I’ve been reading Twilight of Painting by R.H. Ives Gammell. Gammell was a painter who taught Richard Lack, the founder of The Atelier where I’m taking art classes. The book is astoundingly relevant to Art, even today, fifty years after its publication.
The passage posted below resonates with my learning experiences. I’ve been surprised by the leaps in skill I’ve experienced since beginning formal training (even part-time makes such a difference). My observation of others’ art is developing in tandem. I can pick out ‘good’ passages vs. bad ones in a portrait or still life. I recognize superior workmanship now in a way that made no sense two years ago. Now if only I could bend paint to my will and make it do exactly as I wish…but that will come in time too.
In painting, esthetic perception and the ability to execute develop almost simultaneously, the one only slightly in advance of the other. For instance, as a painter learns to perceive shapes correctly he acquires the ability to render them correctly on paper or canvas. At about the same time he becomes aware of the degree and quality of the correctness of the shapes made by other painters and realizes how imperceptible these differences had previously been to him. [...] A student’s progress seems to him like the falling of successive scales from his eyes. [...] It is, in fact, only after his eyes have acquired a fairly high degree of sensitivity, which is to say, when he can paint fairly well, that a student realizes the overwhelming difficulty of painting.
Art lovers today often forget that pictures were formerly painted to fulfill certain specified requirements, such as telling a story, recording the appearance of an individual or enhancing the interior of architecture of a building. The pictures most successfully fulfilling these or similar requirements are the ones which were later rated as works of art. The working methods traceable in the pictures themselves, the surviving records, and the traditions of the studios, all indicate that the men who painted these pictures were chiefly concerned with turning out good jobs. If any of them were consciously trying to produce ‘art’, they held this as a secondary objective. Painters learned to consider pictures in terms of good and bad jobs before even raising the question of their being good or bad art. […] Pictures which fulfill their purpose supremely well – in other words, the good jobs – have a way of coming back in favor again and again. The bad jobs disappear at the first shift of fashion and do not return.
That is why workmanship, in the fullest and broadest sense of the term, remains the persisting factor common to all the pictures which have been highly prized as works of art over long periods of time, regardless of when or where they were painted.
I don’t agree with every observation that Gammell presents but most of his arguments resonate with thought, experience and a sense of history that most Modern and post-Modern ‘art critics’ have missed. Art is, first and foremost, defined by superior workmanship.