I've been reading a lot lately about art movements and the mechanics of art critique, and frankly, I had a hard time finding objectivity among many writers on the topic. I can sum up my response in just two words;
'Stop it!'
Ok, that's kind of a negative way to start off a new year, but so be it if it helps free up someone's mind from the slavery and snobbery of such hyper-critical art analysis. It's one thing to identify an artist's work as belonging to a particular movement, such as impressionism, abstraction, or photorealism. We can define the art movements by their unique features and describe the process artists use. We can even express a personal like or dislike for a particular art movement or artist as long as we do not put forth our opinion as fact. But really, do we HAVE to declare a type of art unworthy of a following? Worse, do we HAVE to insult its fans? I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone turn a hooded eye or a smirky lip at the mention of Norman Rockwell, Bob Ross, or Thomas Kincaid. Oh, they don't come right out and SAY that these are not real artists, but it's clear that they consider them to be cheap imitations thereof. Come on! Even if one doesn't particularly like Norman Rockwell, he cannot deny that the man knew how to use humor and tenderness to tell masterful and relateable stories about ordinary folk. One can say that Bob Ross used simple methods anyone can learn and master, but are they so impressed with their own elevated place in the world that they would say he appealed to the unsophisticated? And don't get me started about Thomas Kincaid! Yes, he painted idealized scenes of cottages with glowing windows and bowers of flowers. SO WHAT?!! He sure knew how to sell large numbers of paintings, didn't he?
I have a theory about why these men are dismissed so often among self-elevated art critics, but that's for another day. For now, let's address the criticism itself. I will not name specific art critics or reference their articles here, so that if one such art critic happens upon this writing, they have some room to save face and/or adjust their thinking. Here are just a few of the main criticisms I found and my rebuttal to them.
Criticism: These individuals appealed to the masses.
Rebuttal: "The masses," is an exclusionist's way of expressing huge numbers of people they consider to be irrelevant to the art world. Words matter, my friends, and one little phrase can lock the door on a whole lot of people who are worthy of more respect than this. Furthermore, wouldn't most artists like to see their art become wildly popular? I would. I kind of like those huge numbers of people because I'm one of them!
Criticism: Anyone can paint like Bob Ross, but a serious artist will___ (fill in the blank).
Rebuttal: Why is it such a problem that anyone can do it? So he shared his process in a way that made a very relaxing hobby accessible to people of modest means. It's still art. How does this make him NOT a serious artist? If he were not, then we probably wouldn't even know about him. By the way, I've seen a lot of people imitate Bob Ross, but very few who could pull it off well. What I have seen is a lot of folks enjoying themselves while trying. Now why would anyone take occasion to that?
Criticism: Thomas Kincaid's work is highly idealized.
Rebuttal:
It's true. But this sentiment is often used to provide contrast when discussing works that depict social angst and other harsh realities of life, and it's said in a way that implies that Mr. Kincaid's art is a little too family-friendly for serious collectors. It expresses personal dislike and is therefore not, NOT an objective critique. Also, I know lots of families who take great care to shield their children from the harsher realities of adulthood. They couldn't BE more serious. And guess what, anyone who buys more than one piece of art is an art collector. I heard of someone who saved up for an entire year in order to buy one of Thomas Kincaid's paintings, where someone else might consider it pocket change. Budget does not determine whether someone is a serious collector.
Now why would I take such offense at these criticisms? It's because I ALSO seek to make art accessible and relatable to large numbers of people. I LIKE knowing that I've provided a distraction from the stresses, trials, and horrors people may be facing. I am stinkin' GRATEFUL that I can make my living this way. Isn't art all about making people feel something? Sure, I understand that there's a place for putting social comment in front of folks. There's a place for decrying injustice and avarice in a deeply flawed world. There's a place for expressing personal dislike for a style or even a whole movement. But trying to enforce disdain is just plain rude and the people involved don't deserve that. There's a need and a solid place for these types of feel-good art. THAT is what these men accomplished and why they found such a wide audience. I want that kind of experience for my own people. I want them, you, to feel comforted, hopeful, joyful, and a connection to things remembered when you look at my work. I hope that's what you've found here.
If you're an artist, paint what moves YOU!
If you are a collector, collect what moves YOU!
And whoever you are, ignore snobbery wherever you find it. Refuse to let it control what you create or share with guests in your home.
Simply enjoy, whatever your reason!
As always, if you found this newsletter to be useful, amusing, or inspiring, please point others to it.
