"misterwhy4, I suppose I should explain my previous comments more clearly, well I guess much more clearly for you."
Well, here you snidely suggest that I lack the intelligence to grasp your intentions, when it was precisely such tones of condescension which moved me to a rebuke of the dismissive language and seemingly, narrow-minded advice in your original comments on Ms. Merrill and her work. Under the assumed mantle of dispensing "needed" advice, you self-aggrandize, insult, and in the space remaining, "inform" how you think someone might improve their work. The repeated use of this term by itself reeks with an egoism which cannot be a virtue in teaching, certainly in an area as difficult to categorize and contain as Art.
Now, your opinions are yours, as mine are mine; we may give better or poorer arguments to support these opinions, but listing our credentials, as if these would somehow lend superior validity to our ideas, is worthless, and really, rather embarrassing, to be frank. For one thing, these statistics are meaningless without detail and really, proof of their reality--and scarcely more potent even with them. Institutions are bursting at the seams with incompetent instructors of art, probably more egregiously than any other wing of formal education. Likewise, It goes without saying that announcing you have been painting for a long time has even less meaning for people who haven't seen any of your work. Therefore, why bring these claims to bear at all? Argument must garner merit by itself. There are places where professional experience rightly gives greater credence to a point of view, but not very much, so far, on the level of discussion we've been at (an image of middle-aged pedants feebly charging at one another and falling off their horses before their lances hit anything comes to mind, I'm afraid).
As it happens, I agree that drawing from life is one of the most fruitful studies which an aspiring artist (or a veteran one) can engage in, no matter what their "style" of expression. But many would disagree with us, and though their reasoning may seem irritating or insufficient to our minds, respect for the possibility that one might not be in possession of perfect knowledge and judgment is the point. This is the distinction between "informing" and "advising". If you could deliver opinions you sincerely believe could be helpful without slaps and condescension, there might be reason to disagree, but there would be no reason to castigate you.
So I object that my reactions and those of these other people reflect less an inability to accept criticism (as you presumptuously suggest) and more a sense of being unwilling to abide your tone, and the blind self-importance it implies. And I'll own my complicity in perpetuating the ire on this page with such attempts at verbal "hits", and regret it's vanity, even as I leave it in. Such fools we mortals be.
Perhaps, 'rem1606', your monitor needs re-calibrating; I happen to think Kim's color sense is very natural and one of the strongest aesthetic aspects of her images. You appreciate the bright color generally ascribed to Impressionism (though a rather wide range to refer to, really, wouldn't you concede?)--well, fine; I happen to love Impressionism well enough myself. But there is that in your address which suggests that, like many admirers Impressionism, you deem it the model for painting in general, which would be as absurd as proposing Cubism for the same duty. Forgive me if I taste a pinch of the ever-present temptation to impose personal preferences as immutable truths, applicable to all art. I may misread you, but your review smacks of the tired old blather about "tight" versus "loose" painting, one not worth discussing anymore, if it ever was.
Kim's sense of composition is also impressive, particularly considering the newborn stage of her career. I find her work intelligent, serious, seeking after and achieving depths of meaning, with becoming restraint from didacticism--all of which is rare enough in any art form. Her paintings actually have "content", if you pause the video long enough to consider them: profound, multi-faceted, yet not obscure, and gracefully communicated.
I am not a Relativist; I believe there are levels of quality in all things (even in Nature), no matter how aware I may be of the apparent dualism of existence. So discussing (or arguing) issues of quality in art is not utterly pointless, in my opinion. But it remains the minor key in the whole picture. Like a democracy, I think Art is about distinction and union at the same time--very much the individual voice, but any work put forth to be seen by others is seeking to commune, in some degree, with them. Kim's work clearly respects both her chosen medium and it's audience. For that reason alone, and simple, due consideration, discussion of these things ought to employ a tone of Respect--and as much self-awareness as we can manage while we're at it.
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." Well, here you snidely suggest that I lack the intelligence to grasp your intentions, when it was precisely such tones of condescension which moved me to a rebuke of the dismissive language and seemingly, narrow-minded advice in your original comments on Ms. Merrill and her work. Under the assumed mantle of dispensing "needed" advice, you self-aggrandize, insult, and in the space remaining, "inform" how you think someone might improve their work. The repeated use of this term by itself reeks with an egoism which cannot be a virtue in teaching, certainly in an area as difficult to categorize and contain as Art. Now, your opinions are yours, as mine are mine; we may give better or poorer arguments to support these opinions, but listing our credentials, as if these would somehow lend superior validity to our ideas, is worthless, and really, rather embarrassing, to be frank. For one thing, these statistics are meaningless without detail and really, proof of their reality--and scarcely more potent even with them. Institutions are bursting at the seams with incompetent instructors of art, probably more egregiously than any other wing of formal education. Likewise, It goes without saying that announcing you have been painting for a long time has even less meaning for people who haven't seen any of your work. Therefore, why bring these claims to bear at all? Argument must garner merit by itself. There are places where professional experience rightly gives greater credence to a point of view, but not very much, so far, on the level of discussion we've been at (an image of middle-aged pedants feebly charging at one another and falling off their horses before their lances hit anything comes to mind, I'm afraid). As it happens, I agree that drawing from life is one of the most fruitful studies which an aspiring artist (or a veteran one) can engage in, no matter what their "style" of expression. But many would disagree with us, and though their reasoning may seem irritating or insufficient to our minds, respect for the possibility that one might not be in possession of perfect knowledge and judgment is the point. This is the distinction between "informing" and "advising". If you could deliver opinions you sincerely believe could be helpful without slaps and condescension, there might be reason to disagree, but there would be no reason to castigate you. So I object that my reactions and those of these other people reflect less an inability to accept criticism (as you presumptuously suggest) and more a sense of being unwilling to abide your tone, and the blind self-importance it implies. And I'll own my complicity in perpetuating the ire on this page with such attempts at verbal "hits", and regret it's vanity, even as I leave it in. Such fools we mortals be.For Art's Sake - Kim Merrill - Painter
Perhaps, 'rem1606', your monitor needs re-calibrating; I happen to think Kim's color sense is very natural and one of the strongest aesthetic aspects of her images. You appreciate the bright color generally ascribed to Impressionism (though a rather wide range to refer to, really, wouldn't you concede?)--well, fine; I happen to love Impressionism well enough myself. But there is that in your address which suggests that, like many admirers Impressionism, you deem it the model for painting in general, which would be as absurd as proposing Cubism for the same duty. Forgive me if I taste a pinch of the ever-present temptation to impose personal preferences as immutable truths, applicable to all art. I may misread you, but your review smacks of the tired old blather about "tight" versus "loose" painting, one not worth discussing anymore, if it ever was. Kim's sense of composition is also impressive, particularly considering the newborn stage of her career. I find her work intelligent, serious, seeking after and achieving depths of meaning, with becoming restraint from didacticism--all of which is rare enough in any art form. Her paintings actually have "content", if you pause the video long enough to consider them: profound, multi-faceted, yet not obscure, and gracefully communicated. I am not a Relativist; I believe there are levels of quality in all things (even in Nature), no matter how aware I may be of the apparent dualism of existence. So discussing (or arguing) issues of quality in art is not utterly pointless, in my opinion. But it remains the minor key in the whole picture. Like a democracy, I think Art is about distinction and union at the same time--very much the individual voice, but any work put forth to be seen by others is seeking to commune, in some degree, with them. Kim's work clearly respects both her chosen medium and it's audience. For that reason alone, and simple, due consideration, discussion of these things ought to employ a tone of Respect--and as much self-awareness as we can manage while we're at it.For Art's Sake - John Frame - Sculptor
This work is brilliant, subtle, with a sharp combination of deep emotion and humor, the mark of a sincere, and quite modern artist.