misterwhy4, I suppose I should explain my previous comments more clearly, well I guess much more clearly for you. It seems as if you misunderstood some observational criticism as a mean spirited attack.
To be clear:
1. I was not deeming Impressionism "the model for painting in general"
I was merely suggesting a reference to look to concerning certain problems that someone was having in terms of a certain aspect of their work. As it was clear in the line I wrote, "style is not the issue." Maybe I misundstood you, but as a visual artist, one needs more than "content". They need a strong grasp of certain fundamental visual skills necessary to support the content. My biggest criticism of the work is that fact that it is traced from photos. I have no problem with working from photos. However if someone has trouble with their drawing skills, working from photos will prevent any improvement and ultimately be a detriment to their potential. Given the fact that these works are still life setups there is no need to use photos. If one has observational skill, set the props up and work from life, it costs nothing.
2. I had no "temptation to impose personal preferences as immutable truths, applicable to all art." I have no personal preference for someone to work like any specific artist or artistic movement. It is necessary however to know how artists of the past, who worked in totally different styles, can help when one runs into problems in their work. This applies even if the end result is intended to be different that the artist being studied. It is not holding up one movement or style as a “model” for all. I would venture to say that you are not a painter. If you are, you may need to revisit some of the fundamentals. You might also want to understand the difference between criticism intended to inform and criticism intended to degrade. If someone tells you that there are aspects of your work that need improvement it is no reason to assume that it is hated or looked down upon. If you or Ms. Merrill have a tough time dealing with that, I would advise getting out of painting now. It takes very thick skin to live as an artist. A comment that your work is less that perfect should not get you upset. Most people will be very vindictive and not both to clarify as I have. If fact most will either be very cold and mean to your face or, like many in the gallery and museum world, say something nice to your face and follow it with shallow pretentious comments as soon as your back is turned.
As someone who has been painting for 40 years, my advice to you is to actually challenge yourself. You speak as if you do, however it does not show in your work. You seem too caught up in having so much control that it prevents you from improving. It appears obvious that your are tracing the images from photographs rather than drawing from life. Take some more painting and drawings classes that emphasis drawing from life. If you already have, I would say that you need to take more!! In doing this you will not only learn how to draw but learn the basic principles of color theory and observational color, which also appear to be a weak spots for you. Study the impressionists. You may say you do not want to work their "style" but the "style" is not the issue, knowing how color works is your issue. You appear to have no real knowledge of how intensity works in color. Your comment of mud on a stick is acurate, your color mixing turns to mud. I do not write this to be harsh but rather to inform. As I wrote I have been painting for 40 years and have been a teacher of observational painting and figure painting for over 35 years, that is why I suggest to take more class on the basic principles of color and drawing.
For Art's Sake - Kim Merrill - Painter
misterwhy4, I suppose I should explain my previous comments more clearly, well I guess much more clearly for you. It seems as if you misunderstood some observational criticism as a mean spirited attack. To be clear: 1. I was not deeming Impressionism "the model for painting in general" I was merely suggesting a reference to look to concerning certain problems that someone was having in terms of a certain aspect of their work. As it was clear in the line I wrote, "style is not the issue." Maybe I misundstood you, but as a visual artist, one needs more than "content". They need a strong grasp of certain fundamental visual skills necessary to support the content. My biggest criticism of the work is that fact that it is traced from photos. I have no problem with working from photos. However if someone has trouble with their drawing skills, working from photos will prevent any improvement and ultimately be a detriment to their potential. Given the fact that these works are still life setups there is no need to use photos. If one has observational skill, set the props up and work from life, it costs nothing. 2. I had no "temptation to impose personal preferences as immutable truths, applicable to all art." I have no personal preference for someone to work like any specific artist or artistic movement. It is necessary however to know how artists of the past, who worked in totally different styles, can help when one runs into problems in their work. This applies even if the end result is intended to be different that the artist being studied. It is not holding up one movement or style as a “model” for all. I would venture to say that you are not a painter. If you are, you may need to revisit some of the fundamentals. You might also want to understand the difference between criticism intended to inform and criticism intended to degrade. If someone tells you that there are aspects of your work that need improvement it is no reason to assume that it is hated or looked down upon. If you or Ms. Merrill have a tough time dealing with that, I would advise getting out of painting now. It takes very thick skin to live as an artist. A comment that your work is less that perfect should not get you upset. Most people will be very vindictive and not both to clarify as I have. If fact most will either be very cold and mean to your face or, like many in the gallery and museum world, say something nice to your face and follow it with shallow pretentious comments as soon as your back is turned.For Art's Sake - Kim Merrill - Painter
As someone who has been painting for 40 years, my advice to you is to actually challenge yourself. You speak as if you do, however it does not show in your work. You seem too caught up in having so much control that it prevents you from improving. It appears obvious that your are tracing the images from photographs rather than drawing from life. Take some more painting and drawings classes that emphasis drawing from life. If you already have, I would say that you need to take more!! In doing this you will not only learn how to draw but learn the basic principles of color theory and observational color, which also appear to be a weak spots for you. Study the impressionists. You may say you do not want to work their "style" but the "style" is not the issue, knowing how color works is your issue. You appear to have no real knowledge of how intensity works in color. Your comment of mud on a stick is acurate, your color mixing turns to mud. I do not write this to be harsh but rather to inform. As I wrote I have been painting for 40 years and have been a teacher of observational painting and figure painting for over 35 years, that is why I suggest to take more class on the basic principles of color and drawing.