Last week while walking to work, I came to an abrupt stop in front of the Hammer Galleries. They had placed a large and very eye-catching painting in one of the windows. At first glance, it seemed like the artist was pursuing similar interests to my own--realism and urban genre. But after a moment of looking at it, I discovered an instinctive dislike for the painting. My basic thought was "it's crap!", but I couldn't figure out why I thought it was so terrible.
Here's the painting, Louvre, Pyramid by Robert Neffson:
There's a lot of important detail that you can't see in the small photo. I wish you could see the actual painting, as it would make it easier to understand why I think it's crap.
I spent most of the day puzzling over my reaction to the painting. The best explanation I could come up with was "it has no soul". Technically proficient, yes, but lacking in some fundamental quality to make it great art. This bothered me largely because of the similarities between Neffson's painting and what I am trying to achieve with my own art. What is that fundamental quality that elevates art to greatness?
The trend throughout much of the 20th century seems to have been the belief that "great art" does something new and different, but that's just gimmick marketing. Truly great art, that continues to inspire awe in the viewer for centuries afterwards, has a sublime, inspirational quality.
That still didn't answer my question about why I felt such a strongly negative response to the Neffson. Plenty of paintings aren't great masterpieces, but they're still good. I showed the painting to a friend, and he hit the nail on the head: Neffson's painting isn't art, it's what an architect or interior planner would create to show a client what their proposed design would look like, complete with museum visitors carefully arranged throughout the space in staged poses showing the many ways in which visitors will interact with the architectural space.
It's not art, it's engineering.
6 comments:
The inspiration and intent for "Louvre, Pyramid" came from my love of museums and art. I starting visiting them when I was very young and continue to do so. I was moved by the feeling that "art is spiritual" at this entry to the Louvre. It can be seen in the shapes and cathedral-like light of the space. I attempted to express this by careful placement of the figures, the composition of the triangles in the roof and a respectful, honest use of the facts as seen through my sensibility.
The painting strives to take a public space and through contemplation, meditation, and deep immersion in the process of painting, make it a personal vision.
As every artist hopes, each person should have his or her own reaction and relationship to the image.
Robert
Robert, I appreciate what the painting means to you, and I am in awe of the technical accuracy of it, but when I looked at it, I have to agree with Waterbury Girl and her friend that I thought it was an architectural rendering. I'm sorry, but It didn't make me feel anything. And I've always assumed that art is supposed to evoke feelings.
Robert, thank you so much for your comment!
As you say, "each person should have his or her own reaction and relationship to the image." I've spent a lot of time thinking about my reaction. I went back and looked at the painting several times. I have also re-examined it with the information in your comment here.
My opinion has not changed.
I am an architect with a long-fostered interest in art, particularly contemporary painting. Some personal friends have one of Mr. Neffson’s wonderful paintings, and I have spent many enjoyable hours both viewing it and discussing its merits with them. It is a work of art and not merely an architectural rendering. Rather, he achieves something much more ambitious.
In Mr. Neffson’s work, nothing -- especially the figures with which he chooses to populate his world--is merely suggested. Each one is a whole, fully realized, unique person. Even his inanimate objects, whether buildings, cars, or clouds, are related and come together as a cohesive whole. In other words, contrary to what was said in previous postings, he does indeed inject the “soul” of his subject into each of his works.
Although I understand from his collectors that these paintings take months of work, he somehow makes it all seem simple and effortless. Again, speaking from experience, this is something neither computers nor architectural renderings are able to do.
As a professional dealing in a visually oriented field, I find the intensity of the reaction to Mr. Neffson’s work understandable. However, the palpably malicious and almost personal attack on him shines an unfavorable light on this blog, not on his beautiful paintings.
Neffson's paintings are proficient, if not extraordinarily rendered. The work is beautiful in the sense that his source material is always beautiful. But, somehow the work lacks something.
His work is neither cold or warm... It's lukewarm because it wants to be both cold and warm. Coldness can be compelling when is fully embraced, it can be breathtaking. But, Neffson's work is rarely breathtaking. Some of his paintings are good, but many are populated with people that are not fully realized (despite what the above commenter says); they detract from the icy coldness of the architecture, sky and reflection without the virtue of lending warmth or vitality. And sometimes his color choices lack resonance... especially when he goes for overly dramatized vistas. The sky blue and reflections are almost stereotypes of sky and reflection.
I can't disagree more.
Neffson's paintings are ABSOLUTELY breathtaking, though like all subtle pictures, they lose something on a computer screen. They're pretty large in real-life, and when you get to stand in front of them, you get pulled into their world. I say they're super well-crafted and super refined. As opposed to what the previous comment says, these paintings have a great blend of facts combined with a personal warmth--not at all stereotyped. They're AWESOME!
Post a Comment