Were the upper-crust of the art world snobs for disparaging Andrew Wyeth's work?

[brentspeak]

From today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/16/AR2009011601420.html?hpid=topnews

To many critics, Mr. Wyeth was out of touch with the primary artistic trends of his time, and the quality of his work failed to merit his popularity with the general public. Nor did it justify the prices people were willing to pay -- a collection of Wyeth works including several of the Helga paintings brought $40 million in a 1989 sale.

"Compared to master draftsmen, Wyeth cannot draw," wrote Washington Post art critic Paul Richard in a 1987 review of an exhibition of the Helga paintings at the National Gallery of Art in Washington. New York's Village Voice newspaper called Mr. Wyeth's art "formulaic stuff, not very effective even as institutional realism . . ."

The prestigious Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York refused even to display the Helga paintings. "We had an opportunity to show the Helga series. We quite pointedly and as a conscious decision declined to do so," said museum director Philippe de Montebello in 1987.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. I saw Helga and loved it.

Also saw other shows, including the whole family. Damn, they were all good.

[The_Casual_Observer]

2. Yet witless ugly scribbling by Cy Twombly draws kudos from

these idiots.

[CTyankee]

6. Oh, really? Try going to the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao to get a look at

his "Ah, the peonies...' exhibit. I found it overwhelming. Here is a link http://www.gagosian.com/exhibitions/21st-street-2007-11-cy-twombly

Unfortunately the photos from the Gagosian exhibit does not do this exhibit justice. I saw it in Bilbao last October...also his smaller sculptures.

I've not studied Wyeth but it seems tome that you move past him after age 20 or so...

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. Yes, the overwhelming part is the crayon scribbles at the margins.

and the soiling. So unique, priceless, pictures don't do it justice for sure.

Almost as good as the rusty steel blocks by Serra. Fine art.

Twombly has absolutely no artistic talent whatsoever. He's an utter fraud who was at the right place at the right time.

You infer that as one gets older one's taste gets more "refined" to where shit like Twombly actually starts to look like art. That's too bad.

[CTyankee]

14. Of course, if you are focusing on the crayon scribbles I guess you would say that.

And the arrangement at the Guggenheim was the better way of viewing the peonies works.

As for Serra, I think we can let DUers reading this make up their own minds. Here is the artist's video of the work: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/the-matter-of-time-by-richard-serra-guggenheim-bilbao/2766931942

I personally walked this space and found it an interesting experience however strange it felt doing it...

[The_Casual_Observer]

19. The problem is that, looking at that work it's hard not to see that he

has no extraordinary talent for drawing/painting. In the same way it's hard to listen to someone play the piano that has no musical ability, even though they know the notes.

[CTyankee]

28. It's all about an individual's response isn't it? My response to Twombly

is instinctually that of pleasure and appreciation. I truly don't know what his stuff "means" to art critics since I go to museums a lot but I don't read art criticism. Art means a great deal to me and I spend any disposible income I have to travel to the world's great museums or anywhere great art is to be found. My travels to Spain in search of such art was a treasure of my life. I cannot express to you what it meant to me...

[NashVegas]

11. You Know, That's Very Interesting

But most people get past *that* after age 7 or so.

[CTyankee]

12. Well, to each his own. I was past it by age 20 but others linger and that's fine, too.

It's like staying only with Robert Frost's poetry and not bothering with Wallace Stevens...

[NashVegas]

15. I Don't Have Much Against It, Really

That is, on a purely sensual level. It's when I see an artists' statement that their abstract piece represents "man's struggle with ..." I go "oh come ON."

There's a thought collective that believe the art world went to abstract because of the introduction of popular photography. It looks like the pendulum is swinging back to representational now, because of digital.

[CTyankee]

21. Your statement is interesting. Explain to me why digital photography

per se would drive the pendulum back to representational art. What's the difference really in the finished product between film and digitally reproduced photos? I really don't know...

[NashVegas]

24. It's Not In the Finished Product

It's in the method and the skills.

[CTyankee]

26. Not being a photographer I wouldn't know. Well, that's interesting.

When I was doing an independent study on the artist Caravaggio in grad school, I remember reading a critic (of the early 20th century) calling Caravaggio the first "cinematic" artist. Meaning of course that C. did foreshadow cinematography, which is a hindsight way of looking at his works...

[Maestro]

3. They certainly are not always correct.

I like his melancholic view of the world.

[The empressof all]

4. I don't think so

Wyeth wasn't trendy and the art critics tend to focus on new and exciting. I don't think he could be considered to be the Thomas Kincaid of his day as his popularity was based on the quality of emotion in his work rather than clever marketing. I thought he was brilliant just not necessarily current with his time.

[NashVegas]

5. I Wish I Could Find It ...

But a few years ago, the Times ran an article about the divergence of the fine art and the pop art worlds, and, for a change, pointed a few (but not all) fingers at the fine arts people instead of complaining about the ignorant masses.


Anyway ... I like Jamie's stuff.

[Starry Messenger]

7. I didn't realize that was his obit.

That's sad.

I don't think the curators were being snobs. Wyeth's work didn't really have much to do with the art movements of the 1980's. Not to say that is good or bad. It just wasn't really part of the narrative of the times.

I actually prefer his dad's work a little more. Even thought the bulk of it was intended for commercial purposes, I've always liked its vigor.

[beltanefauve]

20. I, too

liked NC Wyeth's work better. Great figurative illustration. But I like the whole family's work, in general.

[Warpy]

9. The only critics that really matter

are the ones who love the work. Wyeth's work speaks to a great many people.

I'm sure the above critic would have adored the draftsmanship and technique of Thomas Kinkade.

[hedgehog]

10. The odd thing is that I can't say I "like" Wyeth's paintings; they are often

stark and melancholy. At the same time, I am compelled by his work and return to it again and again.

[ljm2002]

13. As if being "out of touch with artistic trends"...

...was ever a true measure of an artist's talent and vision.

The critics, try as they might, do not direct the course of art. It is, rather, the artists who do so. And the best artists, always, are those who remain true to their own vision. Which Wyeth did.

I like his paintings, and find it amusing that the Metropolitan Museum of Art refused to show his work.

I'll never forget going to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and viewing an entire room of large oil paintings by a very prominent New York artist. All were done in white -- different shades of white, and different textures. My reaction to the exhibit was, if I want to see textured white surfaces, I can go back home and stare at my walls.

Well -- like a lot of edgy modern art too. But I love Wyeth's stuff, and to hell with the critics. After all, judging by the prices noted in the same article, I'm pretty sure he got to laugh all the way to the bank, so who cares what they think anyway? :-)

[CTyankee]

17. I can't help laughing. When was the art world not high stakes and bitchy?

All the way back in time, before the Renaissance, it was ever thus...;)

[stuntcat]

16. I love all his arts

thank you for this article.

[Maine-ah]

18. he was a great asset to our community, and will be greatly missed

"The Portal Master," a portrait of Andrew Wyeth taken in the summer of 2008 at Wyeth's studio in Port Clyde. (Photo by Peter Ralston)

"Notice: If it is the second coming of Christ, call me out. Otherwise, let me alone."

http://www.knox.villagesoup.com/Community/story.cfm?storyID=142506

[LeftHander]

22. My take on Wyeth....pix heavy

I consider his paintings to be more akin to surrealism. His difference is that he is way more subtle in presenting the environment to us. In a way I see it much like surrealism in modern cinema. Below are some of the Helga pictures which illicit the same emotional reaction as some parts of movies like Eraserhead, The Cell, 2001, and the tripping sequences in Altered States.

Looking at Wyeth's work in that light and spending some time with Surrealism in Visual art you start to see a common thread emerge. Surrealism is not just the bizzarre cliche imagery of Dali. It really is more grounded in creating a deep subconscious feeling from the viewer. More often than note that feeling is accompanied by unease and in a more accessible term...creepy.

It is basically that way because the imagery is more dreamlike than real. Just as more representational work can be considered Surreal so too can abstraction. Abstraction that includes the minimalists and some Abstract expressionists rely on the use of this emotional technique. His work simply does not fit with the realists, romanticism or fine art illustration because of this creepiness factor. To me the below images illicit very similar responses.

So next time you think Wyeth...don't think Norman Rockwell think surrealism.




Rothko







Dali





From the Movie The Cell...

[Starry Messenger]

25. Nice photoessay!

I never thought about it that way. I always thought the "creepy" factor was caused by the obsessive attention to detail, but I like what you've presented here. I'd always thought of A. Wyeth as sort of an American Odd Nerdrum.

[brentspeak]

30. To be honest, I can't see the surrealist influence there

Some of Wyeth's work to me is sort of like Robert Frost's poetry -- on the surface, very "traditional" and seemingly "simple"; but dig deeper, and you'll find darkness and a sense of forboding.

[Canuckistanian]

23. Canadian artist Alex Colville had the same problem

His paintings were popular, collectors loved them and he was exhibited in all the big art shows.

But he was dismissed as a "pop artist" by the ah-tistic community here in Canada. Even my own wife (BA in Art History) has nothing good to say about his work.

I love his stuff.

[Posteritatis]

27. Remember, popularity imbues work with suckiness!

If nobody liked Colville's stuff, that would mean it was artistically awesome. Or something. ;)

(I've always gotten a kick out of the fact that art critics generally have the same attitude as hipster kids arguing about how such-and-such a band sucks because The People have started listening to them...)

[mulsh]

29. critcs can point their fingers but you need to judge for yourself.

I could very easily be considered an upper crust art world snob. I certainly spend as much time as I can in art galleries, studios and museums. I've given myself an art education of sorts, I can drop names and techinques and styles with ease. I can't paint or draw to save my life but my wife's an artist. I think Andrew Wyeth's work speaks for itself. I like a lot of his paintings, I like a lot of the stuff his family members have done, too.

When I read a contemporary art critic I mostly do so for biographical info and perhaps some info on the artist's technique. I don't care a fig whether the critic approves or does not approve of the artist's work, I'll decide how I feel about it.