas and how convincing it is.
I never wondered how Gene Davis painted his stripes or what Clifford Still was trying to say, but as I copy the old masters at the National Gallery of Art, (10 years as a copyist) I am constantly amazed by these artist’s ability to express in visual terms an array of human emotions never even imagined by today’s monocular art experts. If Paul Richards could get over his sterile objections to Victorian sentiments and view all art as individual human accomplishment, he may realize that making a canvas look flat is no big deal. Nor has it ever been "Revolutionary."
Gerald King
