I thought the realism argument died about one hundred years ago.
 

I have visited the site before and really appreciated the art and liked the site. However I do get put off by elitists of *any* genre. Like you I don't bother too much with debates, partly because I find pontifications tiresome and boring, these types of issues were discussed ad infinitum between art students in college classes (so heard enough for a flipping lifetime), and because I just don't want to spend time on them.

Still it is important for some to make a stand and articulate why or why not. And the beat goes on :)
 

Are you folks talking about realism in general or the more academic version? The Art Renewal Center encourages a refined, perhaps too narrow, point of view, whereas the many fine contemporary realists such as Pearlstein, Katz, Close, Fish etc. illustrate how the realist ethic can be influenced by and consequently relate to the discourse on contemporary art. I find myself capable of finding impressive examples of nearly any style, approach or movement. To act as though “expressive” art (or are we discussing painting exclusively?) can only look one or a couple of ways is rather myopic. On the other hand to take the position that any art that doesn’t adhere to academic rules is inadequate exhibits, as Delacroix (in a rather mean spirited and incorrect description) said of Ingres, “the complete expression of an incomplete intellect”. The argument on either side can be interesting, but ultimately a waste of time, because essentially it revolves around the elusive element of personal taste, which is something Duchamp saw as merely a case of repetition within an epoch. An infinite number of factors go into shaping personal taste and it is something theorists would be wise to avoid because it is completely subjective and cannot be right or wrong. I will add that I held in contempt any number of artists (Gerome, Bouguereau etc.) simply because I was told to. I would call this another form of academicism. Though I have gained an appreciation of these artists over time, I wouldn’t put them on my short list but I would posit that slick, illusionist surfaces express just as much about the capabilities of paint and the person using it as any other style or method. Are paint slingers really in emotional heat for however long it takes to say something and conversely is it really possible that someone using a traditional method is someone bereft of a soul? The mere fact that an interest in traditional atelier methods are indeed on the rise would indicate that it is a phenomenon as much of our time as any other form and must be thought of as part of the mix. As more strands of the grand argument are introduced, it should become obvious that, rather than narrowing the range of possibilities, new ones can surface.

I'm sure the above will be found to be boring and tiresome as it seems to pontificate; also I never got the memo about the realism argument dying a hundred years ago. Please accept my apology.
 

no anon, I didn't find your post tiresome at all, I enjoyed reading your point of view and agree.

When I say pontificate I am referring to the dictionary definition:
"To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way."

Perhaps I should have said dogmatic rather than pontificate.
 

I agree with Jafabrit.

Carmelo Lisciotto
 

It's mostly just classical realism Anon. I doubt there would be much praise for Katz or Close on the Art Renewal website. Those artists seem a little too unholy to qualify as the real deal.

I think when a group of people take any theory or way of thinking to the extreme, it loses its way.

It's like feminism or even environmentalism; When they are taken to the extreme, they become irrelevant in my eyes. Nobody likes an extremist, no matter how worthy their cause is. I'm all for equal rights and I do what I can to support the environment, but people that believe their way is the only way don't do much for a cause.

That's where I think the Art Renewal Center fails; it is too extreme in its thinking.

Bring realism back and bring the teaching of drawing back, but don't throw away all the good things that contemporary art has to offer.
 

Like any time in history, the pendulum of ideas has been pushed to an extreme. Concerning some contemporary art, this is the case. I think there can be a lack of craftsmanship and ideas expressed that are maybe too conceptual for the average person who wants to understand "modern" art. My big complaint isn't that all art other than classical realism is the problem, it's the taining in art dept.s that's the problem and some instructors with a bias don't teach students how to become good draughtsmen/d'women because they themselves are poor druaghtsmen.
During the 20's many art schools and college departments began minimizing the need of drawing and painting in the classical method. Now today for instance you cannot even find an artist's anatomy class in a state college or a painting dept. that can teach a method other than opaque, wet-into-wet, alla prima painting.
For the most part I strongly believe for an art student to at least learn to paint and draw realistically (i.e. from the cast, master's copies, the model of course), otherwise the student is forced to rely on guess work when they want to render realistically, or they are forced to work very loose to cover bad drawing.
Although reactionary, The Art Renewal Center/ Fred Ross want to push the pendulum of art and it's education back to a realm of high craftmanship and noble ideas and away from some of the horrid art of the past such as the work 'Piss Christ' whos only goal was to offend.
The time is passing when people of marginal ability paint and they're told that there is no such thing as bad art. Art lovers who favor classical training think so too.
 

it seems pretty closed minded to think that all art should be set solely on realism and lack any sense of individuality past that.