Friedrich --

Some email has come in from readers curious about contemporary art, and who wonder: What's become of skill and craft in a traditional sense? In fact, there's a lot of it out there to be enjoyed. You have to know where to look, though, because (generally speaking) the people and outlets that cover the contempo scene don't pay attention to this work, and so aren't providing guidance (or much in the way of service) to many people who might, if they knew about this stuff, enjoy current visual art.

I thought I'd pass along a few links, so the curious can begin exploring:

* San Francisco's Hackett-Freedman Gallery (here) specializes in what they call "modern realism," and their artists range from the very precise to the loosey goosey. It's a terrific website, full of information about painting and art generally, and the artists they represent are all first-rate. For starters, try the dazzling landscape artist Steven Bigler; Carlo Maria Mariani, who works a style that might be called surreal classicism; Costa Vavagiakis, for a display of raw portrait-painting firepower; and Edward Schmidt, whose paintings I'm not wild about but whose drawings have a luscious, erotic solemnity.

* The Forum Gallery (here), with branches in L.A. and NYC, shows a very classy selection of contempo-realist painters and artists. Their website is also a generous one. I've seen shows by Kent Bellows, William Beckman, Raymond Han, and Robert Cottingham, and enjoyed them all.

* It's fun to wrestle with the phenomenon that is David Ligare, who's a classical painter with a capital C. He really does it up, painting Arcadian landscapes, idealized townscapes, and allegorical compositions. The modernist art world looks at his work and sees nothing but kitsch. I don't resonate deeply to what he does, but I'm glad he's doing it, and I find the skill and conviction he puts on display hard to dismiss. His website is here.

Best,

Michael

Thank you for introducing us to those artists. I would like to add a personal favorite of mine, Michael Newberry. Here's a question: why do so many of these techinically brilliant artists choose the human nude as their subject? Yes, I understand about its appeal and its importance in art, but it seems there might be other subjects to concentrate on. Why is the nude so disproportionally predominant?

Posted by: Alexandra on January 12, 2003 11:45 AM

i think this is a great idea and it helps make your mind think of new never seen shit that only an imagination can see you should get weirder shit well keep up the good work

Posted by: James on February 11, 2003 1:36 PM

i think this is a great idea and it helps make your mind think of new never seen shit that only an imagination can see you should get weirder shit well keep up the good work

Posted by: James on February 11, 2003 1:36 PM

The pictures look very realistic and human-like, but why do you have to draw naked people? It's rather rude and I think most people would prefer master pieces of people that are fully dressed. All regards.

Posted by: Hannah on January 12, 2004 12:42 PM

YOU ARE A WIERDO! WIERDO! I HATE U! I THINK YOU'RE SCUM! YOU'RE A RUBBISH DRAWER AND I THINK UR THE WORST ARTIST EVER!

Posted by: ????????????? on January 12, 2004 12:44 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?